The case involves an appeal by Slovenian football player Erik Salkic against a decision by the Football Union of Russia (FUR) and his former club, Professional Football Club Arsenal, following the early termination of his employment contract. The sanctions imposed included a financial penalty of RUB 1,000,000 and a four-month disqualification from playing. Salkic appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 25 June 2014, requesting provisional measures to suspend the enforcement of these sanctions pending the appeal. The CAS President evaluated the request based on three key criteria: irreparable harm, likelihood of success on the merits, and the balance of interests between the parties.
Regarding irreparable harm, the CAS President ruled that financial penalties, such as the RUB 1,000,000 payment, do not qualify as irreparable harm because monetary losses can be rectified later. Similarly, the disqualification was not deemed irreparable since Salkic could still train, and there was no concrete evidence that the sanction would prevent him from participating in a significant number of matches. Although Salkic argued that his unemployment since February 2014 worsened his financial situation, this was insufficient to establish irreparable harm. The CAS also confirmed its jurisdiction over the case, citing Article 53 of the FUR's Regulations, which permits appeals to the CAS within 21 days of receiving the decision. Salkic filed his appeal within this period, making it admissible.
The President emphasized that provisional measures require all three criteria to be met, and since Salkic failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, the request for a stay of the decision was denied. The order highlights the CAS's consistent approach that provisional measures are only granted when all conditions are satisfied. In this case, the lack of irreparable harm, coupled with insufficient development of the other requirements, led to the rejection of Salkic's request. The final decision on the merits of the appeal would be made by the full CAS panel once constituted.
The document further elaborates on the "irreparable harm" test, noting that general allegations of potential harm, such as financial strain or hindered career development, are insufficient without concrete evidence. The President found Salkic's arguments speculative, particularly regarding the disqualification's impact, as he could still train and did not provide specific proof of irreparable damage. Additionally, Salkic did not address the other two criteria—likelihood of success on the merits and the balance of interests—which further weakened his case.
Ultimately, the CAS denied the request for provisional measures, underscoring the stringent standards for such relief in CAS proceedings. The Deputy President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division issued an order formally rejecting the application and deferred the determination of costs to the final award. The case illustrates the necessity of providing concrete evidence and meeting all legal criteria to obtain provisional measures in CAS disputes.