Banned footballer makes last-ditch appeal in Lausanne court

Former national footballer Kevin Sammut is to file an appeal before the Court for Arbitration of Sport in a bid to overturn the life ban handed to him by the UEFA appeals board that extended the European football association's 10-year ban, in a decision that allegedly took just 20 minutes to reach.

Sammut was banned for life from any football-related activity over match-fixing allegations made in May 2011. According to co-conspirator Mario Cvrtak, who was convicted by a German criminal court in Bochum of match-fixing, the UEFA qualifier between Malta and Norway played on 7 June 2007 had been fixed.

It was alleged that a number of Maltese players had conspired with Cvrtak and bookmaker Ante Sapina, prior to the match, to fix a result which favoured Norway by at least four goals, in return for €70,000.

Lawyers Michael and Lucio Scriha said they will face the Court for Arbitration of Sport to request it to annul and revoke the UEFA appeals board's decision, to order UEFA to pay Sammut all costs and legal fees incurred in the course of proceedings and award Sammut any damages it deems appropriate.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport is an international arbitration body set up to settle disputes related to sport, and is based in Lausanne, Switzerland.

Match-fixing allegations

In the beginning of 2012 the Malta Football Association conducted its own investigation, which was passed on to UEFA in March of the same year. A meeting took place in Nuremberg in which Cvrtak's version was heard. This was followed by other hearings in Malta, and on the 11 April 2012 the UEFA's control and disciplinary board (CDB) started its own hearings on Sammut, and footballers Stephen Wellman and Kenneth Scicluna.

A parallel investigation was carried out by Maltese police, which arrested a number of players, but exonerated the Maltese players.

On 17 August, the UEFA's CBD in Nyon held there was insufficient evidence to proceed against Wellman and Scicluna, but found Sammut guilty and banned him from football related activities for 10 years.

Sammut filed an appeal before UEFA's Appeals Body. Concurrently, UEFA also appealed the same decision by its own disciplinary board, and on 30 November 2012, the appeals body rejected Sammut's appeal, and extended the 10-year ban to a life ban.

Sammut's lawyers have now penned a further appeal at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, claiming Sammut was denied the right to a fair trial.

Claims of unfair trial

According to Sammut's lawyers, while UEFA's disciplinary inspectorate took 14 months to investigate and collect documentation on the case, the accused was informed of the charges raised against him just 15 days prior to the sitting. He was also handed the UEFA case file on that same day.

Upon receiving his summons, Sammut informed UEFA that it was impossible to prepare his defence in just 15 days. Pierre Comu, on behalf of the UEFA disciplinary board, replied that the CDB would still decide in Sammut's absence.

Eventually the date was moved to 7 August 2012 as the CDB requested a supplementary report. The supplementary report was forwarded to the accused in French, and an English version was received by Sammut just four days before the scheduled hearing.

While Sammut provided a list of witnesses to be heard on the case, the CDB said it would not pay any travel expenses for these witnesses to travel to Nyon, and refused to hold the sittings in Malta or provide a video-conferencing alternative.

The UEFA disciplinary board chose to hear the prosecution's witnesses Kathleen Saliba via teleconferencing, a fact Sammut's lawyers say shows the deliberate obstacles placed for their client's right to a fair trial.

"None of UEFA's prosecution witnesses were made to pay for their travel and accommodation, yet an amateur player with his salary capped at €1,160 was expected to foot the bills of his witnesses," lawyer Michael Sciriha said.

Present at the CDB sitting was Malta Football Association chief executive Bjorn Vassallo, who was however not asked to give evidence. Vassallo was on both the prosecution's and defence's witness list.

Sciriha says the CDB was unwilling to hear any witnesses and determined to decide the case in one sitting.  "Such behaviour disregards a basic rule of natural justice but the CDB was bent on deciding the case simply on the strength of the documentation at hand. The testimony of Sammut was constantly interrupted by the CDB members. The hearing was concluded at 3:15 pm and a copy of the CDB's decision was delivered to the accused at 7:28pm."

Sciriha claims that it was impossible and impractical for the CDB to arrive at a reasoned decision in just three hours.

UEFA appeals board decision

Sammut's appeal to the Court of Arbitration also attacks the UEFA's appeals board's reliance on the findings of the Bochum criminal court, and not on the Maltese police investigations. "The Bochum prosecutors did not conduct any investigation on the Maltese aspect of the case. Had the Maltese police inspector who investigated the case been allowed to testify he could have provided information from his investigation, including financial documentation and statements released by the Maltese contingent," Sciriha said.

The UEFA appeals board had also informed Sammut that his involvement in the hearing was "unnecessary" when the footballer inquired about attending the appeals hearing.

"Similarly to the CDB decision, the UEFA appeals board seemed to be in a hurry, poring over 700 pages of evidence in just 20 minutes. In its decision it said it was certain the game was fixed, and that the appellant - Sammut - did not dispute this even though he denied playing any part in the fixing of the match. It's a surreal conclusion," Sciriha said.

The lawyers also say that Cvrtak's own testimony to the CDB hearing was that two of the Maltese players he recognised "wore glasses while another one was short and chubby" - "neither of the descriptions fits Kevin Sammut. The witness failed to remember the name of the player with whom he fixed the game. He asked for photos of the players but still did not recognise Sammut in the pack. Neither could the witness recall if the man who entered his room had done so in the morning, afternoon or evening nor if it was the eve or actual day of the match," Sciriha said.

The lawyers also say both Cvrtak and Ante Sapina gave conflicting evidence: while Cvrtak claimed he passed his phone to the Maltese player who agreed with Sapina, Sapina himself stated that Cvrtak called him after the meeting and informed him all was sorted. Both Sapina and Cvrtak held the ringleader was a certain 'Almir' from Sarajevo, Bosnia.

But in his testimony before the CDB, Cvrtak said that this person "might not even exist".

Both witnesses also agreed that neither of them were paid any monies to fix the game and that it was 'Almir' who had to issue payments from Sarajevo.

Sammut's lawyers will argue that Malta's track record in European competitions shows that the Norway result cannot raise any suspicions. Sammut was substituted after the first half of the match, when the score was simply 1-0 for Norway.

"Good sense dictates that Cvrtak, who has rigged close to 500 matches, would not have made contact with Sammut who played as an attacking right-winger and not in defence. Cvrtak himself described Sammut as a 'playmaker', which was not the case."

To date, neither the accused nor the defence lawyers have been provided with the transcripts of either the evidence tendered during the CDB sitting, or in the sitting of the Appeals Board.