The case involves a legal dispute between Mini FC Sinara, a Russian futsal team, and Sergey Leonidovich Skorovich, a former coach, concerning the arbitrability of labor disputes under Swiss law and the interpretation of an arbitration agreement. The Swiss Federal Act on Private International Law (PIL) permits arbitration for pecuniary claims, including those arising from labor contracts, provided the parties agree to exclude state court jurisdiction. The Swiss Federal Tribunal has upheld this principle, emphasizing that enforceability in another jurisdiction does not affect arbitrability under Swiss law. The parties must assess enforcement risks before agreeing to arbitration.
The dispute stemmed from an employment agreement between Mini FC Sinara and Skorovich, which included clauses on dispute resolution through negotiations, mediation via the Russian Football Union (RFU) and the MFAR, and, if unresolved, under Russian law. An additional agreement outlined financial terms, including a bonus and an apartment. After termination, Skorovich claimed compensation for the unpaid apartment value, leading to proceedings before the RFU's National Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) and later the Players’ Status Committee (PSC), which ruled in his favor. Mini FC Sinara appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing lack of jurisdiction, as the employment agreement did not clearly exclude state courts in favor of arbitration. Skorovich contested CAS jurisdiction, asserting the agreement did not demonstrate intent to arbitrate.
The tribunal concluded the clauses did not clearly exclude state court jurisdiction, as they allowed for resolution under Russian law if mediation failed. Since the intent to arbitrate was unclear, the principle of utility could not uphold arbitration. Thus, CAS lacked jurisdiction, and the dispute remained subject to Russian state court proceedings. The case underscores the necessity of clear arbitration clauses to avoid jurisdictional disputes.
In subsequent proceedings, the parties debated whether CAS had jurisdiction, with Skorovich arguing Russian labor law mandates state court jurisdiction for labor disputes. The Sole Arbitrator examined arbitrability under Swiss law, referencing Article 177 of the PIL, which permits arbitration for pecuniary claims, including labor disputes. The Arbitrator dismissed concerns about enforceability in Russia, concluding the claim was arbitrable under Swiss law. The Arbitrator also assessed the arbitration agreement's validity, finding no clear consensus in the agreement to exclude state courts. The Appellant argued the Respondent accepted arbitration by referencing RFU Regulations, but the Arbitrator found the agreement ambiguous, lacking clear intent to arbitrate.
The Sole Arbitrator analyzed clause 9 of the Agreement, titled "Disputes," rejecting the Appellant's claim it was a choice-of-law provision. The clause's wording and context suggested procedural steps for dispute resolution, not governing law. The term "settle" and the original Russian term "рассмотрение" (rassmotrenie) indicated a procedural focus. The Arbitrator concluded the clause did not clearly exclude state courts, rendering the appeal inadmissible due to lack of jurisdiction. The decision highlights the importance of precise drafting in arbitration clauses to establish jurisdiction and avoid disputes. The case illustrates the interplay between national labor laws and international arbitration principles, particularly in sports-related disputes, emphasizing the primacy of clear arbitration agreements under Swiss law.