The case involves a dispute between professional football player Valery Sorokin and FC Dynamo Moscow over unpaid bonuses and accommodation expenses as outlined in their employment contract and supplementary agreements. Sorokin signed a fixed-term contract with Dynamo Moscow in December 2006, which included a monthly wage and additional bonuses and accommodation allowances. However, the club allegedly stopped paying these amounts from May 2007. Sorokin filed a claim with the Russian Football Union's Dispute Resolution Chamber (Russian DRC) in October 2007. The Russian DRC issued a preliminary decision in January 2008, allowing Sorokin to transfer to another club while requesting further documentation for a final ruling. This decision was only communicated to Sorokin in June 2009, prompting him to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in July 2009, seeking payment of the owed amounts.
Sorokin argued that the Russian DRC lacked impartiality due to conflicts of interest, including its head's former role as Dynamo Moscow's president. He also claimed the club breached the contract by withholding payments. Dynamo Moscow countered that the bonuses were performance-based and discretionary, citing Sorokin's disciplinary issues, such as a drink-driving offense and missed training sessions, as reasons for non-payment. The club also defended the Russian DRC's impartiality, noting its composition included player union representatives and was annually approved.
The CAS panel addressed jurisdictional issues, noting that appeals could be made directly to CAS or through the federation's appeal body. However, it ruled the appeal inadmissible because the Russian DRC's decision was not final, as it required additional evidence and further hearings. The panel emphasized that CAS could only adjudicate appeals against final decisions and referred the case back to the Russian DRC for completion. It also noted Sorokin's acknowledgment of his obligation to pay apartment expenses as per the contract.
In its final ruling, CAS declared Sorokin's appeal inadmissible and dismissed all other motions, leaving the matter to be resolved by the Russian DRC. Any dissatisfied party could appeal to CAS after the DRC's final decision. The case underscores the importance of exhausting internal federation procedures before seeking arbitration at CAS and highlights CAS's role in ensuring procedural compliance in sports disputes. The Russian DRC is now authorized to proceed with the case, and any party may appeal to CAS once a final decision is reached.