The case revolves around an arbitration dispute between Ukrainian football club FC Metallurg and Serbian-Montenegrin player Leo Lerinc, stemming from a decision by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee (DC) on August 10, 2007. The FIFA DC ruled that FC Metallurg had failed to comply with a prior decision and imposed a fine of CHF 15,000, with potential sanctions including point deductions and relegation if the debt remained unpaid. FC Metallurg appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on August 27, 2007, seeking to suspend and overturn the FIFA DC's ruling. The club argued it had legal grounds for delaying payment and proposed alternative arrangements.
Initially, FC Metallurg named Leo Lerinc as the respondent in its appeal but later attempted to correct this by identifying the FIFA DC as the proper respondent. The CAS rejected this change as procedurally late, citing Article R48 of the CAS Code, which requires the correct identification of the respondent at the outset. Lerinc opposed the request to suspend the FIFA DC's decision, arguing FC Metallurg lacked sufficient legal justification. Subsequent correspondence revealed FC Metallurg had paid USD 99,800 in compliance with an earlier CAS decision, though a remaining CHF 500 for legal costs was still outstanding. The club contended this demonstrated compliance and warranted reconsideration of the FIFA DC's fine.
The CAS found the appeal admissible but denied the suspension request, noting procedural flaws in FC Metallurg's arguments. The case underscores the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and correctly identifying parties in arbitration. The CAS upheld its jurisdiction under FIFA statutes and the CAS Code but ruled against FC Metallurg's requests for suspension or reconsideration of the FIFA DC's decision.
A separate appeal filed by FC Metallurg on September 5, 2007, initially named Lerinc as the respondent but later clarified the appeal targeted the FIFA DC. The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction under FIFA Statutes and the CAS Code, deeming the appeal procedurally valid. FC Metallurg sought to suspend the FIFA DC's August 10 decision pending the CAS judgment. The CAS panel evaluated the request based on criteria like irreparable harm, likelihood of success, and balance of interests but noted procedural irregularities, including the delayed clarification of the respondent. The panel referenced prior rulings, stressing the need to correctly identify the respondent at the outset. With FIFA declining to intervene and FC Metallurg failing to timely correct its error, the panel found no plausible case for suspension. The application was dismissed, reinforcing the necessity of procedural compliance in arbitration. The CAS ultimately ruled against FC Metallurg, emphasizing adherence to procedural rules in such disputes.