The case involves a legal dispute between Football Club Apollonia (the Appellant) and the Albanian Football Federation (AFF) along with footballer Sulejman Hoxha (Respondents) regarding the termination of an employment contract. The dispute arose when the Appellant failed to meet its payment obligations under the contract, leading Hoxha to stop participating in training sessions. The club sought to transfer Hoxha to "annuity relations" under Albanian football rules, citing his absence, while Hoxha initiated proceedings to terminate the contract, arguing non-payment by the club. The Disciplinary Committee (DC) ruled in favor of Hoxha, terminating the contract due to the club's breach of obligations. The Appellant appealed this decision to the Appeals Committee (AC), which upheld the DC's ruling.
The case was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to determine jurisdiction and the merits of the appeal. The CAS panel addressed several key issues, including whether Article 63 of the FIFA Statutes granted CAS jurisdiction over appeals against decisions by national federations. The panel clarified that a general reference to FIFA rules is insufficient to establish CAS jurisdiction unless explicitly incorporated into the federation's rules. The panel also ruled that the dispatch of the Statement of Appeal was timely under CAS procedural rules.
Regarding the burden of proof, the panel emphasized that the party making a claim must provide sufficient evidence to support its case. The Appellant failed to demonstrate compliance with its contractual obligations, while Hoxha successfully proved the club's non-payment. The panel upheld the decisions of the Albanian football bodies, confirming the termination of the contract due to the club's breach. The ruling underscores the necessity of clear contractual adherence and the importance of explicit jurisdictional clauses for CAS involvement in domestic disputes.
The Appellant raised several procedural objections, including claims that the DC's decision was invalid due to improper composition and lack of notification. The panel found these arguments unsubstantiated, noting that the Appellant had knowledge of the decision and failed to provide evidence of procedural violations. The panel also dismissed the Appellant's claim that the AC's decision was unreasoned, finding that it included essential elements and minor formal deficiencies did not affect its validity.
The panel further addressed the Appellant's objection to the AC's composition, where only two of three members attended the meeting. The panel found no violation of the Code of Discipline, as the Vice-Chairman chaired the meeting, which was deemed a valid practice. The Appellant's argument regarding inconsistency with an earlier AC decision was also dismissed due to lack of evidence and the introduction of new evidence (a CD recording) in the second proceedings.
Ultimately, the CAS ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over Hoxha due to the absence of a specific arbitration clause in the Service Contract. The panel upheld the DC and AC decisions, confirming the termination of the contract based on the Appellant's failure to meet payment obligations. The case highlights the importance of procedural compliance and the burden of proof in disciplinary proceedings, reinforcing the principle that subsequent review mechanisms can remedy earlier procedural deficiencies. The final outcome underscores the necessity for clear and explicit references to CAS in contractual or regulatory provisions to establish its jurisdiction.