The master's thesis first presents the role of UEFA as the governing football organization in Europe, highlighting its broad competence and normative autonomy. The first part addresses the issue of the (lack of) influence on the content of UEFA’s internal acts by the subjects bound by them. A broader historical overview of UEFA’s disciplinary and anti-doping fields, on the other hand, substantiates the thesis that these are fluid areas of autonomous regulation, significantly influenced by external factors. A detailed analysis of the provisions of UEFA’s internal acts, which comprehensively regulate both fields, reveals that the legal and procedural position of their addressees has changed considerably from the beginning of the 21st century to the present day. Particular emphasis is placed on the role of the rule on the strict liability of Member Associations and clubs for violations committed by their players, officials, and other members. In relation to different violations, the rule pursues different aims, but in all cases it assists UEFA in gathering of evidence. In the area of rules governing the gathering of evidence, the analysis focuses on regulatory presumptions that shift the burden of proof and gathering the evidence onto the accused. It is shown that, in general, the regulation pursues legitimate aims, but is nevertheless not without shortcomings. UEFA acts too harshly when sanctioning Member Associations and clubs for the conduct of their “own supporters.” The addressees of UEFA’s internal rules may likewise be concerned about the further development of the practice of relying on BFDS reports, which, due to their enormous evidentiary value, places the accused in what appears to be a hopeless procedural position. In the anti-doping field, the proportionality of the rules governing the sanctioning of intentional anti-doping rule violations is called into question. At the same time, a systemic deficiency is highlighted, manifested in the absence of sanctions against teams for anti-doping rule violations committed by their members. The impact of regulatory presumptions on the procedural position of subjects in the proceedings is analysed in greater depth, showing that, due to the limited possibilities of rebutting them, they are placed in a subordinate procedural position. The master's thesis also commemorates the important role of CAS, which is reflected in its substantive interpretation of open-textured provisions of UEFA’s internal acts, in decisions that gave rise to the implementation of the currently applicable provisions of UEFA’s internal acts, and in its function as guardian of the right to a fair trial, exercised through its de novo powers.
|
