The Cyprus FA’s Head Disciplinary Prosecutor Aristotelis Vryonides has released his findings of the cancelled encounter between Apollon and AEL: “On 15/09/2024, a match was scheduled to take place as part of the Cyprus League by Stoiximan — A’ Phase of the 2024-2025 season between Apollon Limassol (hereinafter referred to as “Apollon”) and AEL Limassol (hereinafter referred to as “AEL”). This match never started, and the Disciplinary Prosecutor has referred the case to me to decide the fate of the match. At the same time, AEL has filed an objection regarding the non-start of the match due to an incorrect decision by the referee, which was made in violation of the relevant provisions of the Championship Regulations. Furthermore, the Disciplinary Prosecutor has referred the two mentioned clubs before me in relation to several charges, which are directly related to the specific match. Both AEL’s objection and the fate of the match will be heard together, as they are based on the same facts. I will first examine AEL’s objection, which is based on the referee’s decision not to start the match, and then, if necessary, I will proceed to examine the fate of the match. In addition, I will examine the other charges faced by the teams, as all of the above are based on the same facts. CONTENT OF AEL LIMASSOL’S OBJECTION The AEL club, in a letter dated 17/09/2024, filed an objection regarding the improper non-conduct/cancellation of the match due to an incorrect decision by the referee, or a decision made in violation of the relevant provisions of the Championship Regulations based on Articles 46B, 47, and 48AG of the 2024-2025 Cyprus Football Association (CFA) Disciplinary Regulations. Specifically, AEL’s position, as it emerges from their objection, is that “the referee of the match wrongly or under a mistake or without a proper understanding of the situation, or with an incorrect assessment of the facts as a result of unacceptable external pressures or possible political interventions, tolerated the non-conduct of the match.” Furthermore, they note, “We consider it clear that nowhere in any report and in no way can it be seen or determined that there was the slightest personal judgment, evaluation of the facts, or decision by the referee to stop the match. Rather, the referee essentially states that the cancellation of the match was the result imposed on him by the police, without him having the slightest personal perception of the facts.” AEL continues to argue that, “It is obvious, undeniable, and clear that the referee’s position, which leaves no room for interpretation or dispute, is that the decision was solely and ONLY that of the police, and not his own. He neither had nor sought to have a personal understanding of the events to make the necessary decisions, remaining a hostage to the incorrect imposition by the police, under the threat of refusing to police the match, in violation, among other things, of the law itself (The Prevention and Suppression of Violence in Sports Venues (Amendment) Law of 2024).” Further, it attaches two sworn statements from the President and Vice President of AEL, where they recount the events as they perceived them, and request that these be included in the official documents of the current proceedings. Continuing, AEL’s objection includes the following: “Having stated the above, our position is that the referee’s clear wording, that while he could not find any reason not to start the match, and it was due to the police’s decision that it did not begin, leaves no room for any conclusion other than that his decision was wrong and against all regulations governing football matches. The fundamental principle establishing the referee as the ‘Master of the Field’ is violently violated, and the acceptance of such a decision opens the door wide for ‘external factors’ to intervene critically and entirely outside the framework and regulations in the conduct or non-conduct of matches.” Subsequently, the provisions of IFAB’s regulations are presented, while it is reiterated that the police imposed a wrong decision, which is in complete conflict with FIFA’s principles. Lastly, AEL’s objection states that the apparent political intervention in the decision-making process places a serious threat to the foundations of Cypriot football, as it contradicts FIFA’s fundamental principle of absolute prohibition of political interference in football. Thus, AEL’s position is clear: the decision to stop or not start the match, following the police’s ruling, is evidently wrong and in violation of regulations, and the match should be rescheduled and played under the same conditions. Apollon’s Response to the Objection Further, the Disciplinary Prosecutor of the Cyprus Football Association (CFA) notified Apollon by letter on 18/09/2024 of AEL’s objection and instructed Apollon to submit its position by Friday, 20/09/2024. On 20/09/2024, Apollon responded with a letter regarding AEL’s objection, stating that the referee decided not to hold the match because the police did not provide security, and the events leading to the referee’s decision are clearly recorded in his concise report in the match sheet. Apollon also includes the referee’s report verbatim, as well as the match observer’s report, noting that these are presumed to be correct and true (according to Article 49 of the Disciplinary Regulations). Additionally, Apollon presents relevant case law, while stating the following verbatim: “AEL’s claim that the referee did not have personal perception is legally and factually unfounded and/or irrational because, besides the fact that the referee was aware of all the events and had full information from the responsible parties, the referee is not expected to be at the entrances of the stadium to personally verify the illegal entry of fans or evaluate in any way which fans entered with or without a ticket, a fan card, or body search. To this end, he inevitably had to rely on the information from other officials responsible for the smooth conduct of the match, such as the security officer and the police. We also point out the time that passed from the first notification to the referee by the police at 18:20 until 19:55, when the decision not to hold the match was made as a natural consequence of the ongoing behaviour of AEL fans, i.e., their illegal entry, some fans refusing to leave the stadium, and their return without undergoing the necessary checks.” Moreover, Apollon emphasises: “The illegal entry of AEL fans into the stands without passing through ticket control, a fan card, or body search was undeniably the root cause of the match not being held. The failure of all fans to exit the stadium or the return of those who did, without undergoing proper checks, was the reason for the match’s non-conduct. These events are undeniable and are confirmed by the match observer and the police, and were initially communicated to the referee, which is why the match did not start at the scheduled time, and the referee was informed of the instructions given by the police to ensure the smooth running of the match.” With the above, Apollon concludes that AEL’s objection should be rejected. Under the instructions of the Sports Judge, the clubs were informed that they could submit their final arguments on AEL’s objection by Monday, 23/09/2024. Subsequently, AEL requested an extension to submit its final argument by 30/09, citing the need to gather further testimonial material to present before the Sports Judge. The request was partially granted, and the two teams were given an extension until 25/09/2024 to submit their final arguments. Both teams submitted their final written arguments on 25/09/2024. Specifically, in its written argument, AEL reiterates and adopts the entire content of its objection and maintains its position that the referee wrongly did not start the match. Furthermore, AEL notes that the current objection examines the referee’s actions and judgment only, and it is clear that the match observer never contacted the referee to relay what he later recorded. Therefore, the observer’s report in this case cannot be used. It is also noted that the referee had no personal judgment or perception, as he never left the dressing room and cites a previous decision by the disciplinary committee in the Omonoia — AEL case of 2011. Additionally, AEL states in its written argument that “the referee wrongly and against the regulations resigned or was forced to resign from his role as the master of the field, mistakenly surrendering all power to the police, who arbitrarily and violently, through the chief of police, made all the illogical and dangerous actions up to and including the police’s announcement of the non-conduct of the match. Fortunately, due to the compliance and cooperation of AEL’s management and its fans, no incident occurred inside the stadium. Specifically, in the few lines the referee wrote about the non-conduct of the match, nowhere can it be seen that he formed an independent opinion and exercised his judgment, but merely cites as hearsay whatever a police official conveyed to him, informing him of their decisions and actions, including the non-conduct of the match.” The relevant regulations of the competition, the Disciplinary Regulations, and the provisions of IFAB are then presented. AEL argues that the referee’s actions directly conflict with FIFA’s fundamental principles, where external interventions are not permitted, and any decisions in a match belong to the referee. Furthermore, it stresses FIFA’s fundamental principle that matches should be completed on the field. Concluding, AEL states that the decision not to conduct the match is evidently wrong, and its objection should be upheld, with the match rescheduled and played under the same conditions. On the other hand, Apollon in its written argument reiterates and adopts the content of the letter it sent on 20/09/2024 regarding AEL’s objection, while also repeating and analyzing the content of the official reports of the match officials. “In this instance, the referee’s decision to not hold the match was not only not blatantly irrational and unjustified, but the facts as they unfolded and are recorded in the reports of the referee and the match observer, as well as the time that passed until the final decision to cancel the match, left no other choice for any reasonable person but to decide not to hold the match. A decision to hold the match in the presence of a LARGE number of AEL fans who illegally and forcibly entered the stadium would have been blatantly irrational and unjustified.” In conclusion, it reiterates that the cause for the match’s cancellation was the illegal and forceful entry of AEL fans into the stadium, and requests the rejection of AEL’s objection and the awarding of the match in favour of Apollon. FACTS: As mentioned earlier, on 15/09/2024, a match between Apollon and AEL was scheduled as part of the Cyprus League by Stoiximan — A’ Phase 2024-2025 season. The match never commenced following a decision by the match referee. The facts leading to the non-start of the match are outlined in the official reports and are as follows: Referee’s Match Report: The referee states the following in the Match Report: “The match between Apollon vs AEL was officially postponed. At 18:20, the police officer in charge, Mr. Erotokritou, and the stadium’s security officer informed us that AEL supporters had breached the entrance, broke through the police barrier, and entered the stands without undergoing the necessary security checks. Given the situation, they could not ensure the smooth start of the match. Later, at 18:25, the head of the police, along with the deputy and in the presence of both team presidents, informed us that all AEL supporters had to leave the stands to undergo the necessary checks and re-enter. If these instructions were not followed, the police would not be able to guarantee the safe conduct of the match. By 19:55, after an extension had been given for the AEL supporters to leave, Officer Erotokritou informed us that many AEL fans had left the stands and the stadium, but some had not left at all, resulting in their re-entry without the required security checks. The police informed us they could no longer provide safety for the smooth running of the match after this development. As a result, the match did not start and was officially postponed.” The Match Observer notes: “At approximately 18:10, as AEL supporters were arriving from the northwest parking area (pre-screening area) and being directed towards the entrance for ticket/fan card and body checks, a scuffle occurred. They broke through the police barrier, metal fences fell under the fans’ pressure, and pepper spray/chemical agents were used by the police on some AEL supporters during the altercation at the pre-checkpoint. A large number of AEL fans then moved towards the northern entrance, breaching the barriers and entering the stadium uncontrollably, without any ticket or body checks.” Further details from the Match Observer on the match organisation: “1. The line-ups of both teams and all related match details were electronically received at 17:41. 2. Around 18:20, Officer Erotokritou informed the stadium’s security officer and the referee that AEL fans entered the stands without proper ticket checks, making the safe conduct of the match impossible (first notification). At 18:30, following encouragement for AEL supporters to leave the stands, AEL’s president, accompanied by two security guards, entered the field and moved to the northern stand, where he conversed with the supporters for a significant amount of time. a) By 18:35, many AEL supporters began to leave the stands after the police announcement. By 19:30, most of them had exited the stands. Around 10-20 AEL fans remained and did not leave. b) At 18:50, a police announcement from the stadium’s loudspeakers requested that all AEL fans leave the stadium for the necessary checks. c) At 19:08, another police announcement encouraged AEL supporters to exit the stadium. d) At 19:32, another police announcement warned that if fans did not leave within five minutes, the match would be suspended. e) By 19:35, AEL supporters began to return to the stands again. f) At 19:56, a police announcement from the stadium’s loudspeakers confirmed the official cancellation of the match. 3) A large number of tickets from AEL fans were not checked upon their entrance to the stadium.” The Referee Observer adds in his report: “At 18:20, the match referee Mr. Fellas called me, informing me that Officer Erotokritou had informed him that AEL fans breached the stadium entrance by breaking through the police barrier and entered without undergoing the necessary checks. Therefore, the police could not ensure the smooth start of the match. Subsequently, I went down to the locker rooms, where the head of the police, along with his deputy and in the presence of both team presidents, stated that all AEL fans had to leave the stadium to undergo the necessary checks upon their re-entry. He added that if the police instructions were not followed, they would not be able to ensure the safe conduct of the match. At 19:55, the match referee informed me that the police had informed him that many AEL fans had left the stands, while some did not leave at all, resulting in their re-entry without any checks. After this development, the police could no longer ensure safety for the match, and it was postponed.” Evaluation of Evidence and Referee’s Decision to Suspend the Match: As I have already mentioned, I will first examine AEL’s protest, and if necessary, the outcome of the match. From the facts of this case, it is clear that the initial problems arose well before the scheduled start of the match, specifically around 18:10. The official reports from both the referee, the match observer, and the referee observer essentially outline the facts of the current case, which appear to be quite clear and are presented chronologically as follows: A) 18:20 The police informed the referee at 18:20 that AEL fans had breached the entrance, broke through the police cordon, entered the stands without undergoing the necessary checks (physical search, fan card, or ticket). Based on this, the police stated they could not guarantee the safe start of the match. B) 18:25 Following the above development and approximately 35 minutes before the official start of the match, the police (through the Chief and Deputy Chief) informed the referee, in the presence of the two club presidents, that to ensure the safe conduct of the match, all AEL fans needed to exit the stadium for the necessary checks before re-entering. C) 18:30 — 18:35 — The announcement Around 18:30, an announcement was made over the stadium speakers instructing AEL fans to leave the stands, and by 18:35, many AEL fans had started to leave. D) 18:50 — Second announcement At 18:50, another announcement was made for all AEL fans to leave the stands. E) 19:08 — Third announcement At 19:08, another announcement encouraged AEL fans to exit the stands. By 19:30, most of the fans had left, with 10-20 AEL fans remaining in the stands. F) 19:32 — Fourth announcement At 19:32, a new announcement stated that AEL fans must leave the stadium within five minutes, or the match would not start. G) 19:35 Fans began to return to the stands, but according to the evidence, some never left, while others who had exited re-entered without undergoing the necessary checks. H) 19:55 After this development, the police informed the referee that they could not ensure the safe conduct of the match, and the match was definitively not started. The provisions outlined in the Disciplinary Regulations and the Championship Rules regarding the referee’s authority to stop or not start a match are well known. According to the Disciplinary Regulations, “the referee may stop a match due to a lack of the required discipline and order in the stadium or due to unsporting behaviour by one or more players or other individuals or groups, at the referee’s absolute discretion” (emphasis mine, see Chapter VI, Article 6.1, of the Championship Regulations for the 2024-2025 season). Furthermore, according to Article 6.2, Chapter III of the Championship Regulations for the 2024-2025 season, “the match is stopped by the referee for any reason provided by the IFAB game regulations.” What I am called upon to examine in this case is the referee’s decision, the circumstances under which it was made, and whether there is a need and scope for intervention, which, as mentioned, must be done with great caution. From the evidence presented before me, it is clear that the police promptly informed the referee about the illegal behaviour of AEL fans, who, after breaking through the police cordon, breached the entrance and entered the stadium uncontrollably without undergoing ticket/fan card or body checks (see match observer’s report). The police informed the referee that under these circumstances, they could not guarantee the safe conduct of the match. For over an hour and a half, the police made repeated announcements and set deadlines for AEL fans to exit the stadium and undergo the necessary checks so that the match could start, but this did not happen because a portion of the AEL fans refused to leave the stands, and thus the necessary checks were not conducted. As is evident from the above, the referee was fully informed and in consultation with the police regarding all events occurring at the stadium, as well as the police’s efforts to resolve the issues preventing the match’s safe start. Based on the above, it is clear that the referee’s decision not to start the match was based on these events, which he evaluated, exercising his discretion and judgment to decide not to start the match. There can be no argument that the referee’s decision not to start the match was an abuse of his discretion or unjustified, as he had been informed as early as 18:20 by the police (who are responsible for ensuring the safe arrival and entry of fans into the stadium) that AEL fans had entered the stadium without undergoing the required checks by breaking through the police cordon. AEL’s position that the referee, when deciding not to start the match, was misled or lacked a proper understanding of the situation, or made a wrong assessment of the facts due to external unacceptable pressures or political interventions, is not persuasive. The referee was aware from the outset of all that was happening at the stadium and of the police’s actions to resolve the problems preventing the match from starting. Furthermore, I find no evidence of any political intervention based on the material presented before me. This is one of the main differences with the court’s decision in the case of CFA vs. Apollon Limassol and AEL Limassol on 09/02/2024, which AEL cites, where the facts of that case were entirely different from the present one. The legal provisions and jurisprudence regarding the issues of match non-starts and/or stoppages and the referee’s discretion are well known. Relevant to the above is the decision of the ADEA in the case of Anorthosis Famagusta vs. the Judicial Committee of the Cyprus Football Association, No. 6/05 dated 26/04/2005, which stated… “The Executive Committee of the Cyprus Football Association (CFA) may overturn a referee’s decision to suspend a match only if the events are such that it proves the referee’s decision to stop the match was manifestly unreasonable and unjustified. Intervention in the discretionary power of referees concerning match suspensions is done with great caution and only in exceptional cases.” Based on the above, I conclude that the referee’s decision not to start the match was not manifestly unreasonable or unjustified. On the contrary, based on the information available to him, the referee exercised his discretion within the framework provided by the relevant regulations, and therefore no intervention by the Sports Judge is warranted in this decision. AEL’s objection is dismissed, and the fee is retained. MATCH OUTCOME I will now proceed to examine the outcome of the match as referred to me by the Disciplinary Prosecutor. Apollon sent its position on the match’s outcome on 20/09/2024, while AEL did not send any new letter. In its letter dated 20/09/2024, Apollon initially presents the official reports of the match officials and further cites the relevant articles of the Disciplinary Regulations related to non-starting or suspension of the match. Additionally, it notes: “The illegal entry of AEL fans into the stands, without passing through ticket control and/or fan card control and/or a body search, was undeniably the root cause of the match not taking place. The non-exit of all fans and/or the return of those who left was the reason the match did not proceed. The facts are undeniable and confirmed by the match observer and the police, and they solely concern the continued behaviour of AEL fans, which was conveyed to the referee to make his decision not to start the match. Although AEL fans were given the opportunity to leave and re-enter after undergoing the necessary checks, not all of them left, and three minutes after the police announcement for all fans to exit (19:32), AEL fans who had left began returning (19:35), again without undergoing the required checks. As a result of this continued situation, caused exclusively by AEL fans, at 19:55, the police informed the referee that security for the smooth conduct of the match was not guaranteed, and the referee inevitably decided on the final postponement.” Apollon concludes by requesting the match be awarded 3-0 in their favour. The court’s findings regarding the facts of the present case have been analysed above in the examination of AEL’s objection, and thus need not be repeated. There is no doubt that the root and main cause leading the referee to decide not to start the match was the behaviour of AEL fans, who refused to follow the repeated requests of the police to leave the stands and undergo the required checks. Based on the above, I have concluded that the sole responsibility for the referee’s decision not to start the match lies with AEL, which, according to Article 5 of the Disciplinary Regulations, is responsible for the actions of its fans. According to the Cyprus First Division Championship regulations, particularly Article 6 and 6.1, the following provisions apply: “A match interrupted due to the fault of one team The match will be awarded with a score of 3-0 against the team at fault (unless this result benefits them, in which case the score at the time of the interruption will apply) in cases where, 6.1 The match is interrupted or not held due to the lack of required discipline and order in the stadium due to the unsportsmanlike behaviour of a player or players or another person or group of persons at the absolute discretion of the referee.” Furthermore, under Article 20 of the Disciplinary Regulations titled ‘Matches Not Completed or Not Held,’ the following are noted: “If a match is not held or cannot be completed, it may be awarded against the team at fault for this. Additionally, a fine may be imposed on this team. In severe cases, sanctions may be imposed under Article 14 of the present regulations.” In light of the above, I have decided to award the match between Apollon and AEL, as part of the Cyprus League by Stoiximan – First Phase of the 2024-2025 season, with a score of 3-0 in favour of Apollon. The execution of this decision is suspended for 8 days from the next day of its communication to your club, in accordance with Article 74(G) of the CFA Disciplinary Regulations. I will now proceed to examine the remaining charges faced by each club individually, based on the indictment and the evidence presented before me. I remind you that the CFA Executive Committee has recently amended several penalties provided in the Disciplinary Regulations, and all cases are now judged based on these amendments. Charges Against Apollon: The indictment against Apollon includes the following charges: a) For bringing dangerous items (firecrackers, flares, and fireworks) into the stadium (the stands) by the team’s supporters, in violation of Article 10.2(d) of the CFA’s Disciplinary Regulations. b) For igniting and throwing dangerous items (firecrackers, flares, and fireworks) onto the pitch during the waiting period before the match, during the wait for the match to begin, and even after the official announcement that the match would not be held, in violation of Article 10.2(c)(1)(2) of the CFA’s Disciplinary Regulations.” c) For the entry of a fan onto the team’s playing field before the designated start of the match and for the entry of a fan into the corridor leading to the locker rooms during the waiting period before the match, in violation of article 10.2(a) of the disciplinary regulations of the Cyprus Football Association (CFA). d) For the use of a laser by a fan of the team during the waiting period before the start of the match and after the official announcement of the match’s cancellation, directed at the stand where the opposing team’s fans were seated, in violation of article 10.2(ib) of the CFA’s disciplinary regulations. e) For an incident caused by the team’s fans after the official announcement of the match’s cancellation (at 20:06), where they lit a fire and burned the scarf and jersey of the opposing team, causing a disturbance inside the stadium, in violation of articles 4(kb) and 5 of the CFA’s disciplinary regulations. f) For displaying a banner inappropriate for sporting events after the official announcement of the match’s cancellation (at 20:04), in violation of article 10.2(e) of the CFA’s disciplinary regulations. Regarding the above charges, before imposing a penalty, I take into account in favor of Apollon what is mentioned in the letter they sent, expressing their apology for the behaviour of their fans. Additionally, I consider in Apollon’s favor that the incident referred to in charge (c) was an isolated one, as confirmed by the evidence before me, involving only one individual. As I mentioned above, the penalties to be imposed, based on the recent amendments to the Disciplinary Regulations, are as follows: a) For the charge of carrying dangerous items, a fine of €6,000 is imposed. The execution of the above decision is suspended for 8 days from the day following the notification of this decision to your club, in accordance with Article 74 (G) of the CFA’s Disciplinary Regulations. b) (c) and (e) For the charges of igniting in the stands and throwing onto the playing field, for the entry of a fan onto the playing field, and for the incident caused by the team’s fans, a total fine of €6,000 is imposed, along with the penalty of playing one match behind closed doors and a ban on the transportation of fans to the team’s next away match. The execution of the above decision is suspended for 8 days from the day following the notification of this decision to your club, in accordance with Article 74 (G) of the CFA’s Disciplinary Regulations. d) For the use of a laser, a fine of €5,600 is imposed, taking into account a previous conviction of Apollon. The execution of the above decision is suspended for 8 days from the day following the notification of this decision to your club, in accordance with Article 74 (G) of the CFA’s Disciplinary Regulations. f) For the display of a banner with inappropriate content, a fine of €3,000 is imposed. The above monetary fines, in accordance with Article 17 of the Disciplinary Regulations, must be paid within 30 days from the day the suspension of the penalty’s execution expires. Indictment for AEL Team The indictment for AEL includes the following charges: a) For serious incidents caused by the team’s fans in the areas leading to the entrances and ticket control points and the fan card check in the stadium’s surrounding area before the start of the match (AEL fans, while heading to the aforementioned points, caused a clash with the police, broke through the police cordon, knocked down metal barriers, and then a large number of fans headed to the north entrance of the stadium, which they breached, climbed the fences, and entered the stadium uncontrollably without going through ticket control, fan card, and body search). The behaviour of AEL’s fans provoked the immediate reaction of the police, who could not ensure the smooth start of the match, in violation of articles 4(kb) of the CFA’s disciplinary regulations. b) For throwing objects onto the playing field by the team’s fans before the designated start of the match, towards the west stand where Apollon’s fans were seated, in violation of article 10.2(b) of the CFA’s disciplinary regulations. c) For the use of a laser by the team’s fans during the waiting period before the start of the match and after the official announcement of the match’s cancellation, directed at the south stand where Apollon’s fans were seated, in violation of article 10.2(ib) of the CFA’s disciplinary regulations. d) For the carrying of dangerous items (smoke bombs) by the team’s fans into the stadium (in the stands), in violation of the CFA’s disciplinary regulations. e) For igniting and throwing dangerous items (smoke bombs) onto the playing field during the waiting period before the match and even after the official announcement of the match’s cancellation, in violation of article 10.2(c)(1)(2). f) For failing to place the emblem/logo of the A’ category league sponsor “Stoiximan” on the left sleeve of the player’s women’s jersey, in violation of article 21, point 3 of Chapter XVII of the A’ category league regulations for the 2024/2025 season. AEL, in a letter dated 23/09/2024, refers to the indictment and admits to charges (b) and (c), while for the remaining charges (a, d, e, and f), they plead not guilty. In the same letter, it is mentioned that the surveillance footage should be reviewed for a complete picture of the events. This approach is mistaken, as all the facts regarding this case have been presented before me through the testimonial material. I also remind you of the provisions of the Disciplinary Regulations (Article 49) which state that: “In principle, the Judicial Committee determines the facts of the case in a summary manner, based on official reports, the content of which is presumed to be correct and accurate. It has the discretion to consider any other relevant document in its possession, audiovisual material, and documents, and to order the submission of further evidence, provided that doing so does not unduly delay the process. In exceptional cases, the Judicial Committee may hear the accused, and in the case of an objection, the involved clubs. The Judicial Committee may deliberate and decide via teleconference or video conference or by any similar method.” As can be understood, sports justice must determine the facts summarily based on official reports and without delays. This matter has also been judicially settled in previous decisions of both this court and the Court of Appeal. Case: Anorthosis Famagusta FC vs. AEK Larnaca Appeal No. 4/2012 dated 09/04/2012. Taking all of the above into account, including the positions of AEL, I impose the following penalties: (a) For serious incidents caused by AEL supporters, a fine of €15,000 is imposed, along with a penalty of a one-match behind closed doors and a penalty prohibiting the movement of fans for the next two away matches of the team. The execution of the above decision is suspended for 8 days from the next day of the notification of this decision to your club, according to Article 74 (C) of the Disciplinary Regulations of the KOP. (b) and (d) For the throwing of objects and the transportation of dangerous items within the stadium, a total fine of €6,000 is imposed. The execution of the above decision is suspended for 8 days from the next day of the notification of this decision to your club, according to Article 74 (C) of the Disciplinary Regulations of the KOP. (c) For the use of lasers, a fine of €2,400 is imposed. (e) For the use of dangerous items (flares) in the stands and throwing onto the field, a fine of €6,000 is imposed, along with a penalty of one match behind closed doors and a penalty prohibiting the movement of fans for the next away match of the team. The execution of the above decision is suspended for 8 days from the next day of the notification of this decision to your club, according to Article 74 (C) of the Disciplinary Regulations of the KOP. (f) For the omission of placing the sponsor’s logo, the case is postponed and set for Wednesday, 02.10.2024. The above monetary penalties must be paid within 30 days from the day the suspension of the penalty expires, based on Article 17 of the Disciplinary Regulations. This is the first serious case I am dealing with for this football season, and I would like to send the message that sports justice will address such delinquent behaviours strictly, and the penalties imposed will have a deterrent element. I remind you that the clubs themselves, before the start of this football season, amended the Disciplinary Regulations to tighten the stipulated penalties in an effort to combat delinquent behaviours. I want to sound the alarm to the entire sporting public of Cyprus that they must finally isolate and expel the minority of fans who engage in delinquent behaviours, which consequently lead to strict penalties against their team. At the same time, I want to emphasise once again that all those responsible for ensuring the smooth conduct of the matches must demonstrate the necessary effectiveness in carrying out their duties so that the season can proceed smoothly.” Post navigation KETSBAIA OUT AS CYPRUS MANAGER OMONOIA EARN FIRST EVER CONFERENCE LEAGUE WIN