The case involves a dispute between Ukrainian professional football player Evgeny V. Levchenko and the Football Union of Russia (FUR), centered around allegations of ethical violations and conflicts of interest involving FUR officials, particularly Sergei Pryadkin. The dispute originated from a 2011 article in "Novaya Gazeta," which accused Pryadkin and others of illegal activities. The Novosibirsk regional branch of the Russian Union of Supporters filed a claim with the FUR Ethics Committee, requesting an investigation. On July 4, 2011, the Ethics Committee closed the investigation, a decision communicated to Levchenko on October 27, 2011. Levchenko appealed to the FUR Appeal Committee on October 31, 2011, but his appeal was rejected on procedural grounds.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) addressed several legal issues, including whether Levchenko qualified as a "football subject" under FUR regulations, the timeliness of his appeal, his standing as an "interested party," and CAS's authority to refer cases back to previous instances. The CAS panel ruled that players active in Russian football during the alleged violations, regardless of nationality or current club affiliation, are "football subjects." It also clarified that appeals must be filed within three business days of the decision being communicated. The panel further determined that an "interested party" need not have been directly involved in prior proceedings or sanctioned to challenge a decision, provided their interests were directly affected.
Regarding procedural matters, the panel noted that under Article R57 of the CAS Code, it could either issue a new decision or refer the case back. Since the FUR Appeal Committee had not addressed the substance of Levchenko's claims, the panel chose to remand the case for reconsideration, emphasizing procedural fairness and the rights of all parties. The case underscores the complexities of sports governance, particularly in ethics and disciplinary procedures, and highlights CAS's role in ensuring due process.
Levchenko argued that Pryadkin, as president of the Russian Premier League, had influenced his employment contract with FC Saturn, where Pryadkin’s brother acted as an agent, violating ethical rules. Levchenko sought sanctions against Pryadkin and a proper investigation. The FUR countered that Levchenko lacked standing, as he no longer played in Russia or held Russian citizenship, and that his appeal was untimely. The CAS panel reviewed the submissions and evidence, concluding that Levchenko had the right to appeal as a "football subject" and that his appeal was timely, as he filed within three days of receiving the decision. The panel also found that Levchenko, as a former FC Saturn player, had a legitimate interest in the case, which involved allegations of financial misconduct related to his former club.
The panel dismissed the FUR's procedural objections and upheld Levchenko's appeal, annulling the FUR Appeal Committee's decision and referring the case back for further review. The ruling emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and the need for proper investigation into ethical violations. The case highlights challenges in sports governance, particularly in addressing conflicts of interest and ensuring transparency, while reinforcing the role of CAS in upholding due process. The matter was ultimately remanded to the FUR Appeal Committee for reconsideration, ensuring all parties had the opportunity to present their case.