Shenentho: FC Mretebi v. Georgia (II) at the European Court of Human Rights - Shenentho

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

FC Mretebi v. Georgia (II) at the European Court of Human Rights 03/15/2010 Final Summary Report

#1 User is offline   Shenentho 

  • Vazha Chkhaidze
  • Group: Hosts
  • Posts: 849
  • Joined: 23-August 06
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 April 2010 - 10:15 PM

FC Mretebi v. Georgia (II) at the European Court of Human Rights
03/15/2010 Final Summary Report


Portable Document Format (PDF)


European Court of Human Rights
Strasbourg, France
Application no. 22523/09
FC Mretebi v. Georgia (II)

Copy: Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe

By fax and post
One counterpart enclosed for the transfer to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe


For fair satisfaction of the FC Mretebi v. Georgia application

[ The just compensation sum is indicated at the end article 7 “Reparation of Property Damage” ]



Tbilisi, 15 March 2010



1. FC Mretebi v. GFF case at FIFA

The facts of the case, as well as the GFF and FIFA resolutions confirm unequivocally that:
FC Mretebi was the relevant plaintiff, which suffered damage;
GFF was the relevant defendant, which caused damage to FC Mretebi, plaintiff.

However, FC Mretebi has not obtained the reparation of its property damage to this day.

The case was grounded on contracts (GFF typical form #5) as of 11 May 1990 and (GFF typical form #1) as of 5 December 1990 concluded between FC Mretebi and Mr. Kinkladze, professional footballer, as well as the contract on the transfer of Mr. Kinkladze, footballer from FC Mretebi to FC Dynamo Tbilisi as of 11 July 1992, under which FC Mretebi was eligible for 50% of the international transfer sum received by FC Dynamo Tbilisi.

FC Dynamo Tbilisi did not pay FC Mretebi the due sums 1.600.000 USD and subsequently, £625.000.

FC Mretebi appealed to GFF requesting the payment of the sums under the relevant national transfer contract by FC Dynamo Tbilisi.

GFF, the authority for the national transfer, resolved the following: FC Mretebi is eligible for 50% of the sum received by FC Dynamo Tbilisi for the international transfer of Mr. Kinkladze, footballer and obliged FC Dynamo Tbilisi to pay FC Mretebi due sums within the set term.

Neglecting the GFF resolution and in breach of the FIFA Charter, Dynamo Tbilisi appealed to the Tbilisi Vake District Court against GFF and FC Mretebi and requested the cancellation of the 11 July 1992 contract with FC Mretebi regarding the transfer of Mr. Kinkladze, the footballer. With no new circumstances detected, the Tbilisi Vake District Court instituted the proceedings regarding the case, with its time limit expired, within the GFF/FIFA competence and without the involvement of the defendant, heard it on 13 July 1998 and ruled that the national transfer contract concluded between FC Mretebi and FC Dynamo Tbilisi regarding the transfer of Mr. Kinkladze, the footballer be cancelled.

In breach of its and the FIFA Charters, the GFF did not secure the fulfillment of its fair resolution.

Acting v. GFF and FC Dynamo Tbilisi, FC Mretebi appeal to FIFA requesting that GFF fulfilled its own resolution.

In its very first directive as of 28 April 1997, FIFA pointed out to GFF that “it was an internal issue” and demanded immediate fulfillment of the GFF resolution.

GFF refused to fulfill its statutory obligations.

In breach of its Charter, FIFA did not take steps towards the fulfillment of its directives. On the contrary, it allowed the case to remain unsettled, and it was only on 24 March 2000 that it passed its final resolution, which was in gross violation of the FIFA Charter and Standing Orders. The compensation of 300.000 USD awarded in favor of Mretebi FC was not the sufficient reparation of the damage, which ruined it.

FC Mretebi have exhausted al the ways of appealing the case within the Law of Associations and, therefore, appealed to the Georgian courts.

Note: even the International Arbitration initiated by FIFA was not authorized to appeal its final resolution.



2. FC Mretebi v. GFF at the Supreme Court of Georgia

The case being completed within the FIFA Law of Associations on 4 April 2003, FC Mretebi filed a claim to the Tbilisi District Court requesting the reparation of the property damage regarding FC Mretebi v. GFF.

On 13 November 2003 the Tbilisi District Court rejected FC Mretebi’s request for the reparation of the damage.

On 5 January 2004, FC Mretebi filed a cassation claim to the Supreme Court of Georgia.

On 15 March 2004, the Supreme Court of Georgia refused to consider FC Mretebi’s claim as of 5 January 2004. Therefore the Tbilisi District Court resolution as of 13 November 2003 remains in effect.

All the ways to appeal the case in Georgia having been exhausted, FC Mretebi appealed to the International Court of Human Rights.



3. FC Mretebi v. Georgia at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)

On 25 October 2004, FC Mretebi filed an application to ECHR requesting that the Georgian Government be imposed the reparation of the property damage of approx. 14 (fourteen) million USD done to FC Mretebi.

By its resolution as of 31 July 2007, ECHR found the Georgian Government guilty for the breach of article 6.1 of the European Convention: the Right to Fair Trial and requested the restoration of the status quo in FC Mretebi v. GFF.

FC Mretebi’s appeal against the ECHR ruling filed within the set term, namely that the Georgian Government be imposed the reparation of the property damage done to it, came to nothing.

On the grounds of the ECHR decision as of 31 July 2007, on 14 March 2008, FC Mretebi once again appealed to Supreme Court of Georgia requesting the restoration of the status quo in the case FC Mretebi v. GFF.

On 21 July 2008, the Supreme Court of Georgia passed a cynical and even threatening resolution rejecting the ECRH request. Consequently the Georgian Government left in effect the Tbilisi District Court decision as of 13 November 2003.

FC Mretebi once again appealed to ECRH, requesting that the proceedings be repeatedly instituted regarding FC Mretebi v. Georgia and that the Georgian Government be imposed the reparation of the damage, the amount of which is being determined, (article 7 Reparation if the Property Damage; also the appendix: FC Mretebi’s report on the reparation of the property damage.

In its response as of 11 January 2010, ECHR requested the suspension of the case and its return to the initial point. As is made evident by its response, the Government intends to appeal to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for debating its request.

Thus, in 2010 the Georgian Government wants to return the case to the stance of 5 January 2004.

Meanwhile, FC Mretebi are protesting against the Government’s attempt of returning the case to the original point and wants the Government to be held responsible for its culpable conduct and the results thereof, so that the FC is compensated its damage. The issue will be dully specified (see article 6: The Breach of Article 1 of the First Protocol of the Convention; article 7: The Compensation of the Property Damage)

Now, I wish to draw ECHR’s attention to several issues, namely:

the Georgian Government had nothing to probe regarding the case for, relying on the facts thereof, the relevant institutions, GFF and FIFA had investigated all the circumstances. As early as 7 years ago the Government was to have studied the case with due care and no preconditions and restored the status quo, all the more so after the 31 July 2007 ECHR decision;

if the Government had sought the justice, it should have proved it by the fulfillment of the said ECHR decision. However, the Government decided to the contrary and stated that not only did it intend to go along with the ECHR recommendation but would not have done it even if ECHR had resolved it. It is evident, that upon the ECHR decision as of 31 July 2007, the Government became cynical enough to change its tactics of masked pressure to the unmasked one. The Georgian Supreme Court decision as of 21 July 2008, is a clear evidence of unavailability of fair trial in Georgia;

if the Government had sought justice regarding the case it would have advised FC Mretebi to settle the issue amicably within the term determined by Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, i.e. December last year. All the more so that FC Mretebi (the founders, creditors, investors, including the German entities and natural persons) have been relentless in their effort to restore justice over the last 15 years;

Note: Mr. Vazha Chkhaidze (the FC Mretebi nominee for the GFF presidency) v. GFF has been dragging on for the last eight years and it was only last year that the appeal was filed to the Supreme Court of Georgia, with no response arriving as jet. The hearing of the case and decisions (in writing) have taken years and plenty off effort.( See appendix : Mr. Gocha Svanidze’s address to the Chairperson of the Supreme Court of Georgia regarding Mr. Vazha Chkhaidze (the FC Mretebi nominee for the GFF presidency) v. GFF)). The results are bound to be unfavorable not only to the Georgian Government.

The Government’s response as of 11 January 2010 requesting ECHR to suspend the case and return it to the starting point after 7 years is truly outrageous. We are pretty sure that the violation of FC Mretebi rights would continue unabated. As is made evident in the response made by my legal representatives (See the remarks made by Messrs. Alexandre Baramidze and Gocha Svanidze to the Georgian Government’s response as of 11 January 2010), in its effort to avoid responsibility, the Government has been dragging out the case by manipulating with a draft law.

Note: if the Government cares about the State Budget it will “find” the culprits in the case via the Prosecutor’s Office and impose the Budget-payment of the relevant sums. Sure enough it has the leverages to do so. It should be said that on the grounds of the FC Mretebi claims, the Government has twice pumped millions into the Budget by the arrest –release of the former FC Dynamo Tbilisi and GFF President (the information was supplied to ECHR). However, the Government “did not” remember FC Mretebi at the time.

There are underlying international motives in the case (See article 4: Georgian Justice Regarding FC Mretebi; article 5: the FIFA Justice Regarding FC Mretebi) to be disclosed shortly in my book entitled “The Liberal-Democratic Farce”.

I hope that the forces who have been standing behind the successive governments in Georgia will mind what they are up to for the wrong cannot be put to right by statements. Back on 9 December 2003, I predicted that it all would turn out badly and urged the world to stand up against the unification (see Vaja Chkhaidze, Georgian presidential candidate, election 2004 / shenentho.com – Official website of Vaja ShenEntho Chkhaidze, Identification number: 105169905).
ქმენ, რაცა შენი ფერია! (რ)
0

#2 User is offline   Shenentho 

  • Vazha Chkhaidze
  • Group: Hosts
  • Posts: 849
  • Joined: 23-August 06
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 April 2010 - 10:31 PM

4. The Georgian Justice regarding the Case of FC Mretebi

With the Georgian Supreme Court’s refusal as of 15 March 2004 to hear the FC Mretebi cassation as of 5 January 2004 and the Tbilisi District Court decision as of 13 November 2003 taken into account, on 31 July 2007, the ECHR found the Georgian Government guilty of violating article 6(1) of the European Convention “The Right to Fair Trial” and requested the restoration of status quo in FC Mretebi v. GFF. Therefore, I’ll not focus on the issue.

Instead, I’ll concentrate on the following:
FIFA’s final resolution as of 24 march 2000;
the Tbilisi District Court decision as of 13 November 2003.

The evident question arises: what were the legal grounds for the FIFA’s and the Georgian Court’s decisions not to punish the culprits and/or repair property damage to FC Mretebi?

Unfortunately, the only reasonable answer can be that no legal grounds were specified in the said decisions or they have nothing to do with the FC Mretebi case.

Below follows my legal analysis in terms of the aforesaid question.

According to the final decision of FIFA as of 24 March 2000:

FC Mretebi is the relevant plaintiff, which suffered damage; FC Mretebi observes meticulously the FIFA and GFF Charters, Standing Orders, resolutions and directives; however, FIFA cannot disregard the Tbilisi Vake District Court decision as of 13 July 1998, which annulled the contended national transfer contract; therefore, FC Mretebi was made eligible for the transfer sum of Mr. Kinkladze, amateur footballer; also, FC Mretebi was cautioned about the way it appealed the 24 August 1999 decision made by the FIFA Players’ Status Committee;

GFF is the relevant defendant guilty of causing damage to FC Mretebi; after 4 years of litigation, the GFF refused to meet the obligations enshrined in its own and FIFA Charters, as well as the requirements reflected in the Standing Orders and directives; GFF is to meet the obligations reflected in its Charter, fulfill its decisions and the FIFA directives;

FC Dynamo Tbilisi is the relevant defendant guilty of causing damage to FC Mretebi, plaintiff; in gross breach of the GFF and FIFA Charters, Standing Orders and decision, FC Dynamo Tbilisi disregarded the GFF and FIFA directives; FC Dynamo Tbilisi be imposed a fine of 20 000 CHF in favor of the FIFA budget and it also must pay FC Mretebi $300 000, the transfer sum of Giorgi Kinkladze, amateur footballer; the said sums, properly calculated and insured shall be paid by FC Dynamo Tbilisi into the FC Mretebi budget out of the misappropriated millions of dollars.

It’s not my joke: as you’ll see below, that’s what the FIFA decision stated!

Unfortunately, the Georgian justice is as good at improvising as FIFA.

According to the 13 November 2003 Tbilisi District Court decision:

the GFF Charter does not form the grounds for the reparation of damages for it is not a contract to give rise to the obligation of compensating the damage;

the GFF Charter does not state that GFF is obliged to pay the transfer sum to its member, i.e. FC Mretebi;

FC Mretebi is guilty of the damage caused to it because it did not duly appeal the 13 July 1998 decision passed by the Tbilisi Vake District Court;

consequently, there are no legal grounds for the meeting the FC Mretebi request.

Frankly speaking, reviews rather than legal interpretation would be more appropriate to this theatre of the absurd.

The Tbilisi District Court disregarded the following incontestable facts:

the GFF Charter is actually a constituent treaty duly registered by the Georgian Court, which means that it has been acknowledged by the State, with its correspondence to the effective Law confirmed. Therefore, the GFF is obliged to comply with the actual legal norms and the Law of Associations of FIFA;

the GFF Charter and its Standing Orders (similar to those of FIFA) state unequivocally the details of the controversial cases like the one in question;

according to the Law of Associations of FIFA, neither FIFA, nor the Confederations or National Federations are obliged to pay the transfer sum. Consequently, at the Tbilisi District Court FC Mretebi did not raise the issue of its eligibility for the transfer sum to be paid by GFF or FIFA. As against it, FC Mretebi requested the reparation of the property damage caused to it. The market value of the international transfer of a footballer was referred to merely in connection with the determination of the amount of the damage;

FC Mretebi never needed to appeal the 13 July 1998 Tbilisi Vake District Court decision. On the contrary, it requested from GFF and FIFA the same as stted in the 13 July 1998 decision of the Tbilisi Vake District Court. Moreover, FC Mretebi and FIFA acknowledged and agreed to the Tbilisi Vake District Court decision as of 13 July 1998 made on the grounds of FC Dynamo Tbilisi claim. Namely, the annulment of the 11 July 1992 contract on the transfer of Mr. Giorgi Kinkladze, professional footballer from FC Mretebi to FC Dynamo Tbilisi. It is on the legal effects of the illegitimate decisions of the Tbilisi Vake District Court and GFF that FC Mretebi built on in filing its claim at the Tbilisi Regional Court.

The Tbilisi Vake District Court cancelled the contested national transfer contract of a footballer, which means that the property right under the typical amateur footballer contracts as of 1990 concluded with Mr. G. Kinkladze was violated by FC Dynamo Tbilisi. Otherwise, if no contract was concluded by FC Dynamo Tbilisi and FC Mretebi on the transfer of Mr. Kinkladze from the latter to the former, as purported by “cancellation”, Mr. Kinkladze ended up with FC Dynamo Tbilisi, while his contracts of a professional footballer concluded with FC Mretebi on 11 May 1990 (GFF form #5) and 5 December 1990 (GFF form #1) were still in effect. The aforesaid also means that Mr. Kinkladze, who had established legal relationships with FC Mretebi, arbitrarily left the club and signed up first for FC Dynamo Tbilisi and, subsequently, “Manchester City” and FC “Ajax Amsterdam”. It also means that by Mr. Kinkladze’s international transfer, FC Dynamo Tbilsi alienated another clubs (FC Mretebi’s property) worth $3.200.000 and £1.250.000 received by FC Dynamo Tbilisi from the footballer’s international transfers. The Georgian National Bank’s minimal annual interest should also be taken into account, since FC Mretebi failed to receive the ensured and budget calculated millions of dollars, and was consequently ruined.

It all happened through GFF’s participation and support (the 13 July 1998 Tbilisi Vake District Court decision did not specify GFF as a party). It was GFF that issued the national and international transfer certificates regarding Mr. Kinkladze, the FC Mretebi footballer. Otherwise, the said footballer would not have played in FC’s Dynamo Tbilisi or “Manchester City”. It all means that player Kinkladze signed up for first FC Dynamo Tbilisi and then FC “Manchester City” in breach of his contract concluded with FC Mretebi and the GFF and FIFA status of players and the transfer Regulations, which state: “within the effective period of the contract, a footballer cannot be transferred to another club unless the 3 interested parties: the club he leaves, the footballer and the recipient club reach an agreement” (article 12.4). “The club, seeking to receive a footballer, who maintains contractual relationships with another club, is to communicate in writing its interest to the latter before launching negotiations with the player” (article 13.1).

GFF disregarded the FIFA requests as of 28 April, 12 June, 29 July and 28 August 1997, as well as its directives as of 16 April and 6 June 1998 and, also, the effective resolutions passed by its Committee for Conflicts and executive Committee on 2 January 1997 and 1 September 1997 respectively and did not fulfill its contractual obligation, which was a gross violation of its own and FIFA Charters.

In line with the GFF Executive Committee directive as of 1991, out of 1 mln Soviet Rubles received by FC Mretebi for the transfer of Mr. Giorgi Kinkladze to FC Dynamo Tbilisi the said club (Mretebi) paid GFF 100 000 Rubles and footballer Kinkladze 200.000 Rubles. In fact, GFF deprived FC Mretebi of 1/3 of the national transfer sum, which was not returned even after repeated requests, and disqualified the club from the national championship for non-payment of the participation fee (a much lesser amount).

Finally, GFF dismissed the case with no interpretation to FC Mretebi, its member.

The evidence regarding the case make GFF the relevant defendant causing property damage to FC Mretebi via a gross violation of the GFF and FIFA Charters (constituent documents) by the disregard of the rights and obligations delegated to it by FIFA and the Georgian Courts.

The effective Law of Practice of Georgia specifies: “An association shall be responsible for the damage caused to third persons as a result of its Board members’ or the other representatives’ actions, which give rise to the obligation of the reparation of damages.”

With the aforesaid taken into account, upon completion of the case within the frameworks of the FIFA Law of Associations, on 4 April 2003, FC Mretebi appealed to the Tbilisi Regional Court with a claim against GFF, namely, reparation of the property damage. The GFF, FIFA and the Georgian authorities had been repeatedly notified.

Meanwhile, the Tbilisi Regional Court regarded that in order to avoid damage, FC Mretebi should have resorted to illicit actions. In fact, while still engaged in football, the club had to be in breach of the GFF and FIFA Charters in order to appeal to the Court, moreover, regarding the case still unsettled by FIFA. All the more so, that the FIFA and GFF Law of Associations, as well as the GFF Charter, provided for the disqualification of a member for the appeal to the Court. The FIFA norms are imperative for the national associations. In return, the latter organizations bear the obligation to observe the Law of Associations of FIFA. It should be noted that as said above, FC Mretebi had no need to appeal the Tbilisi Vake district Court decision as of 13 July 1998 passed in its favor, i.e. that the international transfer sum regarding footballer Kinkladze was due to FC Mretebi.

The FIFA Executive Committee resolution as of 24 March 2000 in favor of FC Mretebi v. GFF (and also FC Dynamo Tbilisi) is attached with the case. The Georgian Courts are not entitled to revise it under the imperative article of FIFA-Charter reflected in the that of GFF registered by the Georgian Court, which implies its acknowledgment by the State due to its confirmed compliance with the effective Law.

The FIFA Players’ Status Committee conclusion as of 24 August 1999 (fully shared by its Executive Committee’s final resolution as of 24 March 2000) stated as follows:

“the FIFA Players’ Status Committee Bureau upheld {The Tbilisi Vake}district Court decision and argumentation. Namely, the Bureau took into consideration the cancellation by the Court of t he 11.07.1992 contract. However, the Bureau emphasized the fact that footballer Kinkladze had been actually transferred from FC “Mretebi Tbilisi ” to FC Dynamo Tbilisi and that the former did not receive the compensation for the training of the player. Therefore, the Bureau was obliged to conclude that one of the parties had fulfilled its obligation of the player’s transfer, while the other did not (non-payment of the compensation). The Bureau concluded that it was the Federal Law Property transfer regarding the footballer performed by the two clubs with no contractual grounds (since the transfer contract had been cancelled by the Court). Therefore, the Bureau decided that the footballer’s training and upgrading sum had to be paid and urged the two clubs to agree over the transfer sum. If they were unable to reach an agreement over the training compensation within the term of 30 days upon the receipt of the decision, the case will be transferred to FIFA’s ad hoc commission, under article 17 of the Player’s Status and the Transfer Regulation. Besides, the Bureau considered that FC Dynamo Tbilisi was in gross breach of the FIFA Charter by appealing the case to the Court contrary to article 59.1 of the FIFA-Charter. Therefore, the Bureau resolved that FC Dynamo Tbilisi be imposed the fine of 20 000 CHF for the breach of the FIFA-Charter. The Bureau pointed out that GFF had been unable to settle the case drawn out for at least 4 years.”

Here is an abstract from the final resolution passed by the FIFA Executive Committee on 24 March 2000:

“the decision making body shares the view of the previous body regarding the part played by GFF, namely, that it was unable to settle the issue it drew out for at least 4 years. In this regard, the decision making body should say emphatically that it is a GFF obligation to settle the conflicts within the federation fairly and promptly”;

“the appeals authority does not agree with the FC Dynamo Tbilisi argumentation, namely, that by not filing an appeal, FC Mretebi Tbilisi agreed to the Tbilisi Court decision. FC Mretebi Tbilisi was always against the Courts interference with the case and pointed out rightly that by attracting the Court FC Mretebi Tbilisi breached the FIFA-Regulations. Consequently, the appeals authority does not agree with the argumentation of FC Mretebi Tbilisi and accentuates the fact that by bringing the case to the Court, the latter breached article 59 of the FIFA-Charter.”

According to GFF –Charter, FC Mretebi Tbilisi must have been expelled from GFF, while under the FIFA-Charter, GFF and FC Mretebi Tbilisi were at least to have been disqualified from the international matches. However, Mr. Joseph S. Blatter, the FIFA-President, did not think so.

“It was for those reasons that on {24 March 2000} {FIFA Executive Committee} passed the following resolution:

1. The FC Mretebi appeal be dismissed {without consideration} and the 24 August 1999 resolution passed by the first body be re-approved wholly and consummated by the determination of footballer Kinkladze’s transfer sum.

2. FC Dynamo be specified to that it must pay FC Mretebi 300 000 USD for the transfer of footballer Kinkladze within the term of 30 days from the receipt of the notice.

3. FC Dynamo be charged the fine of 20 000 USD for the breach of article 59 of the FIFA Charter. The fine shall be paid within 30 days from the relevant notice.

4. FC Mretebi be cautioned for its conduct.

5. The resolution is final.”

Although, seemingly redundant, I still have to comment.

The said 300 000 USD was eventually paid in a year, in 2001. However, the sum covered merely a minor part of FC Мрetebi’s debts. The club could not survive since it is the transfer revenues that form the main source of income of the small clubs.

That’s how an extremely successful, the first private professional football club in the USSR was ruined. It happened not only for the purpose of misappropriation of its sums and so that the GFF and FIFA presidents could win the election but because it did not fit into the corrupt Soviet and post-Soviet standards.

The relevant interpretations and evidence were available to the Tbilisi District Court. Moreover, the said Court had the evidence related to the facts below.
ქმენ, რაცა შენი ფერია! (რ)
0

#3 User is offline   Shenentho 

  • Vazha Chkhaidze
  • Group: Hosts
  • Posts: 849
  • Joined: 23-August 06
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 April 2010 - 11:17 PM

5. The FIFA Jurisdiction Regarding the Case of FC Mretebi

I should say emphatically that it is for prevention, i.e. for the facilitation of hearing the case FC Mretebi v. Georgia by ECHR that I’ll speak about the FIFA actions. In other words, FIFA’s decision is so legally ungrounded that without the specification of its motives, my comments may seem questionable. As to the responsibility of FIFA and Mr. Joseph Blatter, its president, it will shortly be evaluated by different authorities.

Two key questions arise from the final decision passed by the FIFA Executive Committee on 24 March 2000:

Why was not the appeal heard or what was FC Mretebi cautioned for?
What is the 300 000 USD all about?

There is no simple answer to the questions. First the appeal.

Why should have FC Mretebi appealed the 24 August 1999 resolution passed by FIFA Players’ Status Committee if:

It was in favor of the club and against GFF and FC Dynamo Tbilisi;

It was an interim decision in terms of both its content and the form. In fact the said decision enclosed with the case is the information supplied by the FIFA General Secretariat. In other words, it is an abstract and not the resolution per se;

no-one could have been aware of its results;

the resolution obliged the relevant FIFA members to negotiate the problem. FIFA requested a meeting in Bonn, Germany, at its own expense, since the FC Mretebi Board of Partners, me included, was in Germany. I refused to get involved in the negotiations and delegated the relevant powers to my co-president and the vice-president. Therefore, the meeting was held at the GFF office in Tbilisi;

the Meeting did not give the desired results;

it all took so long that the appeal of the resolution, even it had been desirable or necessary was impossible due to the expired term.

Therefore, FIFA is resorting to a blatant deception for the simple reason of its unwillingness that the FC Mretebi complaint lodged with the FIFA Executive Committee be considered. As a matter of fact this book in the Georgian and German languages is the proof provided by way of the complaint {Beschwerde} and not the appeal {Widerspruch} against the FIFA president Joseph Blatter, and it contains the request for the punishment of all the culprits (article 49 of the complaint)!

The letter and the complaint were submitted at FIFA in the German language:

Brief des FC Mretebi an Herrn Blatter vom 11.02.2000;
Die Beschwerde des FC Mretebi vor dem Exekutivkomitee der FIFA vom 11.02.2000.

The complaint details the case until 2000 and contains both the accurate legal comments per each period and the answers to all the questions.

It exposes the criminal activities of the international alliance led by the Joseph Blatter, FIFA president. It was for this reason that the said person started corresponding with me, president of a low profile club. Incidentally, it is against the FIFA practice to do so since FIFA communicates with a club via the national association and that only in the exceptional cases.

However, Joseph Blatter stated that the complaint against him, submitted to the FIFA Executive Committee was the appeal of the FIFA Players’ Status Committee resolution and did not transfer it to the FIFA Executive Committee.

As a matter of fact, the 24 March 2000 final resolution passed by the FIFA Executive Committee belonged to the appeals commission of several members formed by the FIFA president on a case-by-case basis, with its resolutions being final. I did not object to it providing it restored justice in the FC Mretebi case and brought FC Dynamo, GFF and the culprits within FIFA to justice (article 49 of the appeal).

I dispatched the complaint to directly FIFA president and attached a letter also addressed to Joseph S. Blatter:

“FC Mretebi v. FIFA

Dear President,

For the sake of the international football, FC Mretebi and I personally have made a number of concessions regarding the case. However, on 11.02.2000, today I am submitting a complaint at the FIFA Executive Committee (attached). As made evident by the FC Mretebi complaint as of 11.02.2000, the said case is of extreme importance and calls for immediate settlement. That is why I decided to address you. FC Mretebi submitted its complaint to the FIFA Executive Committee back on 21 September 1998, which against the FIFA general Secretary’s pledge was not transferred to the Executive Committee. Meanwhile, according to the FIFA Administration’s directives to GFF as of 29.07.1997, 16.04.1998 and 06.07.1998, the case should have been transferred to the FIFA Executive Committee even without the FC Mretebi’s complaint.

Under article 22 of the FIFA Charter, the settlement of the case calls for the convocation of a meeting of the Committee for Urgent Matters.

However, once again for the sake of the world football, I would not object to the consideration of the case by the commission under article 22 of the Regulation FIFA Players’ Status and Transfer instead of the FIFA Committee for Urgent Matters.

Anyway, the settlement of the case means that by 24.02.2000, FIFA meets the requirement, reflected in article 49 of the FC Mretebi claim as of 11.02.2000.

AS you will know by my letter to you as of 25.08.1999 my authority of the FC Mretebi president was legally restricted by the Board of the Partners. By its resolution as of 30.07.1999, the said board entrusted me with a single-handed pursuance of the case. Since then, I have suspended the activities of the German and Swiss lawyers, but it cannot continue like this. Therefore:
1. If FIFA meets the FC Mretebi requirements until 24 February 2000, the club will regard the case settled. Incidentally, my book to be published in the Georgian, German, English, French, Italian, Spanish, Russian languages this year will understandingly reflect the case.
2. Unless FIFA meets the FC Mretebi requirements until 24.02.2000, I will immediately issue the relevant powers of attorney and expose the FIFA-GFF-Dynamo criminal alliance by bringing the case to the Prosecutor’s Office, the Court and the media. All the relevant forces will stand behind me. You know only too well that there are quite a few of them. However, it will understandingly harm the interests of football given the current developments (the Bosman-case, the super league problem, the world community v. IOC etc.)

Please, sent the correspondent to the new address of the FC Mretebi office in Germany.

Thank you for the prompt reaction. “

The FIFA president directly acknowledged the receipt of the letter. It was as a result thereof and the complaint that on 24 March 2000 the FIFA Executive Committee passed the final resolution, which destroyed FC Mretebi.

However, it was not the end of its troubles! In a few days after the said final resolution I, the founding partner and Geschäftsführer of a German company, all of a sudden was brought to Georgia and left destitute. But I will do what I vowed to do.

There is another important detail in the case. Namely, a letter addressed to FC Mretebi (cc: GFF) by Mr. Michel Zen-Ruffinen, the than deputy Secretary General of FIFA dated with 26 September 1997. I received it directly from FIFA, in Germany, because they did not trust the GFF leadership of the time as they stated in the letters addressed to FC Mretebi.

As a matter of fact the letter is the FIFA guaranty to FC Mretebi:

“Please, be advised that FIFA will secure the fulfillment by GFF of its own decision.

Thank you for the due regard to the aforesaid.”

It was an unprecedented case. The FIFA guarantee letter has been filed with a number of banks and creditors in Germany and it was on relying thereupon that they resumed support to FC Mretebi. However, FIFA’s promise did not come good.

“Why”,- various institutions, including the Court, ask FC Mretebi. Understandingly, the same question will be raised during the hearing at the ECHR.

Obviously, FIFA could have easily kept the promise, given the leverages contained in its Charter, such as the international suspension of GFF and FC Dynamo, the suspension of membership or even expulsion of GFF.

It was for that reason that on the day of his election the GFF president, Mr. Merab Zhordania, the FC Dynamo president, who had been provided the Tbilisi Vake District Court decision as of 13 July 1998, publicly stated:

“If FIFA had determined that the sum was payable, we would have done so. We have been vindicated in Georgia. It is now FIFA’ turn to do so. (“Sarbieli” news paper, 23.10.1998). “

But justice was not on the agenda of Mr. Joseph S. Blatter, the FIFA Secretary General and the candidate for its presidency. The topic was turned into a joke by the Press of the time. Mr. Joseph S. Blatter needed the votes of the national football federations of the post–Soviet countries to beat his rival, Lennart Johansson, the UEFA president. Mr. Nodar Akhalkatsi, the GFF president made no secret of his support to Lennart Johansson. However, Mr. Kakhi Assatiani, the Georgian Minister of Sports and the father-in-law of Mr. Merab Zhordania, FC Dynamo president could easily secure the votes of the post-Soviet football federations. That’s how Mr. Joseph S. Blatter had the FC Dynamo Tbilisi leadership tightly in grip and obtaining the necessary votes through them was elected FIFA president. In just a five month, Mr. Merab Zhordania was granted the office of GFF president. It all happened owing to the FC Mretebi’s long drawn-out case. Or else, Mr. Zhordania would have ended up in prison: inter alia, Mr. Joseph S. Blatter had the forged contract on the transfer of footballer Kinkladze from FC Dynamo Tbilisi FC Manchester City. Incidentally, Mr. Zhordania was repeatedly arrested for financial scams before and thereafter. Understandingly, only a smaller part of the money sank in his pockets.

On its part, the GFF leadership also turned the FC Mretebi case to its account, namely, to make Mr. Merab Zhordania, the FC Dynamo Tbilisi President drop out of the forthcoming GFF presidential race. The GFF leadership came under an immense pressure from both FIFA and the Georgian Government. The international criminal alliance involved Messrs: Joseph S. Blatter, FIFA President, Merab Zhordania, GFF President, his subordinate, Georgian president Edward Shevardnadze and Sports Minister Kakhi Asatiani, Merab Zhordania’s father-in-law. The developments were among the reasons behind Mr. Nodar Akhalkatsi’s (GFF President) death and Mr. Zhordania took the office.

FC Mretebi complaint as of 11 February 2000, which eventually reached (albeit by a roundabout way) the FIFA Executive Committee, nearly cost Mr. Joseph S. Blatter his career. As said above, Mr. Michel Zen-Ruffinen closely followed Mr. Joseph S. Blatter’s instructions regarding the FC Mretebi case. Taking advantage of the FC Mretebi complaint, which I dispatched, Mr. Joseph S. Blatter’s rivals in the FIFA presidential race lodged a complaint at the FIFA Executive Committee. You will remember that I had warned FIFA President about my further steps. The results of the FIFA presidential election were hanging in the air, but Mr. Blatter survived by dismissing Secretary General Zen-Ruffinen.

The said complaint caused another scandal over the venue of the last World Cup, which was to have been hosted by South Africa but eventually, it was held in Germany.

These and other incidents, including my abortive contracted assassination, are reflected in my book “The Liberal-Democratic Farce”, of which the said complaint is a part.

Ever since 1998, I’ve been telling my partners and lawyers that the case will finally be heard at the US Senate and will stir a bigger scandal than the IOC did in the late 90’s.

Now, to the $300.000. Due to the aforesaid circumstances Mr. Joseph S. Blatter (who formed the Appeals Commission of FIFA’s Executive Committee) allotted to FC Mretebi the compensation for the so-called amateur footballer. To this end, he had relied upon the Tbilisi Vake District Court’s decision as of 13 July 1998.

It should be said that in the complaint I had exposed FIFA’s unreasonable scheme. Meanwhile, the FIFA President used the Court decision, which formed the legal grounds for the penalty of GFF and FC Dynamo Tbilisi leaderships and awarding double the amount to FC Mretebi, to rescue the international criminal alliance and to ruin FC Mretebi!

According to its Charter, FIFA was not entitled to interfere with the national transfer: “the internal issue” (the 28.04.1997 FIFA directive). As to the FC Dynamo Tbilisi/FC “Manchester City”/ FC “Ajax Amsterdam” international transfers, they were not disputed. Therefore, the FIFA Charter and the relevant Regulation did not form the grounds for determination of the transfer sum, let alone the one concerning an amateur player. What FIFA was to have done was securing the fulfillment of the GFF decision. In other words, FIFA should have followed its own directives, providing for the inevitable penalty for GFF and FC Dynamo Tbilisi.

I should say that from the outset, Mr. Kinkladze, was a professional footballer with FC Mretebi, with his pay unprecedented for Georgia of the time, so much so that even FIFA was amazed. Moreover, FC Mretebi paid him after making all the budget payments, which was also quite uncommon to Georgia of the time!

Finally, here are some of the public statements attached with the case:

The opinion of the governmental commission formed by President Shevardnadze’s decree to probe the problems regarding the Georgian football: “In 1995, FC Dynamo Tbilisi received 3.2 mln USD for the transfer of Mr. Kinkladze to FC “Manchester City” but did not give the due share to FC Mretebi, the footballer’s original club”. (“Sarbieli” newspaper, 05.08.2000; “11X11” newspaper, 05.08.2000);

Public statement issued by Mr. Nodar Andriadze, the GFF vice-president and a member of the said commission regarding the 2 January 1997 decision, according to which FC Dynamo Tbilisi was to pay 50% from Kinkladze’s international transfer sum: “we have cancelled our resolution. . . . . otherwise, FC Dynamo Tbilisi would have been barred the way to the international football. . . . . so, changing its initial resolution, the Executive Committee cancelled the Dynamo-Mretebi contract. . . . . Dynamo has survived”. (“Sarbieli” newspaper, 18.09.1998);

Public statement issued by Mr. Merab Zhordania, the GFF and FC Dynamo Tbilisi President concerning me, Vaja Chkhaidze, presidential candidate in the GFF 2002 presidential election: “I have nothing to say against Vaja Chkhaidze, who has contributed a lot to football in Georgia. It just happened that we fell out on some issues but it’s no obstacle to the cooperation. Was it wrong that I employed all the means to secure my team’s victory at the time?” (“Sports News” newspaper, 22.07.2002). The newspaper’s comment: “so, Mr. M. Zhordania, the GFF President admitted to have resorted to a number of legitimate and illegitimate methods to avoid the payment of the share of footballer Kinkladze’s transfer amount due to FC Mretebi. A slip of a tongue or not, he exposed himself, which implies that he’s not going to stop at anything to sweep victory in the forthcoming election may it take employing the means well-tested during his career of a football official”.

With the aforesaid taken into account and upon completion of the proceedings within the framework of the FIFA Law of Associations, FC Mretebi filed a claim against GFF to the Georgian Court, demanding the restitution of the property damage. As said above, I had repeatedly warned about it GFF, FIFA and the Georgian Government.
ქმენ, რაცა შენი ფერია! (რ)
0

#4 User is offline   Shenentho 

  • Vazha Chkhaidze
  • Group: Hosts
  • Posts: 849
  • Joined: 23-August 06
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 April 2010 - 11:28 PM

6. The Breach of Article One of the Conventions’ First Protocol

The aforesaid facts were stated in detail in the 11 February 2000 complaint lodged by FC Mretebi at the FIFA Executive Committee, the claim as of 4 April 2003 filed to the Tbilisi Regional Court, cassation as of 5 January 2004 filed to the Supreme Court of Georgia, as well as the 25 October 2004 application with relevant interpretations and evidence provided to the ECHR.

It was thereupon that the ECHR relied in accusing the Georgian Government of breaching article 6(1) - “The Right to Fair Trial” - of the European Convention of Human Rights and requested the restoration of the status quo.

In response, the Georgian Government did not acknowledge the said ECHR decision and refused to fulfill it.

The violation of the FC Mretebi Tbilisi property rights by the Georgian Government, which resulted in its ruin, is obvious. By doing so, the Government breached article one – “The Protection of Property” – of the First Protocol of the European Convention, the first paragraph of which states: “All the natural persons and legal entities are entitled to unhindered use of their property. Noone can be deprived property save when it is in public interest and on the terms reflected in the Law and the general principles of the International Law”.

The Government’s attempt to start the case anew is totally unacceptable to FC Mretebi, which wants the Georgian Government to be held responsible for its illegitimate actions and the ensuing results: the property damage suffered by the club, which must be compensated.



7. The Compensation of the Property damage

FC Mretebi provided the detailed information and audit opinion regarding the compensation of the property damage it suffered. The proof is available to the Court.

There is no sense in analyzing the issue in detail since as a result of the Government’s illegitimate actions, the club has been ruined and its rehabilitation will cost tens of millions of euros.

Request: the Georgian Government be imposed the compensation of the property damage caused to FC Mretebi in the amount of 18 185 325 (eighteen million, one hundred and eighty five thousand, three hundred and twenty-five) euros.

The calculation of the sum submitted separately had been made with due regard to the market value of footballer Kinkladze’s transfer right and the Georgian National Bank’s minimal annual interest (see appendix: FC Mretebi’s Report on the Compensation Amount for its Property Damage).



8. Proofs

Regarding the proofs of the case, ECHR advised us that the Court did not want repeated submission thereof for they were available since the first hearing. However, we are ready to dispatch the whole package of documents at request.



9. Appendix

1. The FC Mretebi report on the amount of the compensation for the property damage.

2. Mr. Gocha Svanidze’s (lawyer) address to the chairperson of the Supreme Court of Georgia regarding Vaja Chkhaidze (the GFF presidential candidate) v. GFF.

FC Mretebi
Vazha Chkhaidze
President
ქმენ, რაცა შენი ფერია! (რ)
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users