FPF appeals TAD’s decision on João Palhinha – Sporting

The Portuguese Football Federation (FPF) will appeal the unfavorable decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (TAD) on the yellow card shown at the wheel of Sporting João Palhinha, as confirmed to Lusa by a source linked to the case.

TAD agreed with the ‘leonino’ footballer, who this Tuesday was called up for the first time with the Portuguese team, for the yellow card seen in the match with Boavista, on the 15th round of the Liga NOS.

The decision is based on the fact that the match referee, Fábio Veríssimo, admitted the mistake of admonishing the ‘lions’ player with the yellow card in the match with the ‘chess players’, on January 26, fifth in the competition, according to another source linked to the process told Lusa.

Invariably, the FPF appeals against unfavorable decisions, in appeals that can pass, first, through the South Central Administrative Court and, ultimately, through the Supreme Court of Justice.

Palhinha was sanctioned on January 27, in a summary process, with the plenary session of the professional section of the Disciplinary Council (CD) of the FPF considering the player’s appeal unfounded.

However, the provision of a precautionary measure allowed it to be used by Leonino coach Rúben Amorim in the victory over rival Benfica, 1-0, in the derby on matchday 16 of the I League, from minute 61, then having started on the substitute bench the match played on February 1.

That same day, before the decision of the Central Administrative Court of the South to suspend the effectiveness of the sanction of a game of suspension to Palhinha, the CD of the FPF challenged the arguments of Sporting.

At the time, the federative body explained that Sporting “chose to base its request for precautionary action only on a generic claim about the unconstitutionality of the sanction in a summary process, supposedly for not guaranteeing the exercise of the right of defense.”

“Which is very strange, since the SAD that employed the player participated in the approval of the Disciplinary Regulations that outlined this form of process. Even more surprising is the allegation when in the case there is already an appeal decision for the right of defense exercised by the sports agent. In other words: the plaintiff is reacting to a second-degree administrative decision, in which he was guaranteed full pronouncement on the facts and their legal qualification, “said the CD.

On February 12, the FPF CD announced the opening of an investigation process, following the participation of Benfica, through Sporting’s appeal to the civil courts that allowed the use of João Palhinha.

Then, as of February 15, the FPF CD began to allow the defense of sports clubs and agents, after the federative board accepted the CD’s suggestion on January 19, which, on December 29, 2020, decided implement the prior hearing of sports clubs and agents in the context of sanctioning through a summary process.

These summary procedures sanction disciplinary infractions punishable by suspension of up to one month or four games, based on the reports of the refereeing team, the police forces or the delegate of the Portuguese Professional Football League (LPFP) or in cases of flagrante delicto.

The clubs now have a period of one day to pronounce in writing, to which they can add video images, but not witnesses, establishing the deadline at 12:00 the day after the notification, added the same source.

This period can be shortened, if there is a closing of the match or it is necessary to prepare a map of intermediate summary processes, to make it possible to decide and notify the sanction to be applied by the CD.

Then, an official source of the FPF assured that there is no declaration of unconstitutionality with mandatory general force of any norm of the current Disciplinary Regulation of the LPFP, nor of any norm of the current Disciplinary Regulation of the FPF, that is, those that provide for the processing of the summary process.

The lack of defense of the objects of a summary process had already been declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court at least twice, and it would take three times for it to assume general binding force.