CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11562 — FC Gostivar v. Football Federation of Macedonia (FFM)

"FC Gostivar" · CAS upheld FFM's EUR 5,000 fine and ten-match home ban on FC Gostivar for poor organisation and unauthorised persons in restricted stadium areas.

What happened in FC Gostivar

FC Gostivar, a North Macedonian first-division club, abandoned a league match in the 85th minute on 27 April 2025 on instructions from its owner, Enes Usta, while losing 1-2 to FK Rabotnichki AD. The club then failed to appear for rounds 30 and 31, resulting in disqualification and relegation by the FFM Disciplinary Commission. Separately, the DC FFM sanctioned the club with a EUR 5,000 fine and a ten-match home ban for poor organisation and the presence of unauthorised persons in the tunnel leading to the dressing rooms during the match. The Appeals Commission confirmed both sanctions on 12 May 2025. Gostivar appealed to CAS, arguing disproportionality, procedural irregularities, and that the club's owner had legitimate integrity concerns about the championship. CAS (by majority) dismissed the appeal. The panel found the club retained sufficient legal interest despite not registering for the 2025/2026 season, because the fine remained enforceable and the unserved stadium ban could affect future competition and recidivism assessments. On the merits, the panel accepted the match delegate and referee reports as reliable, confirmed the organisational breach under Article 51 FFM DR, and held the sanctions were neither evidently nor grossly disproportionate. The case matters as a clear application of strict liability for host-club organisation failures and the standard for CAS intervention in federation disciplinary sanctions.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11562

On 2 May 2025, the FFM Disciplinary Commission (acting ex officio from 28 April 2025) sanctioned FC Gostivar with a EUR 5,000 fine and a ten-match home ban (decision no. 0801-1206/6) for poor organisation and unauthorised persons in restricted areas during the 27 April 2025 match. On 9 May 2025, Gostivar appealed to the FFM Appeals Commission. On 12 May 2025, the AC FFM issued decision no. 10-1275/3 rejecting the appeal and confirming the sanctions. On 1 July 2025, Gostivar filed its Statement of Appeal with CAS under Articles R47 and R48 of the CAS Code (edition 2025), also challenging a separate decision (no. 10-1275/4) against Mr Enes Usta, which was assigned to parallel proceedings CAS 2025/A/11581. The appeal brief was filed on 11 July 2025, the Answer on 1 October 2025, and a hearing was held on 29 January 2026 in Lausanne. Post-hearing, the Appellant sought admission of new documentary evidence (an FFM publication disclosing UEFA Integrity Department correspondence), which the majority admitted but ultimately found of limited probative value.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11562

• A club that is temporarily inactive but remains affiliated with its federation and faces an enforceable fine and an unserved stadium ban retains sufficient legal interest to pursue a CAS appeal.
• Match delegate and referee reports carry a presumption of veracity in sports disciplinary proceedings and constitute probative evidence entitled to significant weight, rebuttable only by compelling contrary evidence.
• Article 51 FFM DR establishes a strict liability system under which the host club is responsible for the behaviour of its spectators, officials and staff members regardless of security measures taken.
• A CAS panel exercising de novo review in disciplinary matters may only amend a sanction where the competent body exceeded its margin of appreciation or the sanction is evidently and grossly disproportionate to the offence.
• Any procedural defects in FFM internal proceedings are cured by the de novo hearing before CAS pursuant to Article R57 of the CAS Code.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The majority first confirmed jurisdiction under Article 8 of the FFM Statutes and admissibility under Article R49 of the CAS Code. On legal interest, the panel applied the Swiss Federal Tribunal's 'practical use' test (ATF 137 II 40) and CAS 2018/A/5661, finding that continued affiliation, an enforceable fine, and a pending stadium ban with recidivism implications (citing CAS 2015/A/4095) sufficed. On the merits, the panel relied on the Match Delegate Report — corroborated by referee and assistant referee testimony — to find that unauthorised persons were present in the tunnel and that police intervention was required, rejecting the club's characterisation of the breach as merely technical. The panel applied Article 51 FFM DR's strict liability framework and declined to identify any mitigating circumstances, noting the club had not shown adequate preventive measures or any circumstance beyond its control. Applying the 'evidently and grossly disproportionate' threshold from CAS 2018/A/5900 and CAS 2016/A/4719, the majority found the ten-match ban and EUR 5,000 fine fell within the regulatory range and were proportionate. The new UEFA Integrity Department evidence was admitted but given limited weight because only one of the three referenced matches pertained to the 2024/2025 season and none involved the club directly.

Why FC Gostivar matters in CAS jurisprudence

The award reinforces that host clubs bear strict liability for organisational failures under federation rules regardless of security measures taken, and that CAS will not substitute its own disciplinary assessment unless a sanction is evidently and grossly disproportionate. It also clarifies that temporary competitive inactivity does not automatically extinguish a club's legal interest to appeal where an enforceable fine and unserved ban remain outstanding, and that post-hearing evidence may be admitted in exceptional circumstances without prejudging its probative weight.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2016/A/4704 CAS 2018/A/5661 CAS 2009/A/1880-1881 CAS 2015/A/4095 CAS 2018/A/5900 CAS 2016/A/4719

Frequently asked questions about FC Gostivar

Why did FC Gostivar still have standing to appeal at CAS even though the club did not register for the 2025/2026 season?

The panel applied the Swiss Federal Tribunal's 'practical use' test from ATF 137 II 40 and found three independent bases for legal interest: the club remained affiliated with the FFM (through an amateur association), the EUR 5,000 fine was still enforceable against it, and the unserved ten-match home ban could aggravate future sanctions under the recidivism principle. The panel cited CAS 2018/A/5661 on affiliation as the precondition for subjection to federation rules and CAS 2015/A/4095 on the recidivism rationale.

What was the legal basis for the FFM's ten-match home ban and EUR 5,000 fine on FC Gostivar?

The sanctions were imposed under Article 51 of the FFM Disciplinary Regulations, which establishes strict liability for the host club in respect of the behaviour of its spectators, officials and staff members regardless of security measures taken. The available sanctions under that article — a ban on hosting two to twelve home matches, an order to play two to twelve matches without spectators, and a EUR 5,000 fine for First League clubs — may be imposed cumulatively pursuant to Article 131 of the FFM Statutes. The disciplinary bodies found that unauthorised persons were present in the tunnel leading to the dressing rooms, requiring police intervention to secure the safe departure of match officials.

Did the UEFA Integrity Department correspondence about match-fixing in Macedonian football help FC Gostivar's case at CAS?

No. The majority of the panel admitted the FFM publication disclosing the UEFA Integrity Department correspondence as new evidence under Article R56 of the CAS Code because it post-dated the hearing and related to arguments the club had raised throughout proceedings. However, the panel gave it limited weight: of the three domestic matches referenced, only one pertained to the 2024/2025 season, the other two related to the 2025/2026 season (one being a friendly), and none involved FC Gostivar directly. The panel therefore concluded the document did not support the inference of systemic corruption the club sought to draw, nor did it affect the proportionality assessment.

What standard does CAS apply when reviewing the proportionality of an FFM disciplinary sanction?

The panel applied the 'evidently and grossly disproportionate' threshold established in CAS 2018/A/5900 and the line of cases listed in CAS 2016/A/4719, which recognises that a disciplinary sanction should not be amended merely because the panel might have chosen a different measure. Intervention is warranted only where the competent body exceeded its margin of appreciation or the sanction is manifestly excessive relative to the infringement. In this case the panel found the ten-match ban and EUR 5,000 fine fell within the regulatory range provided by Article 51 FFM DR, no mitigating circumstances were established, and the threshold for arbitral intervention was not met.

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.