The case involves a dispute between FC Metallurg, a Ukrainian football club, and Leo Lerinc, a Serbian football player, over a disciplinary sanction imposed by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee (FIFA-DC). The FIFA-DC ruled on August 10, 2007, that FC Metallurg had failed to comply with a prior FIFA decision, ordering the club to pay a fine of CHF 15,000 within 30 days. Failure to pay would result in a six-point deduction from the club’s domestic league standings and potential relegation. FC Metallurg appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on August 27, 2007, seeking suspension and cancellation of the FIFA-DC decision, along with alternative payment arrangements. The club argued it had legal grounds for delaying payment pending the appeal’s outcome.
The CAS proceedings raised procedural questions, particularly regarding the proper identification of parties. Under Swiss law and CAS precedent, a party must have a direct stake in the dispute to be sued. FC Metallurg initially identified FIFA as the respondent but later named Lerinc, which led to objections from Lerinc’s legal team. By September 26, 2007, it was confirmed that most of the owed amount had been paid, except for CHF 500 in legal costs. FC Metallurg later confirmed a payment of USD 99,800 and requested reconsideration of the fine, hoping for Lerinc’s support.
The CAS Panel, constituted as a sole arbitrator, denied FC Metallurg’s request to suspend the FIFA-DC decision on March 5, 2008. Jurisdiction was undisputed, based on FIFA statutes and the CAS Code. The case highlighted procedural complexities, including party identification and the conditions for suspending disciplinary sanctions during appeals. The final award, issued on May 14, 2009, addressed these issues but left the core dispute unresolved in the summarized text.
The dispute originated from a 2005 FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) decision ordering FC Metallurg to pay Lerinc. A 2007 CAS decision upheld this obligation, but the club failed to comply, citing difficulties in obtaining a required license from the National Bank of Ukraine. FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee initiated proceedings for non-payment, leading to the CHF 15,000 fine. The key issue was whether Lerinc had standing to be sued in FC Metallurg’s appeal. The panel concluded he did not, as the FIFA disciplinary proceedings did not personally involve him. The panel also ruled that FIFA could not be included as a co-respondent due to procedural errors by FC Metallurg.
On substantive grounds, FC Metallurg claimed legal restrictions in Ukraine prevented timely payment, but the panel found these arguments insufficient, as the club had ample time to resolve the issue. The FIFA-DC’s decision to impose sanctions was upheld, and the appeal was rejected on both procedural and substantive grounds. The case underscored the strict enforcement of financial obligations in international sports arbitration.
The FIFA-DC emphasized that Lerinc was entitled to unconditional payment and doubted FC Metallurg’s willingness to comply, as no proof of efforts to secure the license was provided. The CAS panel agreed, dismissing the appeal and confirming the FIFA-DC’s decision. The ruling highlighted the importance of timely compliance with arbitration awards and the debtor’s burden to justify delays. The case serves as a reminder of the procedural rigor and financial accountability required in football governance.