Today we are going to analyze the Gordon Derrick V. FIFA (2016/A/4579) case about eligibility of individuals to participate in elections.
Mr. Derrick, the President of the Caribbean Football Union, announced his candidacy for President of Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football (“CONCACAF”). The President of CONCACAF also served ex-officio as a Vice-President of FIFA. Both the CONCACAF and FIFA positions required candidates for council to successfully pass eligibility checks. Although Derrick disclosed that he had been found guilty of an infringement of FIFA statutes and Code of Ethics by the FIFA ethics committee and was currently under investigation for a possible violation of FIFA Code of Ethics in regards to alleged mismanagement of FIFA funds, CONCACAF found him eligible to stand for office. However, FIFA concluded that Derrick could not be admitted as a candidate to the office of Vice-President or any office on FIFA Council. Derrick challenged FIFA’s decision.
The Panel considered that FIFA’s decision demonstrated at least prima facie evidence of violations of serious provisions of FIFA’s Code of Ethics, and in particular, mismanagement of FIFA funds. Relying on CAS decisions 205A/A/4311 and 2011/A/2426, the Panel stated: “… it is the Panel’s understanding that every person with significant duties in organizations related to sports should have an impeccable record”. (para. 86)
The panel held that high-ranking officials of sport organizations must in all circumstances appear as completely honest and beyond suspicion and “… Moreover, due to the recent events that happen in the past years with respect to football organizations, and in particular with FIFA, it has become necessary to increase and enhance the check and controls of the potential high officials that operate in these organizations”. (para 87)
Panel agreed with FIFA’s decision that Derrick did not meet the necessary requirements to become Vice-President of FIFA. The Panel also found that because the Audit Committee’s task was not to decide whether a candidate had violated the Code of Ethics but to determine whether the candidate had an impeccable integrity record, the decision was an administrative, not a disciplinary one. As an administrative decision, the Panel concluded that the principles of proportionality and presumption of innocence should not be applied.
