EIn the middle of a week convulsed by the case Cala, the Cdiz CF you will have received good news. Specifically, its president Manuel Vizcano who is already aware that the Investigating Judge of the Royal Spanish Football Federation (RFEF) has proposed to conclude the file that was opened after the letter published by him in the club’s official media, as soon as the match ended in front of the Real society.
In this way, the Instructor would have considered that Vizcano’s statements are framed in the exercise of the constitutional right to freedom of expression. It must be remembered that in the aforementioned letter, the Cadista president urged Luis RubialesPresident of the RFEF to “fix the VAR” accusing the Granada-born of being “responsible for reversing this situation”, in clear reference to the arbitration grievances to which the Cdiz thought it was being subjected. Therefore, as it has advanced Iusport, the instructor’s proposal highlights that “he has always considered that disciplinary responsibilities should not be demanded for mere statements of criticism of the arbitration work or, even, of the work of these disciplinary bodies of the RFEF, since such statements constitute a legitimate exercise of the constitutional right to freedom of expression “.
Before Vizcano, he went to Cervera To whom a file was opened, later dismissed and now it will also happen with President Manuel Vizcano, after this report in which certain limits to freedom of expression are established, but the Cdiz and its president will be given the reason. “Said declarations constitute a legitimate exercise of the constitutional right to free expression, of which the directors are also holders, so that it would not be in accordance with the Law to attach such serious disciplinary consequences to manifestations of a President that are carried out under the protection of that constitutional right and that, in addition, they do not comply with the two requirements of article 100 Bis of the RFEF Disciplinary Code, since they neither clearly question the honesty or impartiality of the arbitration group nor use “offensive, insulting, humiliating or profane language.“.