One year, 3 months and 30 days after Benfica’s complaint that started the case, in connection with the alleged illegal actions in the appeal “to state courts and possible illegal participation / use of the player”, on Tuesday the FPF Disciplinary Board decided to file the so-called “The Pahinya Affair”. The investigation process was launched on February 9, 2021, one day after the relevant participation, after the famous episode with the 5th yellow card (bad) shown by João Palinier in the game with Boavista in Besse on January 26 of the previous year. The decision of the referee Fabio Verissimo, who acknowledged the error, under normal conditions, would have removed the Sporting midfielder from the derby with Benfica on 1 February. However, the player’s appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, with a preventive measure considered and granted by the Central Administrative Court of the South (due to the impossibility of a timely decision by the TAJ), ended, however, with the presence of Paligny at the date. The Portuguese was not in the starting lineup as Ruben Amorim did not prepare the game on this basis, but he will come out in the second half.
A long legal “war” between Sporting CP and the Federation ensued, culminating in January when the Supreme Administrative Court (STA) approved the FPF but left Paligna unpunished. The situation is unusual, but the process that went on for CD FPF is only now coming to an end.
Criticism of the committee of instructors and “disrespectful behavior”
In a statement released early this Tuesday night, the body chaired by Claudia Santos describes the review of the case, which took more than a year to complete, leaving clear criticisms of the League Instructors Commission and concluding about the process in particular that “disrespectful” actions took place. but they cannot be disciplined, since an appeal to the civil courts can only be authorized under the regulations if it was initiated by the club and not by the player, as in fact happened with Palinha.
“After following the instructions, the direction and closure of which is regulated by the Instructors’ Commission of the League, on May 23, 2022, I sent the case to the Disciplinary Board containing a proposal for archiving, given the absence of signs of a disciplinary offense, a few days ago the statute of limitations expired, without even suggesting the urgency of the present case and after about how the case was dismissed without explanation from the final decision (dated 02.10.2022) of the GNA in the so-called “Pahigny case”, criticizes the statement of the FPF.
What is going on: “06/06/2022 The Disciplinary Board decided to close the investigation process because the behavior in question, although disrespectful, does not have a statutory provision, since the regulation allows the application of sanctions only upon appeal to the courts of general jurisdiction. In this case, the appeal was filed by the player despite the fact that the club benefited from both the submission and the decision, therefore this Council cannot fill such a gap by analogy, as this aggravates the responsibility of the parties concerned, only the competent authorities must approve the RD, to pass judgment on the impartiality and fairness of the current regulatory decision,” concludes the Disciplinary Board.
A new rule in the resume
Let us recall that in order to avoid a repetition of the “Pahinya case”, the FPF, meanwhile, introduced a new rule that allows the accused to defend themselves in summary proceedings. Paligna pleaded that he had not been heard by the CD and it was because of this statement, which the Constitutional Court found unconstitutional, that the player decided to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. As of mid-February 2021, clubs were able to challenge the reports of league referees and delegates even in summary proceedings, such as that which determined Paligny’s suspension.
