The case revolves around a contractual dispute between Arsenal-Kiev Football Club and Grzegorz Bednarz, a licensed players' agent, concerning a payment of EUR 350,000 for a player transfer. The parties signed a "Contract of Agency" in March 2003, but when Arsenal-Kiev failed to make the payment, Bednarz filed a claim with FIFA in May 2004. FIFA's Single Judge initially dismissed the claim in November 2004, ruling that Bednarz acted through his agency rather than personally. Bednarz appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which in July 2005 accepted the appeal and referred the case back to FIFA, applying Polish law to clarify that an entrepreneur could act under both a civil and trading name. FIFA's Single Judge later ruled in December 2006 that Arsenal-Kiev must pay the amount in installments. The decision was communicated to the Football Federation of Ukraine (FFU) by fax on May 8, 2007, but FIFA later informed the FFU that the fax had not reached Arsenal-Kiev due to an incorrect number. The FFU was instructed to forward the decision immediately, with a four-day deadline for confirmation, but it failed to respond, leading FIFA to deem the decision properly communicated by May 13, 2007.
Arsenal-Kiev filed an appeal with CAS on June 26, 2007, initially claiming receipt of the decision on May 5, 2007, but later asserting it was received on June 5, 2007. The Respondent argued the appeal was filed outside the 21-day deadline, as the decision was deemed notified by May 13, 2007. CAS examined the admissibility of the appeal and found no evidence to support Arsenal-Kiev's claim of late receipt. The tribunal concluded the appeal was inadmissible due to the missed deadline, emphasizing that the FFU's failure to forward the decision did not delay the notification date. The case underscores the importance of procedural compliance, particularly regarding notification timelines in disciplinary proceedings. CAS affirmed FIFA's decision was properly communicated and applied FIFA regulations and Swiss law, highlighting the binding nature of procedural rules in sports arbitration. The decision reinforces that clubs must ensure timely communication with their national federations to avoid forfeiting their right to appeal.
FIFA sent a fax to the FFU on May 9, 2007, requesting immediate forwarding of the decision to Arsenal-Kiev and proof of notification. The FFU did not respond within the four-day deadline, leading FIFA to consider the decision properly notified by May 13, 2007. Arsenal-Kiev's appeal, filed on June 26, 2007, was initially based on a claim of receipt on May 5, 2007, but later changed to June 5, 2007, supported by a July 6, 2007, statement from the FFU. However, FIFA's records showed the FFU received the decision on May 8, 2007, and the Respondent confirmed receipt on the same date. The FFU's July 6 statement only confirmed forwarding the decision on June 5, 2007, but did not prove the club's late receipt. Given the lack of evidence and the unrealistic delay in notification, CAS concluded the club received the decision by May 13, 2007, making the June 26 appeal inadmissible due to the expired deadline. CAS dismissed the appeal for being filed too late.