The case involves FC Dnipro's appeal against disciplinary sanctions imposed by the Football Federation of Ukraine (FFU) for failing to appear at a scheduled Ukrainian Football Cup match against FC Chernomorets Odessa on October 30, 2013. FC Dnipro attributed their absence to adverse weather conditions, which prevented their plane from landing in Odessa after two attempts. The club argued that alternative travel options, such as train or bus, were impractical due to lack of tickets and unsafe road conditions, claiming the situation constituted force majeure. The FFU's Control and Disciplinary Committee rejected this explanation, ruling that FC Dnipro had not exhausted all possible travel arrangements and could have taken earlier or alternative transportation. As a result, the club was excluded from the tournament, fined 75,000 UAH, and Chernomorets was awarded advancement. FC Dnipro appealed to the FFU's Appeal Committee, which upheld the original decision, prompting the club to take the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS examined whether the circumstances met the legal definition of force majeure—an unforeseeable, unavoidable, and objective impediment beyond the obligated party's control. The panel concluded that FC Dnipro's situation did not qualify, as the adverse weather was not an absolute barrier. The club could have departed earlier or used alternative transport, and the late flight departure, combined with the known risk of bad weather, indicated that the impossibility of landing was partly due to FC Dnipro's own decisions. The CAS also noted inconsistencies in the club's argument, as it deemed bus travel unsafe while attempting to fly under the same weather conditions. The panel emphasized that the obligation to compete is fundamental in sports and that force majeure defenses should be narrowly interpreted.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld the FFU's decision, dismissing FC Dnipro's appeal and confirming the club's exclusion from the tournament and the financial penalty. The case underscores the strict expectations for clubs to fulfill their competitive obligations and the high threshold for proving force majeure in sports regulations. It also highlights the importance of contingency planning, as teams are expected to account for foreseeable risks and explore all feasible travel options to ensure match attendance. The procedural aspects of the case, including FC Chernomorets Odessa's unsuccessful attempt to intervene in the arbitration, further illustrate the legal complexities involved in such disputes. The final award, issued on June 16, 2014, reinforced the principle that clubs must take responsibility for their logistical decisions and cannot rely on external circumstances to excuse non-compliance with competition requirements.