The editorial staff of TuttoJuve.com contacted by telephone, exclusively, Avv. criminal lawyer John Castronovoto talk in depth about the rejection by the Council of State of the Covisoc card and more:
The Council of State has rejected the suspension request, therefore the FIGC will have to deliver the Covisoc card to Juve. Is this the last piece to get this heavy – 15 off?
“I believe the content of the Covisoc card is overemphasized, the disclosure of which (and I don’t understand the reasons) has been strenuously defended by the FIGC, whose only fear could be to avoid having to comply with similar requests in the future. notice,regardless of the relevance or otherwise of the document in question, the appeal brought by the lawyers of the black and white club is well structured and contains various complaints worthy of acceptance. An investigation has been made to verify whether there was a systematic relationship between two or more teams, now, with referring to the affair that involved Juve, the question is: where would it be and what would be the systematic nature, such as to justify the penalty inflicted?”.
Good question, this one.
“It’s not the only one I have: if the existence of a system has been ascertained, within which everyone indiscriminately resorted to capital gains, why punish only Juventus? One of the two: either the system exists, and all the clubs involved must be punished, or this system does not exist and then the black and white club must not be punished either. For these reasons, as already stated at the end of January, I am extremely confident that the illegitimate penalty inflicted will be cancelled”.
Let’s face it… It was already something that seemed to leak from all sides. Or not?
“Yes, I already thought so when I learned the news of the 15-point penalty. Even without reading the reasons for that provision, I maintained that, as I said by virtue of the acquittal of the other clubs allegedly involved, it is logically impossible affirming the responsibility only of Juve when a fictitious capital gain can only necessarily be realized by two football clubs and not only by one of them.And furthermore in the absence of objective elements with which to measure oneself, necessary to establish why the evaluation attributed to a player must be considered “inflated”, it is not possible to speak of ‘fictitious capital gains for nothing’ noting the ambiguous and unclear content of some interceptions between some Juventus managers. If we add to this that to modify an irrevocable provision, significant new elements are needed which I don’t think the federal prosecutor’s office has managed to produce I have become certainties after having read the reasons for the penalty measure then contested, so I am confident in a measure that will overturn this verdict contra ius in my opinion”.
Do you think that this unholy management of Sports Justice can set a positive precedent for those who will find themselves facing such situations?
“Just as has recently happened in the civil-criminal sector with the Cartabia reform, sports justice also urgently needs profound changes. It is a system that is in some ways outdated today, also due to the impossibility of articulating certain means of defence, contrary to what “It takes place in the context of ordinary justice. Certainly the Juve affair will constitute a favorable precedent for many clubs involved in similar disputes, and why not, perhaps constitute a stimulus to launch a serious reform project”.
We thank Atty. Giovanni Castronovo for the courtesy and helpfulness shown during this interview.
