The document details a complex legal dispute involving an Egyptian football player, E., FC Sion, and Al-Ahly Sporting Club, centered around the player's international transfer and the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The case originated when the player signed a contract with FC Sion in 2008, leading to a request for an International Transfer Certificate (ITC) from FIFA. Al-Ahly contested the transfer, claiming the player was still under contract with them. FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) ruled against the player and FC Sion in April 2009, imposing a four-month playing ban on the player and a €900,000 compensation payment to Al-Ahly, with FC Sion held jointly liable. The player appealed to CAS on June 18, 2009, challenging CAS's jurisdiction and requesting a stay of the decision’s effects, while also filing a civil lawsuit in Zurich’s District Court on June 29, 2009, seeking to annul FIFA’s decision.
The CAS panel, composed of Prof. Massimo Coccia, Mr. Olivier Carrard, and Prof. Ulrich Haas, addressed several key legal issues. First, it clarified that Article R51 of the CAS Code permits modifications to relief motions in the Appeal Brief, provided they respect the principles of equal treatment and the right to be heard. The panel then examined the conditions for staying arbitral proceedings under Article 186(1bis) of the Swiss Private International Law Act (LDIP), which requires that the arbitration and civil lawsuit involve the same parties and subject matter, the civil lawsuit must be pending before the arbitration claim is filed, and there must be "serious reasons" justifying the stay. The panel found that while the first condition was met, the second was not, as the arbitration was initiated before the civil lawsuit. The player’s argument that the arbitration was filed conditionally to safeguard his rights was rejected, as filing a claim unconditionally triggers the pendency of arbitration under Swiss law. The panel also dismissed the player’s claim that potential conflicting decisions between the Zurich court and CAS constituted "serious reasons," emphasizing that such concerns do not justify suspending arbitration.
The panel further affirmed CAS's jurisdiction, noting that by requesting the ITC, the player and FC Sion implicitly accepted FIFA’s jurisdiction over related disputes, including potential sanctions or compensation claims. The panel rejected the player’s selective opposition to arbitration clauses, citing the principle of consistency (venire contra factum proprium). It also upheld the validity of arbitration clauses incorporated by reference, referencing Swiss Federal Tribunal precedent that general references to documents containing arbitration clauses are sufficient to confer jurisdiction. The player’s contract with FC Sion explicitly bound him to comply with FIFA’s statutes and regulations, reinforcing CAS's jurisdiction. The panel dismissed the player’s jurisdictional objections, emphasizing his experience as an international footballer and his implicit consent to FIFA’s rules and procedures.
In conclusion, the panel affirmed CAS's jurisdiction, rejected the lis pendens exception due to insufficient "serious reasons," and upheld the binding nature of FIFA’s arbitration clauses. The decision reinforced CAS's role in resolving football-related disputes and clarified key procedural principles in international sports arbitration, ensuring legal certainty and the effective functioning of arbitral tribunals. The panel’s ruling left the substantive dispute unresolved, with the merits of the case to be addressed in subsequent proceedings.