The case revolves around a dispute between FC Goverla, a Ukrainian football club, and the Football Federation of Ukraine (FFU) concerning disciplinary sanctions imposed on the club for failing to comply with decisions related to unpaid wages and compensation owed to a former coach, Mr. Oleksandr Sevidov. The conflict began with the termination of Mr. Sevidov's employment contract in 2013. While Mr. Sevidov claimed the termination was mutual and sought unpaid wages and compensation, FC Goverla argued it was due to his fault. The FFU Dispute Resolution Chamber (FFU DRC) ruled in favor of Mr. Sevidov in November 2013, ordering FC Goverla to amend his employment record, pay unpaid wages, and provide compensation. FC Goverla initially appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) but withdrew due to financial constraints.
Subsequent non-compliance by FC Goverla led the FFU Control and Disciplinary Committee (FFU CDC) to issue escalating sanctions between August and November 2014, including fines and a warning of a three-point league deduction. FC Goverla did not appeal these decisions. When the three-point deduction was imposed in November 2014, the club appealed to the FFU Appeals Committee (FFU AC), arguing the sanction violated Ukraine's constitutional principle against double jeopardy (ne bis in idem) and citing hindrances from a labor inspector's audit. The FFU AC upheld the sanction in December 2014.
FC Goverla then appealed to CAS, which ruled in August 2015 that decisions by national association bodies not appealed within statutory time limits are final and binding, and thus cannot be challenged at CAS. The CAS found the FFU's disciplinary actions valid, as the club's failure to comply constituted separate offenses—non-compliance with the original decision and subsequent non-compliance with enforcement orders. The CAS concluded the FFU's actions did not violate the ne bis in idem principle, as the sanctions addressed distinct breaches. The award emphasized the binding nature of unappealed national association decisions and upheld the FFU's disciplinary measures.
During the proceedings, FC Goverla argued that Ukrainian law should govern the dispute, claiming the FFU's decisions conflicted with Ukrainian labor regulations. The FFU countered that the appeal should be limited to the three-point deduction and emphasized that the FFU CDC's role was to enforce existing decisions, not revisit them. The CAS Sole Arbitrator confirmed the dispute's narrow scope, focusing solely on the points deduction. The CAS dismissed FC Goverla's appeal, upholding the FFU AC Decision and confirming the deduction of three points. The ruling did not address broader issues related to the termination of Mr. Sevidov's contract or earlier financial sanctions.
The CAS's decision reinforced the validity of the FFU Appeals Committee's ruling, concluding the matter without further action. The case highlights the complexities of enforcing sports-related disciplinary decisions and the interplay between national labor laws and international sports arbitration. It underscores the importance of timely appeals and the binding nature of unappealed decisions within national football associations. The outcome affirms the FFU's authority to impose sanctions for non-compliance and clarifies the limits of CAS jurisdiction in such disputes.