Juve’s -15 ruling for capital gains is “lacking” in its explanation “whereas the Federal Court has referred to a generic, but unproven, ‘widespread awareness'” of directors without delegation. It is one of the points of the 77 pages of reasons for the sentence of the Guarantee Commission on the Juve appeal, published today. The Board “censored a ruling on the merits, accepting the plea”, and referred it to the FIGC for a new formulation. “The absence of the penalty for the latter, due to a motivational defect, is also reflected in the overall penalty” Juve.
“From the new elements that emerged which justified the revocation” of the process, “it was possible to detect theexistence of ‘systematic and repeated’ incorrect behaviour”. It is one of the passages of the reasons for the sentence of the Collegio di Garanzia on the Juve appeal against the -15 for capital gains, which rejected the appeals of four executives with delegation and accepted those of nine without delegation. For the Collegio, those behaviors of the Juve managers are “the result of a preordained plan to alter transfer operations”, with “clear effects … also on their loyal participation in sporting competitions”.
“The contested sentence – the Panel underlines in another point – is based on a solid overall motivational system and there is no obvious misrepresentation of reality, regardless of the assessments that can be made on individual points of the motivation which are not decisive on the outcome of the judgments”. And what’s more, the application of article 4 is correct, for violation of sporting loyalty. “Article 4 of the FIGC sports justice code is a general rule within which the Federal Court of Appeal correctly ascribes the behavior of the defendants”.
Therefore, for the panel, “except for what has been observed” on the deficiencies in the motivations of the nine executives without proxy for whom the appeal was accepted, “it is noted that the contested sentence is amply motivated also on the need to impose a severe penalty due of the seriousness of the facts that emerged and that the penalty in the standings is among the sanctions envisaged”. Finally, as regards the position of the former chairman, Andrea Agnelli and his appeal, which was rejected, “the events that gave rise to the liability of the appellant, chairman of the company, are widely and extensively described in the reasoning of the contested sentence, with ample description and justification of the for the disciplinary purposes of the behaviors ascribed”.
news-copy”>breaking latest news © Copyright ANSA