The case involves a dispute between FC Shakhtar Donetsk and CPF Karpaty over the loan agreement of player Artyom Fedetsky, initially signed in June 2009. The agreement allowed Karpaty to loan the player for two seasons, with provisions for a potential permanent transfer or loan extension. In June 2011, Karpaty sought to extend the loan for another season, citing an agreement with the player, and requested Shakhtar's approval. Shakhtar agreed but demanded amendments to remove clauses it believed violated FIFA and FFU regulations, particularly those allowing Karpaty to influence transfer decisions. When Karpaty refused, the dispute escalated to the Ukrainian Premier League's Disciplinary Committee and later to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS panel ruled on several key legal principles. First, they affirmed that the FFU regulations in force at the time of the player's registration governed the contract, adhering to the principle of "tempus regit actum." National law could supplement federation regulations only if gaps existed. Second, the panel determined that an additional agreement extending the loan should be interpreted based on the parties' intent, not as a new contract. Third, they upheld the validity of unilateral options in loan agreements, provided they were exercised properly and with the player's consent, as they did not violate regulations against third-party influence.
The CAS concluded that Karpaty's attempt to extend the loan unilaterally without Shakhtar's full agreement was invalid, as the original loan agreement's provisions did not override the need for mutual consent under applicable regulations. The panel emphasized that while loan agreements may include options for extensions or transfers, they must comply with federation rules and cannot impose undue influence on a club's independence. The decision reinforced the importance of adhering to contractual and regulatory frameworks in football transfers, ensuring fairness and compliance with governing bodies' rules.
Shakhtar argued that certain provisions violated FIFA regulations, particularly Article 10(3) and Article 18bis, which prohibit third-party influence over transfer decisions. Karpaty disagreed, leading to a failure to extend the loan agreement. The dispute progressed through various disciplinary committees, with conflicting rulings before reaching CAS. The CAS panel ultimately dismissed Shakhtar's claims, ruling that the disputed clauses did not violate FFU regulations and that FIFA regulations were irrelevant to this purely domestic transfer dispute unless explicitly incorporated into FFU rules.
The panel also addressed the applicability of FIFA Regulations, concluding they were not binding for national transfers unless adopted by the FFU or agreed upon by the parties. They referenced prior CAS rulings to support this view, emphasizing that FIFA Regulations primarily govern international transfers. The panel upheld the FFU Appeals Committee's decision, confirming the validity of the loan agreement under the 2007 FFU Regulations and rejecting Shakhtar's appeal. The case highlights the complexities of football loan agreements and the importance of contractual intent and regulatory compliance in resolving disputes. The CAS's decision underscored the principle of legal certainty in contractual relationships and the limited role of FIFA regulations in domestic transfers.
Ultimately, the CAS ruled in favor of Karpaty, dismissing Shakhtar's claims and affirming the validity of the loan agreement's provisions. The decision clarified the legal framework governing loan agreements in football, emphasizing the need for mutual consent and compliance with federation regulations. The case serves as a precedent for interpreting contractual extensions and the applicability of sports regulations in domestic disputes.