The case involves an arbitration dispute before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) between Denys Sieriebriennikov, FC Volyn LLC, and the Football Federation of Ukraine (FFU). Sieriebriennikov, a shareholder of SC FC Volyn OJSC, sought compensation for damages after FC Volyn LLC, a new entity created by other shareholders, took over the rights and obligations of SC FC Volyn OJSC in the Ukrainian Premier League without his knowledge. He claimed the transfer agreement between the two entities was invalid and caused him financial loss. The FFU Appeals Committee rejected his claim, stating it lacked jurisdiction because Sieriebriennikov was not considered a "person engaged or working in football" and the dispute was commercial, not sporting.
Sieriebriennikov appealed to CAS, arguing that the FFU's statutes allowed CAS jurisdiction over last-instance decisions, even for non-members. The CAS panel examined whether the dispute fell within the FFU's judicial bodies' scope, concluding it was commercial and unrelated to sporting rules or activities. The panel upheld the FFU's decision, emphasizing that its judicial bodies were not competent to adjudicate tort-based compensation claims. The case highlights the jurisdictional limits of sports federations in resolving disputes lacking a direct sporting connection. While CAS may have jurisdiction over appeals from federation decisions, the underlying dispute must meet the federation's statutory criteria. Here, the commercial nature of Sieriebriennikov's claim placed it outside the FFU's authority, reinforcing the distinction between sporting and non-sporting disputes in football governance.
The proceedings involved multiple submissions from both parties, with the Appellant arguing that Ukrainian courts did not have exclusive jurisdiction and that his prior involvement as a shareholder qualified him as a football subject. The FFU and FC Volyn maintained that the dispute was commercial and fell under Ukrainian commercial courts' jurisdiction. The CAS panel determined that the FFU's decision and statutes provided a valid basis for CAS jurisdiction but ultimately agreed with the FFU's jurisdictional limits. The Panel noted that the FFU's dispute resolution mechanism was intended for internal matters among its members or those directly involved in football activities. Since neither Sieriebriennikov nor SC FC Volyn OJSC were FFU members, the dispute did not fall within its jurisdiction.
The Panel concluded that the FFU Appeals Committee's decision to deny proceedings was justified, as the dispute lacked a necessary connection to football activities or the FFU's internal affairs. The CAS upheld the FFU's decision, confirming the dispute was outside its judicial bodies' scope. The ruling underscored the importance of jurisdictional boundaries in sports-related disputes and the need for clear statutory provisions to determine the competence of sporting judicial bodies. The case also highlighted the availability of alternative legal avenues, such as Ukraine's Commercial Procedural Code, for resolving commercial disputes. The CAS dismissed the appeal, affirming the FFU's jurisdictional boundaries and the appropriateness of national courts for such matters.