The case involves an arbitration appeal by Evgeny V. Levchenko against the Russian Football Association (RFA) before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The dispute arose from allegations of conflict of interest and illegal activities involving a high-ranking RFA official, referred to as the Third Party (Observer). The allegations, initially reported in a newspaper article, claimed the Third Party engaged in improper conduct with his brother, a former players' agent, and others, including a licensed agent and a company, X. GmbH. The Novosibirsk regional branch of the Russian Union of Supporters filed a complaint with the RFA Ethics Committee, which dismissed the case in 2011, finding no violations. Levchenko appealed, but the RFA Appeal Committee rejected his appeal, citing lack of legal interest and missed deadlines.
Levchenko pursued further appeals, leading to a 2011 CAS decision (CAS 2011/A/2669) that recognized him as an interested party under RFA regulations and remanded the case to the RFA Appeal Committee. In 2013, the RFA Ethics Committee reinvestigated but again dismissed the case, ruling potential violations were time-barred under a two-year statute of limitations. The Committee also found insufficient evidence to prove a conflict of interest under Russian law, which required proof of financial dealings between the RFA and the Third Party’s associates. Levchenko appealed again, arguing the Ethics Committee ignored prior directives, misapplied the law, and failed to recognize the ongoing conflict. The RFA Appeal Committee upheld the decision, prompting Levchenko to bring the matter before CAS.
The CAS panel addressed two key legal issues. First, it clarified that when national regulations explicitly reference FIFA rules, those rules become part of the applicable law if specific and consistent. Second, it ruled that if a CAS decision would affect the rights of a third party not formally included in the proceedings, the panel lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss the appeal. Here, the Third Party (Observer) was not named as a respondent, so the panel determined it could not rule without infringing on his rights. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The case highlights complexities in sports governance, the interplay between national and international regulations, and procedural limitations in arbitration when third-party rights are at stake. Levchenko’s standing as a "football subject" was upheld based on prior CAS rulings, but his evolving requests for relief, including broader investigations into alleged corruption, were deemed outside the scope of the initial appeal. The Panel emphasized procedural adherence, limiting its review to the original prayers for relief and dismissing new requests introduced later. The Third Party (Observer) contested procedural flaws, including Levchenko’s failure to name him as a co-Respondent and questions about signature authenticity, but the Panel dismissed these objections.
Ultimately, the CAS affirmed its jurisdiction and the admissibility of Levchenko’s appeal but dismissed it on the merits, upholding the RFA Appeal Committee’s decision. The ruling underscores the importance of procedural correctness and the limits of arbitration in addressing claims involving non-participating third parties. The case also reflects broader concerns about transparency and ethical conduct in sports governance, particularly in conflicts of interest and the enforcement of regulatory frameworks. The Panel’s decision reaffirmed the principle of res judicata, maintaining consistency in legal determinations while highlighting the challenges of balancing procedural rigor with substantive justice in sports arbitration.