The next legal game of the Juventus will be played at Sports Guarantee College at Conithe court which is commonly referred to as “the Supreme Court of Sport”. Perhaps a somewhat pompous but effective definition because the Board does not enter into the merits of the sentences, but only into the form. In short, in the third degree of judgment of the Sports Justice any formal or procedural defects of the process are analysed, and Coni itself indicates it as «legitimacy judge». Juventus has announced its intention to appeal and has thirty days from the publication of the reasons, which took place on 30 January, therefore the documentation must arrive at the College within Tuesday 1st March.
What will the Guarantee College do at that point?
He will establish the admissibility of the appeal and if he deems it admissible (it is very probable, if not certain that he will consider it so), he will set a date for the hearing in which he will examine the appeal.
What can he decide?
The Board has the right to annul the sentence if it is vitiated by procedural or formal errors. In that case, the decision cannot be appealed within the context of Sports Justice and therefore the 15 penalty points and the inhibitions to the executives involved would be removed. Or he has the right to confirm the sentence, rejecting Juventus’ statement and in this case the sentence of the Federal Court of Appeal would be confirmed in its entirety. There is then a third possibility, namely referral to the Federal Court of Appeal to correct any defects. In that case, the Court should re-examine the sentence and rewrite the reasons, confirming the sentence or, possibly, remodulating the penalty and the inhibitions of the executives.
What is the most probable hypothesis right now?
It is completely impossible to make predictions. As many lawyers and jurists have explained, the ruling of the Federal Court of Appeals has strengths, but also weaknesses that would allow the Panel to intervene. Judge Piero Sandulli himself, vice-president of one of the sections of the College, underlined this, creating considerable embarrassment for the timing of his speech, but effectively explaining how he considers the sentence rather solid, but in which there are motivational shortcomings on the 15 penalty points. That is, Judge Torsello did not explain sufficiently why he came to define the penalty in 15 points, against the request of 9 by the federal prosecutor Chinè.
