20 - Dani Olmo

[Joan]

The fact that there is a precautionary measure now in place does not invalidate such claim.
It can be made, and be sure: it will be made by many clubs.
(Remember two years ago when Gavi's precautionary measure was lifted and he played against Elche, where we won 4-0, Elche then tried to make a legal case of damage because Gavi played 'as a 1st team player'
the only thing that saved us back then was that Gavi was considered as having played as a Barca B player)

That's a different case. The provisional order for Gavi was lifted in March, and Barcelona played Elche in April. The provisional order was no longer active.

But since you mentioned it... a propos the scenario you're describing where clubs sue for damages during the period of a valid provisional order. If it's sure to happen in Olmo's case, why did no club that faced us while Gavi's provisional order was active sue Barca back then?

You're claiming that clubs will file claims in Olmo's case, but no club pursued legal action while the provisional order for Gavi was in place. It's gonna be the same this time.

Think of this example:
There is a job opening in the public sector, many people apply, one gets hired. Another candidate thinks this hiring is unfair and takes the case to court. The court PRECAUTIONARY allows the person hired to continue work there.
After some months the court rules that the candidate appealing was right, and they should have gotten the job instead. That person can then demand COMPENSATION for those months, as he did not receive income he was liable to.

This happens all the time when there is (at least financial) incentive or interest at stake.
It doesn't retroactively invalidate the precautionary order.
But it does claim harm of interest during the precautionary period

It can happen, and it will happen, be sure, if the court eventually rules against us

In the job example, the candidate had a direct right to the position, and the court ruling confirmed that they were deprived of something they were legally entitled to. Here the opposing clubs have no direct right over who Barcelona fields. That alone makes it a much tougher to pursue even if they had grounds.

But more importantly, the registration was made under a valid provisional order. In your example, the court found that the hiring was unlawful. At worst, the court here rules that LaLiga's initial rejection was correct, but that wouldn't retroactively make Olmo's registration unlawful, because it was done in compliance with a valid court order at the time.

The employee in your example was hired illegally, but Olmo was not registered illegally. He was registered under a perfectly legal provisional order.

Hope you see the difference.

 

[Joan]

Not feeling lazy tonight so I put together a list of matches Gavi played while the provisional order was in place, between January 31 and March 13:

Betis - Barcelona 1-2
Barcelona - Sevilla 3-0
Villarreal - Barcelona 0-1
Barcelona - United 2-2
Barcelona - Cadiz 2-0
Almeria - Barcelona 1-0
Real Madrid - Barcelona 0-1
Barcelona - Valencia 1-0
Athletic Bilbao - Barcelona 0-1

There's a list of potential clients, Birdy. Apparently, they all have a case. Weird none of them thought to sue back then.

 

[Birdy]

That's a different case. The provisional order for Gavi was lifted in March, and Barcelona played Elche in April. The provisional order was no longer active.

Now a propos the scenario you're describing where clubs sue for damages during the period of a valid provisional order. If it's sure to happen in Olmo's case, why did no club that faced us while Gavi's provisional order was active sue Barca back then?

You're claiming that clubs will file claims in Olmo's case, but no club pursued legal action while the provisional order for Gavi was in place. It's gonna be the same this time.

In the job example, the candidate had a direct right to the position, and the court ruling confirmed that they were deprived of something they were legally entitled to. Here the opposing clubs have no direct right over who Barcelona fields.

But there is sth more important. The registration was made under a valid provisional order. In your example, the court found that the hiring was unlawful. At worst, the court here rules that LaLiga's initial rejection was correct, but that wouldn't retroactively make Olmo's registration unlawful, because it was done in compliance with a valid court order at the time.

The employee in your example was hired illegally, but Olmo was not registered illegally. He was registered under a perfectly legal provisional order.

Hope you see the difference.

1) They can't sue during the provisional order period. Either in the Gavi case or now.
Because their legal claim is absolutely dependent on the final verdict. Since the final verdict is not YET known, they can't claim damage/harm.

If the final verdict rules in favor of Barca, and Olmo should have been registered after Jan.1st, then they don't have a case. If, on the contrary, final verdict rules that Olmo should have NOT been registered, the precautionary decision was deemed essentially wrong by the same body itself. And, even though, the decision, can't retroactively change, harm/benefit claims can very well be made for that period.

I think it's very simple to see why

2) LL teams, and any team facing Barca, have very much a legal right to claim harm/benefit depending on who Barca fields, in the case a Barca player is eventually deemed illegitimate.
Whole games and results have been overruled in the past by courts in such cases, and you know such examples.

The provisional order has PROVIOSIONAL legality as well, and not eternal legality.
Meaning that if the final verdict rules Olmo should not be registered, it renders the provisional order itself wrong.
From that moment legal claims can be made for everything that happened during the provisional period.

The point of the job example is whether illegitimate harm/benefit claims can retroactively be made during precautionary or provisional periods. Which they very well can...
The employee in my example was ordered to keep his job legally: under a provisional order, with provisional legal status. The fact that the final verdict overturned the provisional ruling made the hiring illegal as you claim.

 

[Birdy]

It doesn't matter if financial damage happens if Olmo plays against them, because Olmo is eligible to play. So you still didn't indicate what exactly is the illegal part? The highest court that issued a decision in this case decided he can play, so he plays.

The illegality is... ? This is here you have to step in and make things clearer so a discussion can be had.

See above

 

[Birdy]

Not feeling lazy tonight so I put together a list of matches Gavi played while the provisional order was in place, between January 31 and March 13:

Betis - Barcelona 1-2
Barcelona - Sevilla 3-0
Villarreal - Barcelona 0-1
Barcelona - United 2-2
Barcelona - Cadiz 2-0
Almeria - Barcelona 1-0
Real Madrid - Barcelona 0-1
Barcelona - Valencia 1-0
Athletic Bilbao - Barcelona 0-1

There's a list of potential clients, Birdy. Apparently, they all have a case. Weird none of them thought to sue back then.

They don't have a case, since Gavi had a double status: both 1st team player and Barca B player.

- If Gavi had been found correctly registered as Barca 1st team player, all good, no case for them...

- if Gavi had been found INcorrectly registered as Barca 1st team player, then Barca had a 'fall-back' alternative: that Gavi could still play as Barca B player. In this case, teams still don't have a case because they could not demand Gavi to have been excluded even as a Barca B player.

That saved our ass back then. That's why Elche's appeal was rejected. Elche was the team that tried it and failed. No one tried it afterwards, because they would have been met with the same luck

- In Olmo's case, it's different. There is no 'fall-back' option.
It's either Olmo should exist as Barca player this period, or he shouldn't.

 

[serghei]

See above

And these clubs are supposed to sue... CSS to the Supreme Court for the provisional order to have the players registered? Sounds like something completely ridiculous.

 

[Birdy]

And these clubs are supposed to sue... CSS to the Supreme Court for the provisional order to have the players registered? Sounds like something completery ridiculous.

Yes, they could claim sporting (and financial) harm in the games Olmo played against them in the case the final verdict is against Olmo's registration.
Read above...

 

[Joan]

1) They can't sue during the provisional order period. Either in the Gavi case or now.
Because their legal claim is absolutely dependent on the final verdict. Since the final verdict is not YET known, they can't claim damage/harm.

If the final verdict rules in favor of Barca, and Olmo should have been registered after Jan.1st, then they don't have a case. If, on the contrary, final verdict rules that Olmo should have NOT been registered, the precautionary decision was deemed essentially wrong by the same body itself. And, even though, the decision, can't retroactively change, harm/benefit claims can very well be made for that period.

I think it's very simple to see why

2) LL teams, and any team facing Barca, have very much a legal right to claim harm/benefit depending on who Barca fields, in the case a Barca player is eventually deemed illegitimate.
Whole games and results have been overruled in the past by courts in such cases, and you know such examples.

The provisional order has PROVIOSIONAL legality as well, and not eternal legality.
Meaning that if the final verdict rules Olmo should not be registered, it renders the provisional order itself wrong.
From that moment legal claims can be made for everything that happened during the provisional period.

The point of the job example is whether illegitimate harm/benefit claims can retroactively be made during precautionary or provisional period. Which they very well can.
The employee in my example was was kept at his job legally: under a provisional order, with provisional legal status. The fact that the final verdict overturned the provisional ruling made the hiring illegal as you claim.

Nope.

You claim that if the final verdict rules against Barcelona, claims can be made retroactively for the provisional period because the order would be deemed "wrong". That's not how the law works. Provisional orders grant temporary rights to actions taken while the case is under review. Even if the final verdict later overturns the provisional order, it does not invalidate actions that were lawfully taken under it.
Punishing someone for complying with the provisional order would undermine the entire purpose and no one would trust or follow provisional rulings.

You keep insisting that opposing clubs have a direct right to who Barcelona fields. They don't but it's besides the point so I'll just move on.

In your example, compensation was awarded because the court ruled the initial hiring was illegal from the start. Barcelona registered Olmo legally under a court issued provisional order. There's no case for retroactive claims. The employee in your example was hired illegally, while Olmo was registered legally under a court order. That's the main difference here.

Provisional orders are not provisionally legal. Provisional orders carry full legal force during the period they are in effect. Even if a final verdict later overturns the provisional ruling, it doesn't retroactively render actions taken under that order unlawful.

I'll leave you at this.

 

[Joan]

They don't have a case, since Gavi had a double status: both 1st team player and Barca B player.

- If Gavi had been found correctly registered as Barca 1st team player, all good, no case for them...

- if Gavi had been found INcorrectly registered as Barca 1st team player, then Barca had a 'fall-back' alternative: that Gavi could still play as Barca B player. In this case, teams still don't have a case because they could not demand Gavi to have been excluded even as a Barca B player.

That saved our ass back then. That's why Elche's appeal was rejected. Elche was the team that tried it and failed. No one tried it afterwards, because they would have been met with the same luck

- In Olmo's case, it's different. There is no 'fall-back' option.
It's either Olmo should exist as Barca player this period, or he shouldn't.

It was a joke, obviously. Didn't imply they could sue because he played, but because he played as a first team player. Of course they had no case. They'd have no case even without the fall back option.

The Elche case is irrelevant, since we faced them after the provisional order was lifted. Different situation entirely. They would have a case if not for the fall back. But then he wouldn't be registered and wouldn't play the match. Our ass was never in any danger.

 

[companyofcules]

You can't sue a court, given this is a fake court for sport. But in general you can't sue a court. What bulshit law are you talking about?
Taking a court to court for liability for a protection measure is absolete madness. You have the procedure if you can stand in court and that's it.
The only exception to this in EU is for TFEU breakings (but the state pays) or against human rights violations.
And then La Liga should rule ab initio, while gathering evidence for the case. That was a breach of general law principles and a huge fuck up by them. You can't run the prescription time in a procedure after the part submited a request to a ruling body. That is basic law 1/1. So Olmo should have not been deregistered untill the final verdict or the verdict should have been made IN TIME without requesting new data. Makes no legal sense to me.
If you request data, it matters less when you give the verdinct, the date of te aplication should be the date when FC Barcelona requested the registration to be extended. That's how prescription works and law works. But anyway, I refuse to talk sport law, is for idiots without a real job.

 

[Birdy]

Nope.

You claim that if the final verdict rules against Barcelona, claims can be made retroactively for the provisional period because the order would be deemed "wrong". That's not how the law works. Provisional orders grant temporary rights to actions taken while the case is under review. Even if the final verdict later overturns the provisional order, it does not invalidate actions that were lawfully taken under it.
Punishing someone for complying with the provisional order would undermine the entire purpose and no one would trust or follow provisional rulings.

You keep insisting that opposing clubs have a direct right to who Barcelona fields. They don't but it's besides the point so I'll just move on.

In your example, compensation was awarded because the court ruled the initial hiring was illegal from the start. Barcelona registered Olmo legally under a court issued provisional order. There's no case for retroactive claims. The employee in your example was hired illegally, while Olmo was registered legally under a court order. That's the main difference here.

Provisional orders are not provisionally legal. Provisional orders carry full legal force during the period they are in effect. Even if a final verdict later overturns the provisional ruling, it doesn't retroactively render actions taken under that order unlawful.

I'll leave you at this.

I like that we debate civilly and politely.

To the point:
In my example, there is also a provisional court order involved. That's why I picked this example. And the employee that lost was working LEGALLY under the provisional order. If you agree that in my example the candidate that appealed and won has legal rights to financial compensation for the provisional period, then you can't say that teams don't have same rights in the Olmo case.
It's pretty identical cases of claiming retroactively financial (or other) liability

Then, I think you conflate two different concepts:
1) illegality/legality of an action. I am not discussing this here.
Provisional orders have legal force during the period they are in effect, correct.
I don't disagree with that. That's why Barca is legal by playing Olmo now.

2) Harm/benefit claims. These can very well be made retroactively.
The catch is that it all depends on whether the final verdict is in harmony with the precautionary measure or not.
If an entity deems that their interests got harmed (financially or otherwise) during a period of a precautionary measure, they can very well make a legal case.

To understand why this is the case, think that it is already implied in the explanation of the precautionary measure by the CSD court (read it from Khaled's post above): The CSD have taken into account that there would have been potentially 'unreparable' harm/damage to Barcelona and Olmo had they decided to uphold LL's decision of non-registration and not overturn it (even provisionally). In essence, they admit that had they decided to uphold LL's position, THEN if the final verdict ruled that Olmo should have been registered instead, Barcelona and Olmo personally could have a strong case for claiming damage suffered DURING the precautionary period.

If your logic above were correct for the provisional period:
in the hypothetical scenario where CSD had PRECAUTIONARY decided contrary to what they did and maintained LL's deregistration, Barca could not claim damage inflicted during that period EVEN IF the final verdict in April rules against LL and in favor of Olmo/Barca...
... YET, their very reasoning in the decision admits the contrary.

Liability can very well be claimed even in provisional ruling periods.

 

[Birdy]

You can't sue a court, given this is a fake court for sport. But in general you can't sue a court. What bulshit law are you talking about?
Taking a court to court for liability for a protection measure is absolete madness. You have the procedure if you can stand in court and that's it.
The only exception to this in EU is for TFEU breakings (but the state pays) or against human rights violations.
And then La Liga should rule ab initio, while gathering evidence for the case. That was a breach of general law principles and a huge fuck up by them. You can't run the prescription time in a procedure after the part submited a request to a ruling body. That is basic law 1/1. So Olmo should have not been deregistered untill the final verdict or the verdict should have been made IN TIME without requesting new data. Makes no legal sense to me.
If you request data, it matters less when you give the verdinct, the date of te aplication should be the date when FC Barcelona requested the registration to be extended. That's how prescription works and law works. But anyway, I refuse to talk sport law, is for idiots without a real job.

Explain the bolded part. It's nor clear what you mean.

 

[Joan]

I like that we debate civilly and politely.

To the point:
In my example, there is also a provisional court order involved. That's why I picked this example. And the employee that lost was working LEGALLY under the provisional order. If you agree that in my example the candidate that appealed and won has legal rights to financial compensation for the provisional period, then you can't say that teams don't have same rights in the Olmo case.
It's pretty identical cases of claiming retroactively financial (or other) liability

The key difference is that while the employee worked legally during the provisional period, he wasn't hired legally. The provisional order was given to maintain the status quo until a final ruling but it didn't retroactively make the hiring legal. That's why compensation was awarded after the final ruling confirmed that the initial decision was wrong.

With Olmo, it's different. The provisional measure didn't maintain a status quo, but explicitly enabled Barcelona to legally register him. Even if the court later overturns this measure, Olmo's registration will not be retroactively illegal, because he was registered under a valid court order at the time.

1) illegality/legality of an action. I am not discussing this here.
Provisional orders have legal force during the period they are in effect, correct.
I don't disagree with that. That's why Barca is legal by playing Olmo now.

2) Harm/benefit claims. These can very well be made retroactively.
The catch is that it all depends on whether the final verdict is in harmony with the precautionary measure or not.
If an entity deems that their interests got harmed (financially or otherwise) during a period of a precautionary measure, they can very well make a legal case.

To understand why this is the case, think that it is already implied in the explanation of the precautionary measure by the CSD court (read it from Khaled's post above): The CSD have taken into account that there would have been potentially 'unreparable' harm/damage to Barcelona and Olmo had they decided to uphold LL's decision of non-registration and not overturn it (even provisionally). In essence, they admit that had they decided to uphold LL's position, THEN if the final verdict ruled that Olmo should have been registered instead, Barcelona and Olmo personally could have a strong case for claiming damage suffered DURING the precautionary period.

Provisional measures are usually issued if there is a risk of irreparable harm. That's standard practice and standard wording.

If you're making a harm claim, you need to substantiate it. Without proving illegality, bad faith, or negligence, harm claims are dismissed. If a party is acting under a valid court order, it is presumed to be acting in good faith, and claims won't succeed unless there was a proof of fraud or the court was pressured. Different discussion entirely.

In your job example, the employee was hired illegally, which is a wrongful act and the reason compensation could be claimed. That's not the situation here since Olmo's registration was legal at the time under a valid court order.

Harm claims aren't just about whether someone feels harmed, they require proof of a wrongful act which doesn't exist in this case. There is no breach of duty.

If your logic above were correct for the provisional period:

in the hypothetical scenario where CSD had PRECAUTIONARY decided contrary to what they did and maintained LL's deregistration, Barca could not claim damage inflicted during that period EVEN IF the final verdict in April rules against LL and in favor of Olmo/Barca...
... YET, their very reasoning in the decision admits the contrary.

Liability can very well be claimed even in provisional ruling periods.

The court didn't have to issue a provisional order. In case they didn't, Olmo wouldn't be registered and a favourable ruling would mean Barca and Olmo can sue for damages.

We're going in circles. @serghei summed it up well.

 

[jamrock]

Laporta said in his interview all this could have been avoided, if la Liga followed the rule they had in place.

Implying the changed something or requested something from us, that was new and not in the rules as written.

I think it's we present them with the agreement but they insisted on more proof, which isn't technically in the written rules and regulation.

 

[companyofcules]

Explain the bolded part. It's nor clear what you mean.

If Barca requested the extension of license in December and the process drags untill January, you can't deregister the player. A decision even if taken in January takes effects from December. That is basic law.
You can't ask for aditional paperwork without giving a new term and you can't take action against the club while you give a new term to clarify your assesment.
Barcelona had the obligation to send the paperwork in time, but it had no obligation to get a rulling before the license expired since prescription is suspended by procedure in law.
From what I understand filling a request to them doesn't suspend the prescription of an action and that is bonkers. Lowest of the low in terms of law.