The case involves Kauno Futbolo Ir Beisbolo Klubas, a Lithuanian football club, appealing a disciplinary decision by FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee. The dispute originated from a 2009 FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) decision ordering the club to pay a player €404,000, plus interest if unpaid within 30 days. The club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), but the procedure was terminated in 2010. In 2011, FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee found the club guilty of failing to comply with the DRC decision and imposed a fine of CHF 25,000, along with potential sanctions including point deductions and relegation if the debt remained unpaid. The club challenged this decision, arguing for its annulment.
The CAS Sole Arbitrator upheld FIFA’s decision, emphasizing that Article 64(1) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code allows fines for non-compliance with any FIFA or CAS decision, whether financial or non-financial. The Arbitrator rejected the club’s argument that the fine violated the ne bis in idem principle (no double punishment for the same offense), clarifying that disciplinary sanctions for non-compliance and contractual breach compensation address different infractions. The ruling also stressed that FIFA’s disciplinary measures are independent of national court enforcement under the New York Convention, meaning a party cannot refuse compliance solely due to potential enforcement difficulties in another jurisdiction.
The dispute centered on three main issues. First, whether the appealed decision violated Article 64.1 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code by imposing impermissible sanctions. The arbitrator found that the sanctions—a fine, a final payment deadline, and potential point deductions—were permissible under the clear wording of Article 64.1, which applies to both financial and non-financial decisions. Second, the arbitrator examined whether the decision violated the principle of ne bis in idem, concluding that the appealed decision addressed a disciplinary infraction (non-compliance with the DRC ruling), distinct from the original contractual breach, thus not constituting double jeopardy. Third, the arbitrator rejected the club’s argument that non-compliance was justified due to the lack of recognition and enforcement by Lithuanian courts, emphasizing that FIFA’s disciplinary authority over its members remains binding regardless of national court recognition.
Ultimately, the Sole Arbitrator upheld the appealed decision, finding no violations of FIFA regulations or legal principles, and dismissed the club’s claims. The decision reinforced FIFA’s disciplinary mechanisms and the binding nature of its rulings on affiliated members. The CAS ruling confirmed the disciplinary sanctions and rejected all further claims by the club, reinforcing the authority of FIFA’s regulatory framework and the obligation of member organizations to comply with its rulings without relying on external judicial validation. The appeal was dismissed, and the club was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.