Juve-Napoli, 3-0 on the table and a penalty point

3-0 at the Juve table. And a penalty point to Napoli for violating the anti-Covid-19 sports protocol. It is the decision of the sports judge Gerardo Mastrandrea on the Juve-Napoli affair, the match not played on Sunday, October 4, the non-arrival of the Neapolitan team in Turin, blocked by the two competent ASLs. This is the first instance decision, with De Laurentiis’ company, which will appeal to the federal Court of Appeal. For the Lega sports judge, the ASL Napoli 1 note sent on Friday (Zielinski’s positivity had already been outlined, then it would have been Elmas’s turn) to the Napoli team doctor stated “clearly and unequivocally that the responsibility for the implementation of the protocols envisaged by the FIGC for the containment of the Covid 19 epidemic is in the hands of the Napoli company and, therefore, this company has no competition ” For Mastrandrea, the pronouncements described by the ASL “outline a picture that does not seem incompatible with the application of the specific rules of the FIGC special sanitary protocol and therefore with the possibility of playing the soccer match scheduled in Turin.” In practice, there was no “force majeure”.

A MATTER OF TIMES

–

According to Mastrandrea, in essence, the first part of the correspondence with the ASL was not an “obstacle” to the trip and only later, with the clarifications provided on Sunday at 2:13 pm, “the order of the Authority assumed an incident value and clear prescriptive connotations. ” But at that time there was no more time to go to Turin, as the transfer had “become impossible in the meantime”. That is, Napoli would have renounced the trip to Turin before the prescription of the authorities in the last emails of the correspondence. Hence the responsibility of the club, also with regard to the violation of article 53, paragraph 2, one of the rules added by the federal council at the time of the resumption of the championship in June.

“Not impossible”

–

Therefore, the transfer of Napoli by the verdict would not have been “impossible”. Because the company would not have done everything necessary to go to Turin and respect the protocol. “However – writes Mastrandrea – it is necessary to pay attention: according to jurisprudence this cannot be valid if: (i) the factum principis is reasonably foreseeable and (ii) the debtor (i.e. Napoli, ed.) Has not attempted to pass for all the abstractly possible alternative solutions that were offered to overcome the limits imposed by the provisions, obviously in full and total compliance with the law, and provided that this implies a reasonable sacrifice for the debtor himself ”.