Can OM succeed in legal proceedings against Ajroudi and Boudjellal?

• It has been several weeks now that Mohamed Ajroudi and Mourad Boudjellal launched a communication campaign around the possible OM buyout project.
• The club denounced a “campaign of destabilization” led by the two men and brought them to justice.
• We decipher the bottom of this case with a lawyer specializing in sports law.

Olympique de Marseille announced on Tuesday that it had taken legal action against Mohamed Ayachi Ajroudi and Mourad Boudjellal, declared candidates for the acquisition of OM, accusing them of leading "a campaign of destabilization". To which the lawyer for the Franco-Tunisian businessman responded with a press release: “This procedure is obviously more media-oriented than legal. We will react by all legal means to these attempts at destabilization ”.

To fully understand the ins and outs of such a media-legal war, we contacted Me Erwann Mingam, lawyer in sports law, co-founder and partner of the firm WM LAW. According to him, the legal action carried out by Olympique de Marseille is above all a way for the McCourt-Eyraud duo to regain control in this matter and to show itself in a position of strength in the eventuality of negotiations between the two parts do take place.

Can you tell us about article 1240 on which OM was based to sue Mohamed Ajroudi and Mourad Boudjellal?

Everyone quotes the famous article 1240 as a somewhat UFO article but in reality it is one of the fundamental articles of the Civil Code (this is what we called before article 1382). Basically it is ultra-classic non-contractual civil liability. That is, someone comes to the street, puts bread for you, you attack him as a civilian on the basis of this article. Someone makes a mistake, it harms you, you attack on the 1240. So the basis in itself is very classic.

Do you think that OM has a chance of winning their case in this case?

I am not in the secrecy of the procedure but what we can say about what we know about this file is that the OM has three elements to characterize: fault, damage and causal link between the two. The adversary committed a fault which caused us damage and it is now necessary to demonstrate that the damage which we suffer indeed results from the fault which we incriminate. What we remember from the press release published by OM is that the alleged fault seems to be "a media campaign of destabilization". There, legally, it is not precise enough to be successful. What OM would need to demonstrate are the faulty elements which, according to them, were used by Mr. Ajroudi and Mr. Boudjellal and which are objectively faulty. It is not enough to just say "we don't like it, they say bad things about us, it bothers us". They have to show that both people committed a fault. Typically in this kind of case, it can be denigration, the dissemination of inaccurate information, financial or otherwise.

we will pay for the promised coffee .... pic.twitter.com/mRq7zNpHhT

But we will have to know exactly what word, what sentence or what specific action OM accuses these people. At the moment, in view of the elements at our disposal, the press release is too vague to know if the club has a chance of winning. We do not know if he has tangible elements proving the denigration that would allow them to claim that the people implicated lie, cheat, discredit. It is not enough just to say "they said they wanted to buy OM and that is causing us harm because in reality we are not a seller". That is not a fault.

The second element to prove is the damage.

That's it. Assuming that Mr. Ajroudi and Boudjellal committed errors in the context of their media campaign, for example by disclosing false information to the press about OM, it must be demonstrated what the damage suffered by the club. As we speak, we do not identify any financial, commercial or sporting damage. We will no longer be on the image damage. However, to be compensable under French law, damage must be certain, direct, and not hypothetical. OM will therefore have to substantiate their damage with tangible elements, which prove that the club has indeed been injured. On the transfer market, in relations with the authorities, with the DNCG, did the statements that were made actually hinder the OM in its recruitment process, in its relations with the authorities, in its negotiations with sponsors, etc.

Finally, they must be able to demonstrate, and this does not always go without saying, that the damage to image or reputational damage is the direct consequence of the faults they accuse the duo. However, when they speak of "media campaign", one has the impression that they also incriminate the extent that this affair has taken in the media. Is the prejudice they claim is the direct consequence of what Boudjellal and Ajroudi did or of the recovery and amplification generated in the press and on social networks? You see, the causal link is not going to be easy to prove in court.

In your opinion, what is OM's strategy behind all of this?

I see it as an action of balance of power, of taking back control. Some would say that it is above all a communication action but I find that OM hits very hard and that we are beyond the com. It's really a way of showing authorities, supporters, players and agents that McCourt and Jacques-Henri Eyraud are still in place. There is a side "we occupy the field, we take control, we put pressure and we want fear to change sides." The real goal of all this may not be to obtain in one, two or three years, a symbolic euro or more damages, the goal is above all in the immediate effect. Hence the fact of communicating on the legal action itself and not on the side "we rebel against the practices employed by the camp opposite". I think the effect produced is at least as important as the outcome of the action.

Who is Mohamed Ayachi Ajroudi, this "inventor" who wants to buy OM? via @ 20minutesSport https://t.co/AaRMjojHCE

Who benefits, in the event that negotiations are actually underway? Is this a relevant strategy on the part of OM?

It seems skillful to me in a balance of power, yes. They've turned things around a bit and it's not awkward to publicly put pressure on the camp opposite. The side communicated against communicated, denied and in the end the deal ends up being done, it's classic in this kind of negotiations. It recalls the practices in force in the transfer market. It's the same as when a club says its player is untransferable and two weeks later he's gone. It is to raise the sauce and place ourselves in a position of strength in the negotiations. What is more unusual, however, is the initiation of legal action and the communication around it. We also note that among the terms used by OM against Ajroudi and Boudjellal, some are extremely strong. They speak of "devious behavior", of "a destructive, selfish campaign, based on deceptions and lies". They are in a very offensive lexical field and that is quite rare to note.

Acquisition of OM: Mohamed Ajroudi denounces a "denigrating press campaign" carried out against him https://t.co/u5JvsHdjbC via @ 20minutesmars pic.twitter.com/ddoiw0OSJ0

Mohamed Ajroudi's counter-attack did not drag on.

OM will probably be exposed to what is called a counterclaim, basically it's the counterattack in court. Ajroudi and Boudjellal will be attacked in court, they will defend themselves, perhaps deny the accusations, but they will possibly reverse the matter by saying "on the other hand the speech made by OM against me is harming us". The best defense is offense and I think that's what's going to happen. In the press release from Mohamed Ajroudi's lawyers, it is written "we will not allow [OM] to undermine his honor and his consideration". That evokes press offenses, so we are no longer on the terminology of civil fault and article 1240 which we spoke about above. This is almost the terminology of a libel action. There is a real balance of power that is established through the courts.

It goes far very far all the same for two camps possibly in full negotiations!

Yes, it goes further than what can usually be seen in negotiations of this type. But if legal action starts at any time, it also stops at any time. If the two parties come to an agreement within a month, the plaintiff, in this case the OM, may very well withdraw.

Sport

Buyout of OM: Assigned to court by Olympique de Marseille, Mourad Boudjellal responds in song

Sport

OM buyout: the club sues Mourad Boudjellal and Mohamed Ajroudi

• Sport
• Frank McCourt
• Jacques-Henri Eyraud
• Mourad Boudjellal
• Marseilles
• Soccer
• OM