CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

TAS 2024/A/11189 — ACB 1904 SA v. Swiss Football League

"ACB 1904" · CAS replaced a 3-point deduction with a CHF 30,000 fine after finding the mandatory minimum sanction inapplicable to a late-documentation violation.

What happened in ACB 1904

ACB 1904 SA, a Swiss Challenge League club, failed to submit the full monthly salary and social-insurance payment confirmations required by Art. 8 para. 5 of the SFL Licensing Regulations by the extended deadline of 18 November 2024. Specifically, the confirmation from AXA Versicherungen AG of the LAINF (accident-insurance) contribution payment arrived one day late, on 19 November 2024. The SFL Disciplinary Commission President imposed a 3-point deduction and CHF 3,500 in costs; the SFL Appeal Tribunal confirmed this on 21 January 2025, raising costs to CHF 5,000. ACB appealed to CAS under an accelerated procedure agreed by both parties. The Sole Arbitrator confirmed the information-duty violation but found that Art. 26 para. 3 of the Licensing Regulations — which mandates a minimum 3-point deduction — applies only where wages or social contributions were actually unpaid or where club attestations were falsified, neither of which was the case here. Applying Art. 26 para. 2 and the proportionality principle, and weighing mitigating factors (single missing document, unanswered extension request, next-day delivery) against aggravating ones (prior analogous violation sanctioned on 12 August 2024, gross negligence), the Sole Arbitrator substituted the point deduction with a CHF 30,000 fine. The case matters because it clarifies the precise scope of the automatic 3-point sanction under Swiss football licensing rules and reaffirms that nulla poena sine lege bars federations from pre-announcing sanctions not grounded in existing regulations.

Procedural history of TAS 2024/A/11189

On 12 November 2024 the SFL Licensing Manager notified ACB of its failure to submit the required September 2024 salary and social-insurance payment confirmations by the 31 October 2024 deadline, granting a five-day extension to 18 November 2024 under Art. 8 para. 7 of the Licensing Regulations. ACB submitted most documents but not the AXA accident-insurance confirmation, which arrived on 19 November 2024. The Licensing Manager referred the matter to the Disciplinary Commission. On 16 December 2024 the Disciplinary Commission President found a violation of Art. 8 para. 5 and imposed a 3-point deduction plus CHF 3,500 in costs. ACB appealed to the SFL Appeal Tribunal, which on 21 January 2025 confirmed the violation and the 3-point deduction, raising costs to CHF 5,000. ACB filed a CAS Statement of Appeal on 3 February 2025. The parties agreed to an accelerated procedure under Art. R44.4 of the CAS Code and to a sole arbitrator, rendering the suspension request moot. A hearing was held by videoconference on 20 March 2025.

Key holdings in TAS 2024/A/11189

• ACB violated Art. 8 para. 5 of the SFL Licensing Regulations by failing to submit the AXA accident-insurance payment confirmation within the extended deadline of 18 November 2024.
• Art. 26 para. 3 of the SFL Licensing Regulations, imposing a mandatory minimum 3-point deduction, applies only where wages or social contributions were actually unpaid or where club attestations were falsified, not to a mere late-submission of documentation.
• The five-day extension under Art. 8 para. 7 of the Licensing Regulations is not a peremptory deadline ('Verwirkungsfrist') and is in principle susceptible to a further extension, given the absence of explicit peremptory language in that provision.
• The nulla poena sine lege principle bars disciplinary organs from treating a sanction pre-announced in a prior decision as a legally binding minimum for future violations not expressly prescribed in the applicable regulations.
• Under Art. 26 para. 2 of the Licensing Regulations and the proportionality principle, the disciplinary body must weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances; a CHF 30,000 fine — five times the prior CHF 6,000 fine — is proportionate given the single missing document, the unanswered extension request, and the prior analogous violation.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator began with a de novo review under Art. R57 of the CAS Code. On the violation, he found the text of Art. 8 para. 5 unambiguous: confirmation must come from each social-insurance institution, not from bank transfer records. The bank transfer to AXA did not satisfy this requirement, and ACB's own extension request implicitly acknowledged the gap. On the sanction, the Arbitrator conducted a close textual and structural analysis of Art. 26 para. 3, noting that its mandatory minimum is graphically and grammatically linked only to the two preceding sub-cases (non-payment of wages/contributions; false attestations) and qualified by 'gegebenenfalls'/'le cas échéant', signalling discretion. He further reasoned that reading Art. 26 para. 3 as covering all documentation failures would render Art. 26 para. 2's broad discretionary catalogue meaningless. He rejected the SFL's reliance on the prior disciplinary warning as a legal basis for an automatic 3-point sanction, invoking nulla poena sine lege as established in CAS 2023/A/9364. Applying CAS 2018/A/6239 on case-by-case proportionality, he identified mitigating factors (one document missing, extension requested, next-day delivery) and aggravating factors (prior violation in August 2024, gross negligence), arriving at CHF 30,000 — five times the prior fine.

Why ACB 1904 matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award establishes that the mandatory 3-point minimum sanction in Art. 26 para. 3 of the SFL Licensing Regulations is a lex specialis confined to actual non-payment of wages/contributions or falsified attestations, and does not extend automatically to late-documentation violations. It also confirms that the five-day grace period under Art. 8 para. 7 is not peremptory, and that pre-announced sanctions in prior decisions cannot substitute for a clear regulatory basis, reinforcing nulla poena sine lege in Swiss football licensing discipline.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2018/A/6239, Cruzeiro Esporte Clube v. FIFA CAS 2023/A/9364, Hisham Nasr v. IHF

Frequently asked questions about ACB 1904

Did ACB 1904 lose its 3-point deduction at CAS?

Yes. The Sole Arbitrator annulled the 3-point deduction imposed by the SFL Appeal Tribunal on 21 January 2025. He replaced it with a CHF 30,000 fine, finding the mandatory minimum sanction under Art. 26 para. 3 of the SFL Licensing Regulations inapplicable to a late-documentation case.

When does the automatic 3-point deduction under Art. 26 para. 3 of the SFL Licensing Regulations apply?

According to the Sole Arbitrator, Art. 26 para. 3 applies only where wages or social-insurance contributions were actually unpaid or only partially paid, or where club attestations were falsified. A club that submits incomplete documentation late — but where the underlying payments were made — falls under the discretionary regime of Art. 26 para. 2, not the mandatory minimum of Art. 26 para. 3.

Can a prior disciplinary warning by the SFL Disciplinary Commission automatically trigger a 3-point deduction for a repeat offence?

No. The Sole Arbitrator held that the nulla poena sine lege principle, as confirmed in CAS 2023/A/9364, requires that both the offence and the sanction be clearly prescribed in the applicable regulations. A sanction pre-announced in a prior decision — such as the 12 August 2024 warning that a repeat violation would result in a 3-point deduction — cannot serve as a legal basis for that sanction if the regulations themselves do not mandate it.

Is the five-day extension deadline under Art. 8 para. 7 of the SFL Licensing Regulations a peremptory deadline?

The Sole Arbitrator concluded it is not. Unlike other provisions in the SFL Licensing Regulations that explicitly use terms such as 'Verwirkungsfrist' or 'Verwirkungsfolge', Art. 8 para. 7 uses only 'Nachfrist' and contains no language excluding further extensions. Accordingly, a club's request for an additional brief extension is in principle admissible, though the SFL was noted to be free to amend the regulation to make the deadline peremptory in the future.

Topics: Doping, ethics & governance at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.