***ARTICLE*** “The Striani Case” – Dott.ssa Axelle Tigani Sava

(By Dott.ssa Axelle Tigani Sava. Important note: The opinions expressed are presented by the Author as a personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the point of view of IgiTo on the addressed matters. The information provided is general, has divulgative purpose and does not substitute the assistance of a professional. Information at info@igito.it)
Daniel Striani is a Belgian football agent and he filed a complaint with the European Commission regarding the FFP ( the UEFA’s Financial Fair Play Regulations), stating that the above mentioned law is anti competitive and has a negative impact on the ability to generate an income.
The issue that occurred had been object of a big debate within the sports environment. The FFP has brought different consequences among European football clubs: some of them have been able to operate normally and have expanded squads and wage bills, other clubs, however, have faced problems and insolvency, due to operations made above their means.
With the scope of putting a limit to the huge amount of debt within the European football, in September 2009 the UEFA’s Executive Committee approved the notion of financial fair play .
There were numerous objectives that the Executive Committee wanted to address, such as achieving a protection of the long term viability regarding European club football, introducing more discipline and rationality within club finances, decreasing pressure on salaries and transfer fees, encouraging clubs to compete within their means and long-term investments. This means that  football clubs need to balance their books or break even and they cannot, as part of a multi-year assessment, spend more than their generated income.
Striani complained before the European Commission that the FFP had restricted his freedom to provide services in the Union because of the budgetary cap that has been imposed on football clubs.  Striani stated that by preventing clubs from spending more than what they have earned in previous seasons, then they would not be able to invest in the player’s market, limiting the amount of transfers and decreasing profit possibilities for player’s agents.
Since the European Commission rejected Striani’s complaint, the agent filed a petition  before the Tribunal of Brussels . On June 19th the Tribunal then referred three preliminary  questions to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) aiming to assess whether the UEFA FFP complied with EU law. On July 16th, the ECJ issued an order declaring that the above mentioned reference for a preliminary ruling irreceivable.
The three questions faced three different issues. The first one regarded the break even requirement infringing articles 101 or 102 TFEU, the second one regarded the break even requirement violating the provisions on free movement of capitals services and persons and articles 15 and 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and the third one regarded articles 65 and 66 of the FFP being discriminatory.
The case was under the attention of a lot of people within the sports environment, since almost all  European football stakeholders are in some way affected by FFP, for instance regarding the obstacles of free movement rights, the probable violation of antitrust law and the respect of fundamental rights.
Because of the outcome, a lot of critics think that the Striani case represents a missed opportunity to address the problems that the FFP has brought to the European football clubs, especially regarding the fact that certain clubs can rely on hundreds of millions of income, while others can’t. This means that the FFP represents a discriminatory bugdet cap, bringing a highly possible fossilization in the rankings.
Therefore, we will have to wait to see if another opportunity arises for the ECJ to address these issues.

***ARTICLE *** “Can an athlete be banned from practicing sports due to inadvertent doping?” – Dott.ssa Axelle Tigani Sava

(By Dott.ssa Axelle Tigani Sava. Important note: The opinions expressed are presented by the Author as a personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the point of view of IgiTo on the addressed matters. The information provided is general, has divulgative purpose and does not substitute the assistance of a professional. Information at info@igito.it)
CAS 2018/A/5866 Madyson Cox v. Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA)
The case involves the Appellant Madisyn Cox, a professional swimming athlete, represented by Paul J. Green, attorney – at – law with Global Sports Advocates LLC and the Respondent, the Fédération International de Natation (FINA), represented by Mr. Jean – Pierre Morand, attorney – at – law with Kellerhals Carrard.
On the 5th of February 2018 the Athlete provided out-of-competition urine and blood samples at her training location in Austin, Texas, and the sample collection was authorized by FINA, as the association established as responsible for ant-doping control.
The Athletes urine sample was sent to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) accredited laboratory located in Montreal, Canada. On the 2nd of March 2018 The Montreal INRS laboratory reported that the Athletes urine sample returned an adverse analytical finding (AAF) for the presence of Trimetazidine, listed under Class S.4  of the WADA Prohibited List. It is important to specify that Trimetazidine is banned at all time.
The Athlete was notified by FINA regarding the AAF. The Athlete then requested that her second sample be analyzed. This was done by the Montreal INRS laboratory again and the second sample analysis matched the first sample.
On the 14th of May 2018 FINA asserted in a Notice of Charge that the athlete had committed an anti-doping violation involving the presence of Trimetazidine. Because of this, the Athlete was provisionally suspended by FINA from that date.
The Athlete responded to the Notice of Charge that she admitted the anti-doping rule violation and requested a hearing before the FINA Doping Panel to determine the sanction.
A hearing took place on the 6th of July 2018 and a decision was issued by the FINA Doping Panel on the 10th of August 2018. The Athlete was sanctioned with a two year ineligibility period starting on the 3rd of March 2018.
The Panel argued that, based on the totality of the evidence, the Athlete did not act with intent in association with the AAF for Trimetazidine, but it was not persuaded otherwise that the athlete had demonstrated the source of the substance in her system. The Athlete had failed to prove how the Trimetazidine entered in her body, therefore she was not eligible for a sanction reduction below two years.
After having been notified of the Appealed decision, the Athlete decided to test the multivitamin tablets (Cooper Complete Elite Athlete multivitamin) she was taking prior to her blood test. The Trimetazidine was detected at approximately 4 nanograms per tablet.
On the 15th of August 2018, the Athlete filed a Statement of Appeal against the Respondent with the CAS in accordance to the Code of Sports-Related Arbitration, challenging the appealed decision. The athlete, in her statement of appeal, nominated an arbitrator.
On the 23rd of August 2018, the Parties informed the CAS Court Office that they had settled their dispute and they requested that the CAS appoint a Sole Arbitrator to enter a Consent Award confirming the terms of the PartiesSettlement Agreement.
The question raised by the case examines the infliction of a ban from practicing sports even when the Athlete inadvertently ingested a contaminating substance. Indeed, the FINA Doping Panel was persuaded that the Athlete didnt act with the intent in association with the SAF Trimetazidine and she did not dope. However, the Panel was not persuaded either that the Athlete had demonstrated effectively the source of the Trimetazadine  and how it had entered her system.
Although during the Appeal  there had been an elimination of many potential sources, the Panel was not convinced by the results of the process of deduction alone and deducted that the remaining cause for the AAF had been ingestion of a contaminated tap water.
The Doping Panel had concluded that the Athlete had failed to prove how the illegal substance had entered her body and that she was at no fault or negligence. Because of this, the Athlete was not eligible for a sanction reduction below two years.
As above mentioned, the Parties have settled their dispute with a Settlement Agreement signed on the 21st/22nd of August. Under Article R56 of the CAS Code, an arbitration tribunal has the authority to issue an award embodying the terms of the partiess settlement if the parties agree on a termination of their dispute in this manner. The Sole Arbitrator ratified the Settlement Agreement and incorporated it into a consent award.
In the Settlement Agreement, the Parties stated that the Athlete was declared ineligible for a period of two years by the FINA Doping Panel and that, due to the following identification of the contaminated multivitamin pills, the Respondent had agreed to a reduction of the Athletes sanction from two years to six months, beginning on the 3rd of March 2018 and ending on the 2nd September 2018, under the Article 10.5.1.2 of the FINA Anti – Doping Control Rules.
The sanction, as specified in the Settlement Agreement, was reduced depending on the degree of fault of the Athlete. Considering the facts and all the circumstances of this case, the Respondent declared that the Athletes degree of fault appeared light, since the Trimetazadine had entered inadvertently into her system.

 

***ARTICOLO*** “Prospettive future dopo il caso Huawei-Google”, Dott.ssa Axelle Tigani Sava

Sorry, this entry is only available in Italian. For the sake of viewer convenience, the content is shown below in the alternative language. You may click the link to switch the active language.

(A cura della Dott.ssa Axelle Tigani SavaN.B.: Quanto espresso è personale responsabilità dall’Autore e non riflette necessariamente la posizione di IgiTo sul tema esposto. Le informazioni presentate hanno carattere generale e divulgativo e non sostituiscono in alcun modo l’assistenza di un professionista. Per informazioni: info@igito.it)
Come divulgato da molte testate giornalistiche, gli smartphone Huawei perderanno la licenza Android a seguito del nuovo ordine esecutivo che vieta alle aziende americane di avere relazioni commerciali con alcune aziende considerate pericolose per la sicurezza nazionale statunitense. L’accusa da parte della amministrazione Trump, come già successo per la realizzazione delle reti di nuova generazione 5G, è che l’azienda cinese ponga in essere una attività di spionaggio per conto del governo cinese. Il Dipartimento del Commercio Usa ha annunciato lunedì che rinvierà di 90 giorni l’inizio del divieto, per dare tempo al colosso cinese e ai suoi partner statunitensi di adattarsi all’ultima stretta di Washington. Huawei ha già intavolato le trattative con Google per trovare una soluzione ad un problema che coinvolge milioni di utenti.
Ciò che diventa rilevante proprio per questi ultimi é comprendere cosa succederà per i proprietari di uno smartphone Huawei. Secondo una nota rilasciata dalla stessa Google “stiamo esaminando le implicazioni dell’ordine esecutivo e vi assicuriamo che mentre rispettiamo tutti i requisiti del governo degli Stati Uniti, servizi come Google Play e la sicurezza di Google Play Protect continueranno a funzionare sul vostro dispositivo Huawei esistente”. Nello specifico, Google Play Protect è una protezione anti-malware che protegge il dispositivo e verifica in tempo reale anche le app installate sul dispositivo. La nota di Google è dunque rassicurante per quanto riguarda la situazione di fatto esistente, ma nulla rivela in merito agli aggiornamenti.
Tuttavia, proprio in merito agli aggiornamenti, la stessa Huawei ha rilasciato una nota ad hoc: “Huawei continuerà a fornire aggiornamenti di sicurezza e servizi post-vendita a tutti i prodotti Huawei e Honor esistenti, ovvero smartphone e tablet già venduti o già in vendita a livello globale. Continueremo a costruire un ecosistema software sicuro e sostenibile, al fine di fornire la migliore esperienza per tutti gli utenti a livello globale”. A seguito della lettura di tale comunicato, sembrerebbe che sia la stessa casa produttrice Huawei a voler eseguire gli aggiornamenti della sicurezza sui propri dispositivi, ma ciò che non risulta ancora chiaro é la sussistenza o meno degli aggiornamenti futuri per le app di Google installate su questi smartphone.
In conclusione, preme però avvertire gli utenti della presenza di un precedente che riguarda l’azienda Zte, anch’esso colosso cinese delle TCL, attivo sia nel business delle reti sia in quello degli smartphone. Zte nel 2018 era stata inserita all’interno della lista nera delle aziende che non possono avere relazioni commerciali con aziende americane a causa della violazione dell’embargo con l’Iran e la Corea del Nord. Tuttavia, a luglio 2018 il bando è stato ritirato dall’amministrazione statunitense e Zte è tornata a intrattenere relazioni commerciali con le aziende americane, dopo aver firmato un accordo e dopo aver accettato di agire all’interno della cornice legale e amministrativa dettata dal Governo statunitense. É, infine, opportuno segnalare che durante quei tre mesi di interruzioni delle relazioni con le aziende americane, numerose erano state le segnalazioni in merito a problemi con gli aggiornamenti delle app, mentre i dispositivi della Zte avevano funzionato normalmente.

 

***VIDEO*** “El debido proceso y la tutela efectiva dentro del proceso penal boliviano” – Paola Andrea Arias Mendieta

 

To take part to the online discussion on the presentation and get the respective recognition, log in (using the form you find on the right or, if you are using  amobile device, below) or subscribe to IgiTo.
Important note: The opinions expressed are presented by the Author as a personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the point of view of IgiTo on the addressed matters. The information provided is general, has divulgative purpose and does not substitute the assistance of a professional. For informationinfo@igito.it.

***ARTICOLO*** “Note sulla riforma dell’Ordinamento penitenziario” – Avv. Mirco Consorte

(By Avv. Mirco Consorte (Foro di Torino). Important note: The opinions expressed are presented by the Author as a personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the point of view of IgiTo on the addressed matters. The information provided is general, has divulgative purpose and does not substitute the assistance of a professional. Information at info@igito.it)
Con i Decreti Legislativi 123 e 124 del 2 ottobre 2018 (pubblicati in Gazzetta Ufficiale il 26.10.2018) si è provveduto a modificare alcuni articoli dell’Ordinamento Penitenziario.
In realtà la portata innovativa dei due decreti è assai minore rispetto a quella prospettata dalla Legge delega ed auspicata dagli operatori del settore.
Interessante ed importante la modifica sotto il profilo dei principi generali, in particolar modo le modifiche all’art. 1 in relazione alla dignità della persona detenuta ed al divieto di usare violenza fisica e morale da parte degli operatori, soprattutto nell’ambito dei provvedimenti disciplinari, anche se la necessità di ribadire normativamente diritti fondamentali di tal tipo svela alcune situazioni di fatto negli istituti penitenziari poco edificanti anche con riferimento alle funzioni e finalità costituzionalmente previste della pena.
Appare un’intenzione di miglioramento dell’edilizia penitenziaria sia sotto il piano dei servizi fondamentali, sia sotto con riferimento alle attività rieducative e lavorative, pur tuttavia con una decorrenza a partire dal 21 dicembre 2021 che appare fiaccare qualunque speranza di un mutamento immediato dell’attuale situazione.
Le modifiche dal punto di vista sanitario sono state apportate solo sotto il piano della salute fisica tralasciando completamente l’aspetto “mentale” preveduto dalla Legge delega, nel cui ambitopermane solo la modifica nominalistica degli O.P.G. in R.E.M.S., ma che sotto l’applicazione pratica poco muta.
Totalmente omesso è stato l’argomento relativo al diritto all’affettività del detenuto, pur essendo stato uno dei principali oggetti dei lavori preparatori alla Legge delega; sembrerebbe – ma è da verificarne nei prossimi mesi l’interpretazione pratica – che tale aspetto sia stato inserito con riferimento all’esecuzione minorile.
La previsione di un autonomo corpo normativo per l’esecuzione minorile compare con 43 anni di ritardo rispetto a quella ordinaria e la cui completa indipendenza applicativa dovrà essere verificata dagli Uffici e dai Tribunali di Sorveglianza per i Minorenni nei prossimi periodi; pur tuttavia la riforma in merito rappresenta un notevole passo in avanti, anche se fiaccato dalla mancata esclusione dell’ostatività ai benefici delle condanne inerenti reati di cui all’art. 4 bis o.p., come previsto originariamente.
Per quanto concerne l’aspetto procedurale della Sorveglianza si sottolinea l’inserimento della possibilità di decisioni de plano da parte del Magistrato di Sorveglianza in relazione a richieste di benefici penitenziari da parte di condannati liberi con pene sotto i 18 mesi e con riferimento alle istanze di sospensiva dell’esecuzione; occorre, ovviamente, vederne l’applicazione pratica e gli eventuali – se esistenti – benefici di sgravio del lavoro dei Tribunali di Sorveglianza, ma non si può non temere una ulteriore compressione del diritto di difesa, in particolar modo con esclusione del diritto di interlocuzione da parte del difensore in situazioni controverse nel caso di mancata rimessione all’udienza collegiale partecipata da parte del Magistrato di Sorveglianza.
Infine si deve sottolineare l’assenza totale di interventi di “potenziamento” delle misure alternative alla detenzione in carcere e degli Uffici di Esecuzione Esterna (U.E.P.E.) che sembra andare di pari passo con l’incremento di reati inseriti tra gli ostativi ai benefici nell’art. 4 bis o.p (con prospettive di ulteriori inserimenti nei prossimi mesi) – la cui costituzionalità dovrà essere verificata a breve – e che, inevitabilmente, comporteranno un ulteriore incremento della popolazione carceraria; in tal senso la situazione è drammatica essendo le carceri italiane già in sovraffollamento con percentuali che si aggirano intorno al 35-40% e, dunque, ponendosi l’Italia nuovamente a rischio di sanzioni da parte della Corte Europea per i Diritti dell’Uomo per le condizioni in cui versano le persone private della libertà personale.
 

***VIDEO*** “Análisis de la escala dogmática penal. Elemento común objetivo de la conducta” – Mtro. Jainer Enrique García (Club de Investigación de Derecho Penal)

 

To take part to the online discussion on the presentation and get the respective recognition, log in (using the form you find on the right or, if you are using  amobile device, below) or subscribe to IgiTo.
Important note: The opinions expressed are presented by the Author as a personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the point of view of IgiTo on the addressed matters. The information provided is general, has divulgative purpose and does not substitute the assistance of a professional. For informationinfo@igito.it.

***VIDEO*** “La independencia judicial en Venezuela” – Ab. Oreana Díaz Sánchez

 

To take part to the online discussion on the presentation and get the respective recognition, log in (using the form you find on the right or, if you are using  amobile device, below) or subscribe to IgiTo.
Important note: The opinions expressed are presented by the Author as a personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the point of view of IgiTo on the addressed matters. The information provided is general, has divulgative purpose and does not substitute the assistance of a professional. For informationinfo@igito.it.

***VIDEO*** “Justicia Transicional” – Mtra. Paola Sierra

 

To take part to the online discussion on the presentation and get the respective recognition, log in (using the form you find on the right or, if you are using  amobile device, below) or subscribe to IgiTo.
Important note: The opinions expressed are presented by the Author as a personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the point of view of IgiTo on the addressed matters. The information provided is general, has divulgative purpose and does not substitute the assistance of a professional. For informationinfo@igito.it.