Editing Openai/6923772e-905c-8010-9104-b8d007833c93 (section)

=== 3. Key Legal Findings ===

==== A. DUFC was indisputably non-compliant on 1 March 2025 ====
* As of 1 March 2025: - Trivela Pathway LP held 100% of DUFC, - Trivela held 80% of SIF, - Both clubs were owned/controlled by the same ultimate party.
* This violated Articles 5.01(b) and 5.01(c) UCC Regulations.

➡ No dispute on the facts. DUFC could not meet the MCO criteria on the assessment date.
11495_Arbitral_Award__for_publ._

==== B. The 1 March assessment date was validly adopted ====
* UEFA Executive Committee formally approved the amendment on 24 September 2024.
* UEFA communicated the change to all 55 member associations on 7 October 2024.
* The October 2024 Circular clearly stated the new date.
* “Submission for approval in full at a later date” referred to the complete annual edition of the Regulations—not to further approval of the rule change.

➡ The amendment took effect immediately upon ExCo approval in Sept 2024 and was properly communicated.
11495_Arbitral_Award__for_publ._

==== C. DUFC had actual notice well before 1 March ====

The Panel found the Club was aware or should have been aware, because:
# The October 2024 Circular was provided to: - All national associations (including FAI), - The Danish FA (which passed it to SIF), - All ECA member clubs (DUFC and SIF received it directly from ECA on 25 October 2024).
# The Circular was publicly available and uploaded to UEFA’s club portal, accessible to DUFC.
# DUFC’s owners (Trivela Group) received it.

➡ DUFC knew or should have known the 1 March date months in advance.
11495_Arbitral_Award__for_publ._

==== D. No violation of the principle of equal treatment ====

DUFC argued it was treated unequally because UEFA emailed certain clubs directly in December 2024.

CAS rejected this:
* The 35 reminders targeted only clubs already in known MCO structures at that time.
* In December 2024, Trivela had not yet acquired SIF (acquisition completed 18 December, but UEFA was only notified on 28 January 2025).
* UEFA cannot contact clubs it does not know are part of an MCO structure.

➡ UEFA’s additional reminders were not discriminatory.
11495_Arbitral_Award__for_publ._

==== E. No legitimate expectation for “blind trust” solutions ====

DUFC relied on the May 2024 Circular and past cases (Man City/Girona, Man Utd/Nice).
CAS rejected this:
* The blind trust solution was expressly: - Temporary; - Exceptional; - For the 2024/25 season only; - Not binding for future seasons.

➡ DUFC could not expect a blind trust to be accepted in 2025/26.
11495_Arbitral_Award__for_publ._

==== F. No breach of proportionality or excessive formalism ====

CAS held:
* The 1 March date is necessary for: - Integrity of competitions, - Adequate time for investigation, - Respecting appeal timelines.
* Allowing DUFC to fix ownership after 1 March (even before the draw) would: - Undermine legal certainty, - Endanger appeals of other clubs, - Jeopardize the competition calendar.

➡ Strict application of the deadline is justified and proportionate.
11495_Arbitral_Award__for_publ._

==== G. No violation of Swiss personality rights or EU competition law ====

DUFC alleged:
* Abuse of dominance (Art. 102 TFEU),
* Anticompetitive agreements (Art. 101),
* Violation of Swiss CC Art. 28 personality rights.

CAS dismissed all:
* DUFC failed to define any relevant market, anti-competitive conduct, or injury.
* MCO rules are eligibility criteria, not sanctions.
* Protecting integrity of competitions is an overriding public interest.

➡ No breach of EU or Swiss law.
11495_Arbitral_Award__for_publ._