The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a decision on June 22, 2010, concerning a dispute between S., a football coach for FC Onex, and the Association Cantonale Genevoise de Football (ACGF). The case stemmed from S.'s suspension from coaching activities until June 30, 2010, following an incident during a match on September 30, 2009, where S. was accused of pushing an opposing player and provoking an altercation. S. and FC Onex appealed the suspension to the ACGF's Central Committee, requesting a suspension of the sanction to allow for witness hearings and fact clarification. However, the Regional Appeals Commission (CRR) declared the appeal inadmissible on January 5, 2010, due to the failure to pay a CHF 100 advance fee within the required five-day deadline, as stipulated by ACGF statutes.
S. subsequently appealed to the CAS, seeking the annulment of the CRR's decision and additional time to complete submissions and pay court fees. The CAS rejected S.'s request for a suspensive effect, citing no irreparable harm, and proceeded to examine the case's merits. The CAS highlighted that standing to sue is a matter of admissibility, while lack of legal interest pertains to substantive conditions of the claim. It found the ACGF acted inconsistently by routinely deducting fines and fees from FC Onex's account but refusing to do so for the CHF 100 appeal fee, violating the principle of good faith. The CAS also criticized the ACGF for failing to explicitly inform S. of the consequences of not paying the advance fee, deeming this an excessive formality. To remedy this, the CAS granted S. additional time to pay the fee after proper notification.
The CAS ruled it could not substitute itself for the ACGF's internal authority, which had not examined the substantive merits of the appeal due to procedural grounds. The case was referred back to the ACGF for a proper examination of the facts and exhaustion of internal remedies. The CAS affirmed its jurisdiction based on the parties' agreement and Swiss law, dismissing the ACGF's argument that S. lacked standing to appeal individually. The decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness, good faith, and the exhaustion of internal remedies in sports arbitration.
The document further details the legal arguments, including the applicable Swiss law and ACGF statutes. The CAS clarified that the appellant, as an individual directly affected by the CRR's decision, had the right to appeal independently under Article 25 of the ACGF statutes, without requiring the club's participation. The CAS emphasized that procedural requirements, such as deadlines and advance fee payments, must be strictly adhered to, but deficiencies in the appeal's content could be remedied within an additional three-day period. The appellant argued that the advance fee requirement was satisfied by FC Onex's sufficient funds in its ACGF account, but the CAS noted the statutes explicitly required the fee to be paid within the appeal deadline.
The CAS concluded that the appeal should not be dismissed for non-payment of the advance fee, as FC Onex's account had sufficient funds, and the ACGF's usual practice supported automatic deductions. The ruling highlighted the principle of good faith and the expectation that established practices should be followed unless explicitly contradicted. The CAS annulled the CRR's decision, referring the case back for a merits-based review, and dismissed further claims, emphasizing the importance of transparency and proportionality in procedural practices. The decision was final, concluding the matter except for the specific issue sent back for reconsideration.