Olympiacos: Carababa suspended for 6 months

The Super League singles member disciplinary team faced off hard on Kostas Carababa and Ioannis Frentzos, for their behavior in the recent derby of “Eternals” at Levoros.

More specifically, one of the vice presidents of PAE Olympiacos was punished with a six-month ban from entering the stadiums (note: three months of his sentence related to his abusive behavior towards referees), while a member of the board of directors was punished by the Piraeus managers with the same ban for three months and 15 days.

Since then, Dimitris Agraphotis has been released, and “Red and White” will pay a fine of 20 thousand euros.

It is worth noting that the PAE Olympiacos Club will appeal to the Appeal Committee of the European Patent Office regarding the “bells” imposed by the Individual Preliminary Disciplinary Committee on Carababa and Prinzo.

Premier League announcement in detail:

The initial single-member disciplinary body called for an apology on Friday 11/11/2022 at 12:00, as follows:

1/ PAE ARIS: Accept that the accused has committed the disciplinary offense attributed to it. It imposes on PAE ARIS a) a fine of two thousand (2000.00) Euros for the first law (violation of Articles 1, 5 et seq. and 14 Paragraph 1, 2, 3 and 4, Paragraph B, Paragraph 15. 4 Paragraph a ‘, d’ of P. In three previous matches in the same season, by virtue of No. 161/8-9- 2022, 180/30-9-2022 and 230/4-11-2022 of the final decisions of this disciplinary body (violation of Articles 1, 5 et seq. and 14 Paragraph 1, 2, 3 and 4, approximately b, 15 Paragraph 3, Paragraph 1a “e” of the European Patent Office Act) and c) a fine of thirteen thousand (13,000.00) Euros on Law 2b (Violation of Articles 1, 5 et seq. 14 paragraph 1, 2, 3 and 4, paragraph b, and 15 paragraph 3 second paragraph a’ of the European Patent Office Act). sets a total fine of fourteen thousand five hundred (14,500.00) euros

2 / PAE ASTERAS TRIPOLIS: Agreeing that the recruit has committed the disciplinary offense attributed to her. It imposes on PAE ASTERAS TRIPOLIS a fine of one thousand (1,000.00) Euros (Violation of Articles 1, 5 et seq., 14 Paragraph 1, 2, 3 and 4, Paragraph A’, 15 Paragraph 2 Paragraph A.” of .K .from EPO).

3/ PAE ATROMITOS: Agreeing that the recruit has committed the disciplinary offenses attributed to her. It imposes on PAE ATROMITOS a) a fine of twenty-five thousand (25,000.00) Euros for the first and third laws (Violation of Articles 1, 5 et seq., 14 Paragraph 1, 2, 3 and 4, Paragraph A., 15 Paragraph 4 Paragraph A of European Patent Office Law), b) a fine of four thousand (4000.00) Euros for the second law (violation of Articles 1, 5 et seq. and 14 Paragraph 1, 2, 3 and 4, Paragraph A’, 15 Paragraph 3 Paragraph 1a’ of EPO Criminal Procedure Code), c) a fine of three thousand (3000.00) Euros for the fourth act committed as a repeat offender, given the discovery of its disciplinary responsibility, for a similar act in a match played previously in the same season, by virtue of no. 228 / 4-11-2022 of the final decision of this disciplinary body (violation of Articles 1, 5 et seq. and 14 paragraph 1, 2, 3 and 4, paragraph A “, 15 paragraph 2 paragraph A” of P. the same season, by virtue of no 228/4/11/2022 of the final decision of the current disciplinary body (violation of Articles 1, 5 et seq. and 14 Paragraph 1, 2, 3 and 4, Paragraph A’, 15 Paragraph 2, Paragraph B II). The amount of thirty thousand (30.000.00) euros.

4 / PAE OLYMPIAKOS, K. ​​KARAPAPAS (Vice Chairman), I. VRENTZOS (Member of the Board of Directors) D. AGRAFIOTIS (Vice Chairman): – Exempts the fourth accused from the disciplinary offenses attributed to him. – The second accused of committing the act under Clause 1 (a) shall be released. – The second accused is exempted from the act under elements 1 (c) (j) in so far as the part relates only to his entry into the field of play. – The third defendant is released from the act under Clause 1 (a) (j). – Accepts to the rest that the inmates committed other disciplinary offenses attributed to them. – duty: [Ι] to the second accused K. KARAPAPA for the act of banning entry to the stadium under Clauses 1) B’) for a period of two (2) months (violation of Articles 12 Clause 1 Clause B, 11 and 10 Clar. 1 Clause B’), from the EPO PC) , for the law under clauses 1) c) (j) ban entry to the stadium for a period of two (2) months (violation of Article 12 para. 1 para. b’ and 11 and 10 par. 1 para d I of the EPO Act), for the act of denying entry to the stadium for a period of three (3) months under Clause 1) C) (ii) and (iii) (violation of Articles 12 Clause 1 Clause B)’ and 11 and 10 Clause 1 Clause D’ 1 of the European Patent Office Act) and to make a ban Admission to the stadium for a period of two (2) months under clauses 1 (c) (4) (violation of Article 12 paragraph 1 paragraph b, Article 11 and paragraph 1 paragraph 1 d of the EPO Code of Practice). The second, with a suspended sentence, is set with a total fine of six (6) months for preventing entry to the stadium. – duty: [ΙΙ] to the third respondent I. VRENZO under Clause 1) B) (j) Law banning entry to the stadium for a period of two (2) months (violation of Articles 12 paragraph 1, paragraph B, 11 and 10 paragraph 1 paragraph 1 d of the European Patent Office Act) and for for clause 1) b) (2) ban entry to the stadium for a period of two (2) months (violation of Article 12 § 1 § b., 11 and 10, § 1, d 1 EPO) and for the law under clause 1) b) (Entry The referees’ locker room) ban from entering the stadium for a period of one (1) month and a fine of ten thousand (10,000) euros (Article 12 para 5 CAP of the European Patent Office). – The third player shall be given a total penalty of three (3) months and fifteen (15) days from entering the court. – duty: [ΙΙΙ] To the first PAE Olympiakos declared a fine of ten thousand (10000.00) Euros (Violation of Articles 1, 5 et seq. and 14 Paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4 Paragraph B “and 15 Paragraph 4 Paragraph A” of the EPO .K) (for the law under clause 1) B) of K. KARAPA and for the law under clause 1) A) (ii) for I. VRENZO) and a fine of fifteen thousand (15,000) euros (Article 5, 11 para 3, 12, 10) , para. 1 para. b’ and d 1, 14 of the European Patent Office Act). Determining a total fine of twenty thousand (20,000) euros for the first convicted person.

5/ PAE OFI: Exempts the recruit from the disciplinary offense imputed to her under Clause A. Agrees that the recruit has committed the disciplinary offense attributed to her under Clause B. PAE OFI will be fined two thousand (2000.00) euros for the above-mentioned act it committed as a repeat offence, given the discovery of its disciplinary responsibility for similar acts in three matches previously played in the same season, according to . 151/1-9-2022, 193/14-10-2022 and 218/27-10-2022 of the final decisions of this disciplinary body (violation of Articles 1, 5 et seq. and 14 paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4, approx. ” 15 para. 2 para b”, and III of the European Patent Office’s Code of Practice).

6/ PAE PANATHINAIKOS: You agree that the recruiter has committed the disciplinary offenses attributed to her. shall impose on PAE PANATHINAIKOS a) a fine of eight thousand (8000.00) Euros for the first act committed by it as a recurring act, given the discovery of its disciplinary responsibility for similar acts in eight previous matches performed in the same season, pursuant to no. 145/25-8-2022, 157/8-9-2022, 168/16-9-2022, 177/30-9-2022, 196/14-10-2022, 206/21-10-2022, 216/ 10/27-2022 and 225/4-11-2022 Final decisions of this disciplinary body (Violation of Articles 1, 5 et seq., 14 Paragraph 1, 2, 3 and 4, Paragraph A’, 15 Paragraph 2 Paragraph A’ of the Office Act EPO), b) a monetary fine of two thousand (2000.00) Euros for the 1b act it committed as a repeat offender, given the discovery of its disciplinary responsibility for similar acts in six matches held previously in the same competition season, by virtue of no. 145/25-8-2022, 168/16-9-2022, 196/14-10-2022, 206/21-10-2022, 216/27-10-2022 and 225/4-11-2022 Final Resolutions the current disciplinary body (violation of Articles 1, 5 et seq., 14 paragraph 1, 2, 3 and 4, paragraph a’, 15 paragraph 2 paragraph b’3) of the PK of the European Patent Office), c) a fine of one thousand (1, 000.00) euros on the second law (violation of Articles 1, 5 et seq., 14 paragraph 1, 2, 3 and 4, paragraph a, 15 paragraph. 1 paragraph c’ of the EPO CPC), d) a fine of six thousand) 6000.00) euros for the third act she committed as a repeat offender, given her disciplinary responsibility for similar acts in six previous offenses he performed in matches in the same season, by virtue of no. 145/25-8-2022, 157/8-9-2022, 168/16-9-2022, 206/21-10-2022, 216/27-10-2022 and 225/4-11-2022 (Violation of Articles 1, 5 et seq., 14 paragraph 1, 2, 3 and 4, paragraph a’, 15 paragraph 3 paragraph 1 a’, e’, 3) of the PK of the EPO), e) a fine of five thousand (5000.00) euros on Fourth Law (Violation of Articles 1, 5 et seq., 14 Paragraph 1, 2, 3 and 4, Paragraph A’, 15 Paragraph 4 Paragraph A’ of the European Patent Office Law), f) a fine of two thousand (2000.00) Euros for Chapter V (Violation of Articles 1, 5 et seq. and 14 para. 1, 2, 3 and 4, para. a, 15 para. 1 para. “a” of the European Patent Office Act) f) a fine of one thousand (1,000.00) Euros on the law VI (Violation of Articles 1, 5 et seq., 14 Paragraph 1, 2, 3 and 4, Paragraph A “, 15 Paragraph 1 Paragraph B” of the EPO Code of Practice). It sets a total fine of sixteen thousand five hundred (16,500.00) euros.

7/ PAE PANAITOLIKOS: accepts that the female soldier committed the disciplinary offense attributed to her. PAE PANAITOLIKOS will be fined two thousand (2000.00) Euros (Violation of Articles 1, 5 et seq., 14 Paragraph 1, 2, 3 and 4, Paragraph A’, 15 Paragraph 1 Paragraph B’ of the European Patent Office).

8/ Baek Pauk: Agrees that the female soldier committed the disciplinary offenses attributed to her. PAOK PAOK A) will be fined five thousand (5000.00) euros for the first act it committed as a repeat offence, given the discovery of its disciplinary responsibility for similar acts in six games previously played in the same season, according to Who Doesn’t. 144/25-8-2022, 152/1-9-2022, 169/16-9-2022, 186/6-10-2022, 195/14-10-2022 and 215/27-10-2022 Final Resolutions Existing disciplinary body (violation of Articles 1, 5 et seq., 14 Paragraph 1, 2, 3 and 4, Paragraph A’, 15 Paragraph 2 Paragraph A’ of EPO) and b) Financial penalty of two thousand (2000.00) Euros for Chapter Two (Violation of Articles 1, 5 et seq., 14 para. 1, 2, 3 and 4, para. a’, 15 para. 1 para. a’ of the Criminal Code of the European Patent Office). It sets a total fine of six thousand (60000.00) euros.

9/ PAE PAS LAMIA, P. PAPAIOANNOU (Major Shareholder): Exempts the second defendant from the disciplinary offense imputed to him under Article 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure. European Patent Office. Agrees that the second accused committed the disciplinary offense attributed to him of abusive behavior – because of – the sentence. It imposes on Bas-Lamia a fine of Five Thousand (5,0000.00) Euros for the conduct of the second accused (violation of Articles 1, 5 et seq., 10 Paragraph 1 Paragraph D I, 11, 12, 14 Paragraph 1, 2, 3 and 4 Paragraph A From the European Patent Office Code of Ethics). Imposes on P. PAPAIOANNOU for the act, which is subject to disciplinary review, a penalty of being barred from entering the stadium for a period of one (1) month (violation of Articles 1, 5 et seq., 10 para. 1 para. d. I, 11, 12 and 14 para 1 and 2, 3 and 4 Paragraph A’ of the European Patent Office Act)”.