On June 5 the Administrative Court of Sports (TAD) He decided not to introduce a disciplinary file against the president of Laliga” Mr. Javier Tebas Medranoignoring the reasoning request of Higher sports council.
He did it with a neat resolution, covered with legal ceremony, but suffers from an essential contradiction: the resignation of his own dismissal Court To exercise the legal competence. It was preferable to wait – literally – for civil jurisdiction to conclude what, in the disciplinary field, is already legally enforceable.
The background demand is no less. In various meetings of the control of the management of Audiovisual Rights of Laliga – an entity created by the law – Javier Tebas Real Madrid and the FC Barcelona Participate in deliberations and votes, with the argument of an alleged conflict of interest.
The provincial court of Madrid He stated that such a conflict did not exist and that the exclusion took place without legal or legal justification. There is no factual doubt about it. What is discussed is whether such facts, in the administrative head office, are an abuse of authority.
The natural reaction of a disciplinary body must be the opening of the procedure and the full investigation of the case. But Tad would rather not have decided.
In addition to the specific case, the disturbing principle that is inaugurated is: the self -restriction of disciplinary power under the pretext of a maximalist interpretation of the principle of legal security.
If the three vowels that have signed a certain mood (Pilar Juárez” Marina Porta And Jaime Caravaca), The TAD cannot give the exercise of its competence to the existence of a definitive punishment in civil jurisdiction.
The abuse of authority – laid down in the Sports Act – does not require a previous judicial ruling on competence, conflicts of interest or arbitrariness. It is sufficient for facts, indications and an administrative legal assessment. That is exactly what has escaped.
The resolution therefore makes an institutional omission: abdication of its responsibility under the argument of caution that is actually paralyzing. What is presented to us as a respect for the judicial order is ultimately a respectful fear of acting.
And the Administrative – If any right – it is not a rhetorical exercise or an advisory function: it is public power at the service of general interest. When it is diluted in apologies or retreats, weakens its own legitimacy for convenience.
The precedent is therefore disturbing. If the protection of club rights against disciplinary actions depends on a civil court that makes an explicit explanation with the exact vocabulary (“arbitrariness”, “abuse”, “rude”), the sports disciplinary system remains suspended in practice.
And if an administrative court evokes his earlier doctrine to protect itself on new facts without assessing procedural changes (a decision on appeal, new elements of facts, the opinion about the Super League), then it holds to be on a dynamic body of guardianship and becomes the preserver of his own immobility.
It is especially serious that this decision was endorsed by Francisco de Miguel Pajuelo – President of the Tad -, Julio Álvarez – University Professor – and Alfonso Ramos del Molins – noted by the state.
With their voice they have signed an inhibition doctrine that empties disciplinary power from sports legislation. It was not about condemning, but about research. But they chose not to do this, so they give up the position that the law entrusts to them.
They did not defend legal certainty: they defended their institutional comfort. Neutrality does not consist of not acting. It consists of the independent of the law.
And what they have done here is to leave the system unprotected against an objective illegal action, accredited by two judicial resolutions. The responsibility they have escaped does not disappear with their voice. It is registered – and will – if a precedent is more than what happens when legal courage shines because of its absence.
What TAD did is not respect the legal certainty. It is to make the alibi for inactivity. Faced with serious facts, judge accredited, he has chosen to look the other way.
And while that happens, Mr Thebas explains himself a winner, as if the survival of a complaint was synonymous because they are right. It is not. What has remained as evidence is not the innocence, but the dismissal of the system to punish an illegality.
On the right can keep his mouth shut. But it does not release by silence.
*Miguel García Caba is a corresponding administrative and academic rights professor at the Royal Academy of Jurisprudence and legislation
