CAS 2020 A 6617
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 5 Apr 2022
Why it matters
This case underscores the fundamental importance of the right to be heard in sports disciplinary proceedings, especially when severe sanctions like a life ban are at stake. It clarifies that CAS may annul and refer back a decision when procedural irregularities deprive a party of a fair first-instance hearing, even if CAS has de novo review powers. The decision reinforces that FIFA must exercise heightened diligence in notifying accused individuals, particularly those in custody, and that email notification alone may be insufficient.
Summary
Manuel Burga Seoane, former president of the Peruvian Football Federation and a high-ranking CONMEBOL and FIFA official, was indicted in the United States for racketeering and money laundering in connection with the FIFA corruption scandal. After a US federal jury found him not guilty in 2017, FIFA's Ethics Committee initiated its own proceedings. Burga was notified by email while imprisoned in Peru, but he had no access to his email accounts. He did not respond, and FIFA proceeded to impose a life ban from football-related activities and a CHF 1,000,000 fine. Burga appealed to CAS, arguing that FIFA violated his right to be heard and his right of defence by failing to properly notify him. He also raised a ne bis in idem argument based on his US acquittal. The CAS Panel found that FIFA's notification methods were inadequate under its own regulations (which did not permit email at the time) and that FIFA failed to take additional steps to ensure Burga received notice, given his imprisonment. The Panel held that the violation of the right to be heard was serious and could not be cured by CAS's de novo review, as it would deprive Burga of a first-instance hearing. Therefore, the Panel annulled the FIFA decision and referred the case back to the FIFA Investigatory Chamber for a new proceeding where Burga could properly defend himself. The Panel did not rule on the merits of the sanctions or the ne bis in idem argument. Each party bore its own costs.
The detail
Parties: Manuel Burga Seoane v. FIFA
Case number: CAS 2020 A 6617
Outcome: Appeal partially upheld; FIFA Ethics Committee decision annulled and case referred back to FIFA Investigatory Chamber.
Applicable law: FIFA Code of Ethics 2012 edition; FIFA Disciplinary Code 2011 edition; CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration
Issues in play: The right to be heard and right of defence under Swiss law and CAS jurisprudence collided with FIFA's notification procedures. The Panel found FIFA failed to ensure proper notification, violating due process.
Read the full decision at Court of Arbitration for Sport (football, via FIFA) ↗
Locus Standi links to the source decision and publishes its own plain-language summary. It does not reproduce the text of the award.