Rangers, the ANFP, FIFA, the threat of resignation and, worse, running out worldwide.
Different sets of rules may govern the same situation, and claim for themselves a certain primacy. In the instant case, there are several overlapping issues.
First, FIFA, as a private institution that has its own set of rules, provides a fairly clear rule for its members, who are members of this organization is voluntary. Among those members, of course, is the Football Federation of Chile. Article 64 of the FIFA Statutes, states:
1. Confederations, Members and Leagues shall agree to recognize the CAS [Court Self Discipline] as an independent judicial and undertake to adopt all necessary measures for its members, players and officials abide by the CAS arbitration. This applies equally to agents match and the players' agents.
2. It prohibits recourse to ordinary courts, unless specified in the FIFA regulations.
3. Partnerships are required to incorporate into their statutes or regulations a provision which, in the case of the association's internal disputes or litigation regarding a league, a member of a league, a club, a member of a club, a player, official or other person attached to the association, prohibits courts rely on ordinary, except that the FIFA regulations or mandatory provisions of the Act expressly provide for or require the submission to court. Instead of the ordinary courts should provide an arbitral jurisdiction. Disputes shall also be subject to an independent arbitration tribunal duly constituted and recognized by the regulations of the association or confederation, or TAD.
Moreover, associations are committed to ensuring that this provision shall comply fully within the association, whenever necessary to impose a binding obligation to its members. In the case of breach of this obligation imposed on associations who regards the appropriate punishment, wary that any appeal against these penalties are strictly subject and equally to the arbitration courts and not the courts.
The rule under consideration, apparently, is quite clear: the federations are obliged to incorporate into their statutes, a rule that prohibits clubs bringing actions before the ordinary courts for litigation like the case sublite: a club that claims the annulment of the notification process of a sanction as a result of the breach of a rule of ANFP.
I do not know if the rules of the ANFP containing or not the rule, but I imagine that, under the command of Mayne Nicholls, this such issues are adequately regulated. However, there is still no rule of that type, ANFP is obliged to comply with this prohibition, that is, to resort to the ordinary courts.
The penalty, for its part, has aired as President of CONMEBOL, is clear: Although not clearly stated (at least I checked all the Disciplinary Code, which contains the penalties to which reference is Article 45 of the Statute), there is the risk of disaffiliation. The Executive Committee, which is soon to join the 3rd day of December next, could be seen as sanctioning the disaffiliation of the ANFP.
The problem, domestically, is as follows. As I have understood, was declared bankrupt Rangers, and, therefore, is a liquidator appointed by the ordinary courts, who assumed the administration of the club. According to counsel piducana the syndicate, "the issue is that since declaring bankruptcy (May 8), the ANFP is always associated with the trustee, that until the day that aliens are aligned 6. The next day ANFP instead of quoting the bankruptcy trustee to appear before the Disciplinary Tribunal, quoted the president of the club and appears to that instance Arnoldo Sanchez, who has long had no representation of the club. "Later he adds "This receivership is aware that the ANFP have jurisdiction over aspects of football, but we told them what they should do is include the trustee, for both the process is zero. Error dismissed because they say that the trustee had no right, passing on a conviction by a court of the Republic ".
The question is legally irrelevant, even confrontational.
First, explain what conflict, if it is a legally relevant question is, can and 'deserves' to be taken to judicial forums.
Legally, it is important to note that each set of competition rules claims to describe the action from their own point of view: to the right so have the rules of football on whether the clubs may or may not have the right to appeal to regular courts is irrelevant (unless you do a legal rule relevant is say that a rule of law makes a reference to football management, limiting the fundamental right of access to justice), and the rules of football whether a club has a right to appeal to regular courts depends on the rules of football. They forbid, and in fact, the recourse to ordinary courts counts as one course of fact, verified, as in the instant case, carries a penalty. The problem here is that no rules of football, such as those discussed, can prevent the exercise of civil action.
In this scenario, a possible resolution of the Court of Appeals of Talca accepting the appeal or, after the deadline set for the next FIFA Executive Committee meeting (on 3 December) without their resolutions, the disaffiliation of the Chilean Football Federation becomes a reality and, therefore, the most feared: the ban on playing the next World Cup in South Africa.
However, before asking if there could be some conflict, we must ask ourselves whether this deserves to be taken the judicial stage. In other words, the Chilean judicial system is financed from general revenues (ie, for all of us), and therefore requires that cases absurd, ridiculous, or those who are properly guarded by private justice, not reach the judicial system. The soccer event is certainly one of those. The ANFP has what the FIFA Statutes, referred to as Self-Discipline Tribunals, which have full jurisdiction in disputes like the one designed to check whether the events occurred in compliance with the assumption made that included the rule of five foreign court.
Nevertheless, the rules of law can claim for themselves some autonomy to hear a case. Consider, for example, in the case of Red Condor, which apparently was not any process by which the sanction was imposed which contained a perpetual ban on playing football. In that case, I think, the ordinary courts could plausibly declare invalid the process for a violation of the principles of due process, fundamental guarantee for all citizens guaranteed under the Constitution and international law. The absence of a process, the omission of exculpatory evidence, failure to appeal for a review of the facts of the case, indeed, give rise to certain objections. For
'Rangers' the question is quite different. The process of imposing the penalty was quite transparent. The TAD of ANFP allows counsel to the syndicate of Rangers present their defense, plus related resources. At all times comply with minimum standards. Standards of due process, of course, are not the same in criminal justice that private justice in football. Lead to a simple ordinary courts reporting error in a bilateral process clearly an insult to citizens who must tolerate that judges have to learn twice over something that was settled in private justice.
While recognizing that conflict is legally relevant legal reasons support a position contrary to the syndicate of Rangers. What counsel argues Herrera, is a question as irrelevant as absurd as for notifying the club of the penalty is quoted the President and not the trustee. The problem is, obviously, evident that no one can argue the invalidity of all the proceedings in a process when, in fact, known throughout the development process. In other words, this means that no one can argue the invalidity of a process, citing lack of formal notice (notification) when, in practice, knows the whole process has been carried out. The question is rather obvious and is collected by our Code of Civil Procedure. No one can take advantage to plead ignorance (which is the basis for revocation) when you know by heart who committed an offense.
The conclusions are obvious, Rangers have no reason to take the case to the ordinary courts. Even if accepted that, no reason to succeed. O
Rangers removed the action or the Court of Appeals rejected the appeal before 3 December without Rangers appealed the decision. Pd-
Please excuse any omissions of material facts, they do not know them all.
p.d1-the option is not expressed in the article body, indeed, is to send to hell the trustee and his counsel.
0 comments:
Post a Comment