Capital gains case, Guarantee Board: “FIGC Court’s reasoning is lacking, reassess Juve’s responsibility”

La Federal Court of Appeals of Figs will have to reconsider the position of some managers and consequently the extent of the sanction to be committed to the Juve. This is the point that last April 20th brought the Guarantee College to refer to Federal Court of Appeal the assessment of the case capital gains.

Noted that “it is within the prerogatives of the judging body not only to give the exact legal qualification of the contested facts, but also (in concrete terms) to impose an adequate sanction, among those foreseen, for the ascertained offence” and that the Juventus, as a company, “is still liable, pursuant to art. 6 of the FIGC Justice Regulations, for the actions committed by its representatives and managers, who were also accused of violating art. 4 of the FIGC CGS”.

The Panel considers that "the contested sentence, issued against the administrators without operational powers, is lacking in its reasoning where the Federal Court – with a motivation to be considered apparent – he referred to a generic, but unproven, 'widespread awareness', or to an alleged sharing, on the part of said administrators, of the specific details and purposes of the sports operations examined, failing to provide adequate motivational support for such asserted and unproven circumstances".

Capital gains case, the note from the Guarantee Board

“Considering, in fact, that the measure of the penalty imposed on Juventus is determined in relation to the ascertained violations of its representatives and its managers, as well as its directors without delegation, the loss, due to the ascertained motivational defect, of the sanction for the latter is reflected, at present, also in the overall sanction imposed on the company and therefore makes it necessary for the Federal Court of Appeal to carry out a new evaluation on the possible responsibilities of the individual directors without delegation and then also of the Juventus company itself”, we read in the reasons.

“The necessary relationship of proportion between the specific behavior held and the sanction imposed is now peacefully acquired in the development of jurisprudence, including constitutional, constituting a logical expression of the criteria of equality and reasonableness of the sanction and requiring the judge to proceed with a dosimetric evaluation inspired by the two aforementioned criteria”.