The case centers on Rayo Vallecano de Madrid SAD, a Spanish football club, appealing a disciplinary decision by FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee (DC) dated October 31, 2005. The DC found the club guilty of failing to comply with a prior FIFA ruling, ordering it to pay a fine of CHF 25,000 within 30 days. Non-payment would result in a six-point deduction from the club’s league standings and potential relegation. The decision was based on Article 68 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code, which penalizes non-payment of debts as determined by FIFA. The club had failed to pay an amount owed to Asociación Deportiva Sao Caetano of Brazil, as previously decided by FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber. The DC Decision was notified to the Spanish Football Federation and the club’s counsel on December 6, 2005, and the club received it directly on December 20, 2005. On December 30, 2005, the club filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), challenging the DC Decision.
FIFA responded on January 13, 2006, arguing the appeal should be dismissed for being filed after the 10-day deadline stipulated in Article 60.1 of the FIFA Statutes (2004 version). The club countered that it only received the decision on December 20, 2005, making its appeal timely. The CAS Panel examined the applicable law, noting that Article 60 of the FIFA Statutes had been amended on September 12, 2005, extending the appeal deadline from 10 to 21 days, effective December 1, 2005. The key issue was whether the amended deadline applied, given the principle "tempus regit actum," which holds that procedural actions should follow the rules in force at the time they occur, unless transitional provisions state otherwise.
The Panel concluded the amended 21-day deadline applied, as it was in effect when the appeal was filed. Thus, the club’s appeal, filed within 21 days of receiving the decision, was deemed admissible. The Panel dismissed FIFA’s preliminary objection, allowing the appeal to proceed on its merits. The decision underscores the importance of applying procedural rules in force at the time of filing an appeal, unless explicit transitional rules dictate otherwise. The case highlights the evolving nature of sports regulations and the need for clarity in procedural deadlines to ensure fair adjudication.
The document further elaborates on the appeal process within FIFA, focusing on time limits for lodging appeals with CAS. Initially, Article 60 of the FIFA Statutes 2004 required appeals within 10 days of notification. However, this was amended on September 12, 2005, extending the deadline to 21 days, effective December 1, 2005. The Panel applied the principle "tempus regit actum," concluding the extended deadline applied since the appeal was filed after the new rule came into effect. Additionally, the Panel referenced FIFA Disciplinary Code provisions, particularly Article 94.2, which states time limits begin four days after the relevant association receives the decision, and Article 96.1(a), which interrupts time limits from December 20 to January 5.
In this case, the time limit started on December 10, 2005, was interrupted on December 20, and resumed on January 6, 2006. The appeal filed on December 30, 2005, was within the 21-day limit. The Panel noted that even under the old 10-day rule, the appeal would have been timely, as the interruption period left one remaining day after January 5. Consequently, FIFA’s objection regarding the appeal’s timeliness was rejected, and the CAS ruled the appeal admissible. FIFA’s request to dismiss the appeal for formal reasons was denied. The case illustrates the critical role of procedural rules in sports arbitration and the necessity of clear deadlines for fair dispute resolution.