STJD denies injunction for the second time for Caboclo to return to CBF command | soccer

The president of the STJD (Superior Court of Sports Justice), Otávio Noronha, dismissed this Thursday afternoon the request for the defense of the president removed from the CBF, Rogério Caboclo, demanding his immediate return to office.

In the decision, Noronha uses in part the same allegation to deny the leader’s first request, in July. He claims that Caboclo’s defense missed the deadline to appeal. This is because the appeal was made to consider the extension of the removal null and void, and, in the president’s understanding, it should be done in relation to the first removal, whose term had already expired since the first appeal.

Caboclo was removed from command of the CBF on June 6th and only appealed to the STJD for the first time on July 8th. The second request was made to the court on 27 July.

In the order, the president of the STJD cites article 88 of the CBJD (Brazilian Code of Sports Justice), which provides that the right to file a writ of guarantee expires in 20 days, counting from the practice of the act, omission or objured decision.

In the view of Caboclo’s lawyers, the request to the STJD has a preliminary nature, that is, of urgency, and was without a decision for over a month, which contradicts the determination of the Brazilian Code of Sports Justice.

Rogério Caboclo, retired CBF president — Photo: WILTON JUNIOR/ESTADÃO CONTEÚDO

The defense’s argument is that there is no legal provision for the decision that removed Caboclo for 60 days (in July), when the investigations were still ongoing. The decision of arbitrator Paula Forgioni, from the Brazilian Center for Mediation and Arbitration (CBMA), who suspended the CBF General Assembly, scheduled for last Wednesday, was also attached to the request.

Rogério Caboclo was removed by the CBF Ethics Committee two days after the agency received a complaint from an employee of the entity. She accuses Caboclo of moral harassment and sexual harassment. The leader denies it.

Last Wednesday, the lawyers informed the Sports Court of the Ethics Committee’s decision that recommended the director’s 15-month leave (three already served) for “inappropriate conduct” and not for sexual and moral harassment, as denounced by his secretary.

On the same day, the Board of Directors of CBF chose Ednaldo Rodrigues to replace Antônio Carlos Nunes, Colonel Nunes, in the interim command of the entity. Ednaldo is vice president of the CBF and was president of the Bahia Football Federation until 2019.

The decision of the Arbitration Committee still needs to be validated by the General Assembly, composed of the 27 presidents of federations, in a session that has not yet been scheduled to take place. According to the CBF statute, it must be scheduled eight days after the publication of the Commission’s report and although the result is already known, it has not yet been officially published.

The Assembly cannot assign a penalty greater than what has already been recommended, only endorse the report or annul the decision. If the sentence is maintained, Caboclo will return to office in September 2022 and will hardly be able to run for re-election, since the election of the entity for the term that will begin in 2023 should take place in April 2022.

The Commission’s decision surprised and revolted the majority of presidents who believed that Caboclo would be banned from his activities longer than his term.

Read Rogério Caboclo’s note on the decision:

“The defense of the president of CBF, Rogério Caboclo, calmly receives the decision of the Superior Court of Sports Justice for Football.

Caboclo’s defenders will appeal the part of the decision that disregards the mistakes made by the CBF’s Ethics Committee, which removed Caboclo from his duties without even giving him a chance to defend himself and, at the end of the investigation, concluded that he did not commit the illegal act. for which he was summarily punished.

Regarding the part of the decision that fails to determine the call for the General Meeting, this occurred because the Ethics Committee is not the competent body to make such call.

We emphasize that any punishment applied by the Ethics Committee must be endorsed by the General Meeting for it to take effect.”