The case revolves around a dispute between Club Desportivo Nacional (Nacional) and FK Sutjeska (Sutjeska) concerning a decision by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee (FIFA DC). The conflict originated from a FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (FIFA DRC) decision on August 10, 2011, which awarded Sutjeska EUR 335,000 in training compensation related to player Vladan Giljen V., who had been transferred to Nacional. Nacional appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), but the appeal was deemed inadmissible on March 30, 2012, rendering the FIFA DRC decision final. The FIFA DC then initiated disciplinary proceedings against Nacional for non-payment, resulting in an October 5, 2012 decision ordering Nacional to settle its debt with Sutjeska.
Nacional filed an appeal with CAS on November 13, 2012, requesting a stay of execution and arguing that the FIFA DC decision would cause irreversible harm if later overturned. Nacional sought the annulment of the decision or a reduction of the fine but provided no additional evidence to support its request. Sutjeska countered by asserting that the appeal was inadmissible because Nacional lacked standing to sue them, as only FIFA could be the legitimate respondent in disciplinary proceedings. FIFA confirmed this, stating that appeals against its disciplinary decisions must be directed at FIFA itself, not another club, and declined to intervene in the case.
The CAS examined its jurisdiction under Article R47 of its Code and relevant FIFA statutes, confirming it could hear appeals against FIFA decisions if filed within 21 days. Nacional’s appeal was timely. The Deputy President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division assessed the request for a stay under Article R37, focusing on whether the appeal had any likelihood of success. The central issue was whether Sutjeska had standing to be sued, as CAS jurisprudence requires the respondent to have a direct stake in the dispute. Since the FIFA DC decision was binding and only FIFA could be the proper respondent in disciplinary cases, the appeal against Sutjeska was deemed inadmissible.
The Deputy President concluded that Nacional’s appeal lacked merit because it was directed against the wrong party. The decision reinforced the principle that only FIFA, not individual clubs, can be the respondent in appeals against FIFA disciplinary decisions. Consequently, the request for a stay was dismissed, and the FIFA DC decision remained enforceable. The case underscores the procedural requirements for CAS appeals and the importance of correctly identifying the proper respondent in disciplinary disputes.
The Deputy President also addressed the admissibility of the appeal under Article R49 of the CAS Code, which sets a 21-day deadline for filing appeals if no other timeframe is specified. The appealed decision was dated October 5, 2012, and the parties were notified on October 23, 2012. Nacional’s statement of appeal, filed on November 13, 2012, was within the required timeframe. The Deputy President evaluated the request for provisional measures under Article R37, noting that such relief requires demonstrating irreparable harm, a likelihood of success on the merits, and that the requesting party’s interests outweigh those of the opposing party.
A critical procedural issue was Sutjeska’s standing as the respondent. The Deputy President observed that Sutjeska was not a party to the FIFA disciplinary proceedings and was unaffected by the decision, which solely concerned the validity of a sanction imposed on Nacional by FIFA. Since Sutjeska had no stake in the dispute and nothing was sought against them, they lacked standing to be sued. The Deputy President found that Nacional erred in filing the appeal against Sutjeska, rendering the appeal without merit. Given the lack of likelihood of success, the other criteria for provisional measures were not assessed.
Ultimately, the Deputy President rejected Nacional’s request for provisional measures, with costs to be determined in the final award. The decision, a procedural order, cannot be challenged in court under Article 190 of the Swiss Private International Law Act. The ruling highlights the necessity of adhering to procedural rules and correctly identifying the proper respondent in CAS appeals. The Deputy President’s final decision rejected the application for provisional measures filed by Nacional on November 13, 2012.