The case involves a legal dispute between Kauno Futbolo Ir Beisbolo Klubas (FBK Kaunas), a Lithuanian football club, and FIFA, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The dispute arose from FBK Kaunas's failure to comply with a FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) decision, which ordered the club to pay €200,000 to player Iurii Priganiuk. This decision was later upheld by CAS in December 2009. When the club failed to pay, FIFA initiated disciplinary proceedings under Article 64.1 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code, resulting in a fine of CHF 20,000. The CAS panel, led by sole arbitrator Michele Bernasconi, addressed several key legal issues, including the applicability of Article 64.1, the principle of ne bis in idem (no double jeopardy), and the enforceability of CAS awards.
The panel clarified that Article 64.1 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code is unambiguous and applies to both financial and non-financial decisions, allowing FIFA to impose fines, grant deadlines for compliance, and deduct points from clubs. These sanctions can be applied cumulatively. The panel rejected the club's argument that the fine was unjustified, emphasizing that the FIFA Disciplinary Code does not limit sanctions to alternative measures. The panel also dismissed the club's claim that the disciplinary proceedings violated the principle of ne bis in idem, ruling that the DRC's original decision and the subsequent disciplinary action addressed distinct issues—contractual breach versus disciplinary non-compliance—and thus did not constitute double jeopardy.
The panel affirmed that FBK Kaunas, as a member of the Lithuanian Football Federation (which is affiliated with FIFA), had agreed to abide by FIFA's regulations and the jurisdiction of CAS. The club's right to defend itself in court was not violated because it chose not to challenge the CAS award before the Swiss Federal Tribunal within the allowed timeframe. The panel confirmed that CAS awards are immediately enforceable under Article R59 of the CAS Code and do not require recognition by national courts for enforcement. While the New York Convention allows for enforcement proceedings in domestic courts, FIFA's disciplinary measures operate independently. The club's argument that it could not comply until Lithuanian courts recognized the award was rejected, as FIFA's regulations mandate prompt compliance regardless of national legal procedures.
The CAS upheld FIFA's disciplinary decision, reinforcing the binding nature of CAS awards and the authority of FIFA's disciplinary mechanisms. The ruling underscored that affiliated clubs must adhere to FIFA's decisions without delay, irrespective of parallel enforcement proceedings in national jurisdictions. The case highlights the tension between FIFA's disciplinary framework and national legal systems, reinforcing FIFA's stance that its decisions must be respected without external judicial intervention. The outcome underscores the binding nature of FIFA's disciplinary measures and the consequences of non-compliance for member associations and clubs. The Sole Arbitrator dismissed all claims, affirming that the appealed decision complied with FIFA regulations and legal principles. The decision reinforced the authority of FIFA's disciplinary mechanisms and the binding nature of its rulings on member clubs.
In summary, the CAS dismissed the appeal and upheld the FIFA Disciplinary Committee's decision in its entirety, emphasizing the importance of compliance with FIFA's regulatory framework and the enforceability of CAS awards. The case serves as a reminder of the consequences of non-compliance with FIFA decisions and the autonomy of sports arbitration from national legal systems.