The case involves a dispute between Club Jeanne d’Arc Drancy (the Appellant), FC Sheriff Tiraspol (Respondent 1), Amath André Dansokho Diedhiou (Respondent 2, the Player), and FIFA (Respondent 3). The dispute arose from the Player's employment contracts with both clubs. The Player initially signed a contract with FC Sheriff Tiraspol, valid from January 2009 to June 2012, but later signed another contract with Club Jeanne d’Arc Drancy, valid from July 2011 to June 2012. FC Sheriff Tiraspol filed a claim with FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), alleging the Player breached his contract without just cause and sought damages and sporting sanctions. A key issue was whether the Appellant Club had been properly notified of the proceedings. FIFA attempted to serve process by sending a letter to the French Football Federation (FFF), requesting contact details for the Player. The FFF forwarded this request to the Appellant Club, which provided an unsigned document with the Player’s details. FIFA deemed this insufficient due to lack of authentication and proceeded without confirming proper service. The Appellant Club argued it was unaware of the claim due to inadequate notification, violating its right to due process.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) emphasized the importance of fair and timely service of process, a fundamental procedural right under Swiss law and international standards. Due process requires that a party must be properly notified of legal action and given an opportunity to respond. The CAS found that FIFA’s reliance on national federations for service carried risks and, in this case, failed to meet due process requirements. The CAS annulled the DRC’s decision, ruling that the Appellant Club’s right to due process had been violated. The case was referred back to the DRC for reconsideration, underscoring the necessity of proper procedural safeguards in disciplinary proceedings.
The procedural timeline revealed communication gaps between FIFA, the FFF, the club, and the player. FIFA sent multiple letters, including one via registered post to the FFF, which was forwarded to the Appellant Club. However, the club’s general secretary, a volunteer, did not open the letter, following standard practice, and placed it in the team’s pigeonhole for the coach to deliver. The Player claimed he never received the letter or was informed of its contents. By late June 2012, the Player left Jeanne d’Arc for another club. Five months later, FIFA sent another letter, noting that previous correspondence had gone unanswered and declared the investigation closed.
The CAS addressed several key points, including jurisdiction, applicable law, and the admissibility of the Player’s counterclaim. It confirmed its jurisdiction over the appeal and ruled the Player’s counterclaim inadmissible, as the 2010 revision of the CAS Code explicitly excludes counterclaims in appeal procedures. On the merits, the CAS upheld the FIFA DRC’s decision, rejecting Jeanne d’Arc’s argument that its rights of defense were violated. The club had been properly notified via the FFF but failed to respond, which the CAS attributed to the club’s negligence. The CAS affirmed the DRC’s determination of damages (USD 57,987) as reasonable and justified the sporting sanction against Jeanne d’Arc, as the club failed to demonstrate due diligence in verifying the Player’s contractual status with Sheriff.
The Sole Arbitrator concluded that while FIFA’s practice of using national federations for notifications is pragmatic, it carries risks of failing to meet due process standards. The evidence suggested FIFA could have taken additional steps to ensure the Appellant Club was properly informed, such as sending notifications directly via registered mail or fax. The case highlights the importance of effective service of process in jurisdictional proceedings, particularly for amateur clubs with limited administrative resources. The CAS ruled that the DRC’s decision violated the club’s right to due process under Swiss law and set aside the relevant portions of the decision. The case was referred back to the DRC for a new hearing, ensuring the club would have a fair opportunity to present its case. The ruling emphasizes the importance of proper service of process and adherence to procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings, underscoring that administrative convenience does not justify bypassing fundamental due process rights.