The CAS vindicates Panathinaikos-Huancar: “The injury is indisputable – Olympiakos’ arguments are unfounded”

Vindication for Panathinaikos in the case of the derby with Olympiakos, which was interrupted after the firecracker fell next to Juancar and resulted in his injury.

Part of the reasoning of the CAS for the decision it took, justifies the “greens” for what happened that day in “G. Karaiskakis” and refutes his arguments Olympiakouwhich he characterizes as non-existent.

Specifically, the Supreme Arbitration Court considered the arguments of the “red and white” as non-existent regarding the departure of Panathinaikos from the playing field. “For the sake of completeness, the Court observes that the Appellant’s arguments that the stoppage of the Match was due to the fact that the Panathinaikos Football Players and its officials left the field of play are in any case unsubstantiated”highlighted in paragraph 115.

The same time, leaves no room for doubt about Juancar’s injury. “It is a real and solid damage, as confirmed by the Match Doctor”typically referred to in paragraph 104.

Finally, paragraph 109 states that “The Court, examining the official reports of the Match, considers that the Referee’s decision to stop the Match did not originate from the behavior of the Panathinaikos players who left the field of play.”

In detail part of the rationale of the CAS decision:

101. In the opinion of the Court, the Match Doctor confirmed that the Football Player was injured by the explosion of the firecracker thrown by an Olympiakos fan.

103. The Court also states that the injury certified by the Match Doctor (nystagmus and temporary hearing loss), as determined in the Match Doctor’s Report, was never expressly disputed by the Appellant. In fact, on the one hand, the Match Reports (Referee’s Report, Doctor’s Report and Observer’s Report) do not imply that the Olympiacos doctor denied the existence of an injury which was confirmed by the Match Doctor and, on the other hand, Olympiacos, despite making reference to an “alleged injury” only stated that the Match Doctor did not certify that the Football Player could not play, but neither expressly confirmed that the above injury did not exist or was not certified by the Match Doctor, giving evidence of said certification.

104. In the Court’s Opinion, the injury in question constitutes “bodily harm” within the meaning of Article 115 of the EPO Disciplinary Code, insofar as it constitutes harm to a person which affects the health or comfort of that person and is not merely fleeting or nonexistent. The Court also states that nystagmus involves the involuntary movement of the eyes and therefore it is reasonable to ascertain that it could not be feigned by the Football Player (as confirmed at the hearing by Dr. Alexandropoulos) while it is a real and tangible impairment, as it was also confirmed by the Doctor of the Match.

109. As correctly stated by the Defendant and the defense witness, the contents of the Referee’s Report and the Referee’s decision to stop the Match permanently, as well as the contents of the Match Doctor’s and Match Observer’s Report should be considered final and binding. The Court, examining the official reports of the Match, considers that the Referee’s decision to stop the Match did not originate from the behavior of the Panathinaikos players who left the field of play.

115. For the sake of completeness, the Court observes that the arguments of the Appellant that the stoppage of the Game was due to the fact that the Panathinaikos Football Players and its officials left the field of play are in any case unsubstantiated.

117. The Court also states that in the Referee’s Report there is no evidence to show that the Referee gave the Panathinaikos Football Players five (5) minutes to return to the playing field, while there is no evidence of the “pizza incident”.