The case involves a dispute between Football Club Rad and coach Nebojša Vignjević regarding the termination of their employment contract. The contract, signed in October 2011, outlined Vignjević's role as coach for two seasons with specified salaries and bonuses. In February 2012, Vignjević left the club's training camp, claiming wrongful termination by the club's main sponsor, while the club argued his termination occurred later due to his prolonged absence. The club initiated disciplinary proceedings, leading to his termination in March 2012. The Football Association of Serbia (FAS) initially ruled in Vignjević's favor, ordering the club to pay outstanding salaries and contractual payments. The club appealed, but the FAS Appeals Commission upheld the decision, recalculating the amounts owed.
The club then appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking to overturn the FAS decision and hold Vignjević liable for compensation. Vignjević contested CAS jurisdiction, arguing that FIFA Statutes do not automatically grant CAS jurisdiction in non-doping contractual disputes. The CAS panel, composed of Dirk-Reiner Martens, Hans Nater, and Denis Oswald, examined whether it had jurisdiction. The panel noted that Article 67 of the FIFA Statutes distinguishes between doping and non-doping matters, with CAS having explicit jurisdiction only in doping cases. For non-doping disputes, jurisdiction depends on specific agreements or regulations. The panel rejected the club's argument that the absence of a national arbitration court in Serbia should grant CAS jurisdiction, ruling that this absence does not automatically confer jurisdiction to CAS unless explicitly provided for in regulations.
The panel concluded that CAS lacked jurisdiction in this case, as the dispute was contractual and not covered by FIFA Statutes' provisions for CAS appeals. The appellant, FC Rad, argued that FAS statutes recognized CAS jurisdiction, citing Article 3 of the FAS Statutes and an opinion from the FAS Commission for Legal Matters. However, the respondent, Vignjević, countered that FAS statutes designated disputes to be resolved by a national arbitration court in Serbia, excluding ordinary courts and CAS. The panel examined the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP Regulations), which stated that disputes involving players, coaches, and clubs at the national level should be resolved by the Court of Arbitration of the FAS, with its decisions being final. Since this court had not been established, disputes were handled by the FAS Appeals Commission, whose decisions were also final.
The jurisdictional analysis was governed by Swiss law, specifically the Swiss Private International Law Act (PILA), as the arbitration was seated in Switzerland. Article 186 of the PILA grants CAS the authority to determine its own jurisdiction. The panel found no explicit grant of jurisdiction to CAS in FAS statutes or FIFA Statutes, aligning with prior CAS jurisprudence that Article 67 of FIFA Statutes does not independently confer jurisdiction over decisions by member associations unless explicitly stated. The panel dismissed the appellant's reliance on the FAS Commission for Legal Matters' opinion, emphasizing that jurisdiction must be expressly granted by statutes or regulations.
Ultimately, the panel ruled that CAS lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the dispute fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the FAS arbitration court, even if it was not yet operational. The decision upheld the finality of the FAS Appeals Commission's ruling and rejected all other motions for relief. The case highlights the importance of jurisdictional clarity in sports arbitration and reinforces that CAS cannot assume authority where explicit provisions designate alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. The panel's decision underscores the necessity of clear statutory language in conferring arbitration authority and adheres to established legal principles in jurisdictional matters.