The decisions of the FIGC judges "did not take into account the system designed by the emergency legislator and in particular the criterion of the hierarchy of sources".
Thus the motivations of the College of Guarantee, chaired by Franco Frattini, on the Naples appeal against the penalties for the non-dispute of the match with Juve.
Napoli "applied the FIGC protocol in force at the time which referred, with reference to the procedure to be observed in the event that a football player is positive Covid, to the circular of the Ministry of Health dated 18-6-2020 and, therefore, to the exclusive competence of the territorially competent ASL ".
In the motivations, it is underlined that Napoli's appeal against the defeat at the table and the penalty point imposed by the FIGC "is founded and must be accepted" and that Napoli "acted without bad faith and in full consistency with the provisions of current legislation and , which, consequently, no responsibility can be charged to the company in question ". According to the United Sections of the College of Guarantee, "the request for information and clarifications by Naples, far from being a preordained act to pre-establish an element for not fulfilling an obligation, constituted direct application of the aforementioned circular, a higher normative act, with respect to which they surrender all federal regulations incompatible with it ". According to the College of Guarantee, "the provision of law or of an administrative nature issued by the competent authorities which, to protect the public interest for which they are responsible, imposes behavioral prescriptions or prohibitions that make it impossible to perform the obligee regardless of his will ( so-called factum principis), cannot be recognized in the note of ASL Napoli 2 of 4 October 2020, but must be identified in the two notes of ASL Napoli 1 of 3 October 2020. Therefore, the objectively impeding act of Napoli's performance dates back to 3 October 2020. It follows, according to the College of Guarantee, that Napoli acted without bad faith and in full consistency with the provisions of current legislation and, consequently, no responsibility can be charged to the company in question.