The case revolves around a dispute between Parma F.C. and the Italian Football Federation (FIGC) and Torino F.C. before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The conflict arose when Parma, having qualified for the UEFA Europa League after finishing sixth in the 2013/2014 Serie A season, was denied a UEFA license for the 2014/2015 season by the FIGC’s Licensing Committee. The denial was based on Parma’s failure to pay personal income tax deductions for payments made to ten players in late 2013, violating the Italian UEFA Club Licensing Manual. Despite Parma’s argument that the payments were loans from a voluntary redundancy package, the FIGC’s Appeals Committee and the Italian High Court of Sport Justice upheld the decision. Parma appealed to CAS, seeking to overturn the license denial and requesting legal expenses from the respondents.
The proceedings faced delays due to procedural disputes, including disagreements over language and the expedited nature of the case. Both FIGC and Torino challenged CAS jurisdiction, arguing that the Manual granted exclusive authority to the Italian High Court for license disputes. Parma countered by citing Article 59 of the UEFA Statutes, which mandates member associations to recognize CAS jurisdiction, and referenced Swiss legal precedents supporting CAS authority based on general appeal rights. The CAS Panel, composed of three arbitrators, addressed jurisdiction as a preliminary issue, relying on written submissions without a hearing. The central question was whether CAS had jurisdiction, given the conflicting provisions in the Manual and UEFA Statutes.
The Panel found that while UEFA Statutes encourage member associations to include CAS jurisdiction in their regulations, they do not automatically grant CAS authority over disputes involving national federations unless explicitly recognized in their statutes. The Panel examined Swiss law and FIGC regulations, concluding that the FIGC’s Manual explicitly assigned exclusive jurisdiction to the Italian High Court for license disputes, with no provision for CAS appeals. Although Parma invoked UEFA Statutes, the Panel ruled that these did not override the FIGC’s internal rules, as UEFA’s provisions require adoption by national bodies to take effect. The Panel emphasized that any non-compliance with UEFA Statutes would require UEFA, not CAS, to enforce changes.
Ultimately, the Panel dismissed Parma’s appeal, ruling that CAS lacked jurisdiction because the FIGC’s regulations did not provide for CAS arbitration in this context. The decision highlighted the autonomy of national federations in setting dispute resolution mechanisms and the importance of clear jurisdictional provisions in sports governance. The case underscores the complexities of jurisdictional conflicts between national and international sports bodies, leaving the merits of Parma’s appeal unresolved. The ruling affirmed the Italian High Court’s exclusive authority over the matter.