The case involves a legal dispute between Czech football player Martin Sus and the Czech Republic Football Association (CRFA), centered on the enforcement of a Dutch judgment and the validity of Sus's transfer from FC Brno to FC Twente in 2007. The conflict arose when the CRFA refused to issue an International Transfer Certificate (ITC), claiming Sus was contractually bound to FC Brno until 2009. Sus alleged that FC Brno falsified his contract to change his status from amateur to professional. After unsuccessful criminal complaints in the Czech Republic, Sus filed a claim in the Utrecht Court, which ruled in his favor, ordering the CRFA to release him and cooperate with his transfer, imposing penalties for non-compliance. The CRFA did not attend the hearing, resulting in a default judgment.
The case was later brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which examined jurisdictional and procedural aspects. The CAS panel, led by Prof. Ulrich Haas, analyzed the CRFA's statutes and rules, emphasizing that sports association rules must be interpreted objectively. The panel distinguished between horizontal disputes (between parties at the same level) and vertical disputes (involving the association as a party). The CRFA's exclusion of jurisdiction over disputes involving itself was deemed lawful under Czech law, which grants associations discretion in designing internal judicial mechanisms. The CAS upheld the CRFA's right to decline jurisdiction in such disputes, affirming that external judicial remedies were permissible. The panel also considered the Dutch court's judgment but focused on the CRFA's internal rules and jurisdictional boundaries, reinforcing the autonomy of sports associations in structuring their dispute resolution systems.
Sus sought enforcement of the Dutch judgment in Czech courts, but his claims were dismissed in 2012 and 2013. He then turned to the CRFA's internal dispute resolution mechanisms, which rejected his requests for lack of jurisdiction. In 2015, Sus appealed to the CAS, which involved multiple procedural steps, including submissions, objections, and a hearing in December 2015. The CAS panel dismissed the CRFA's request for security for costs and rejected objections to the attendance of Sus's representative at the hearing. The proceedings culminated in the hearing, where Sus was present in person.
The Appellant sought remedies including enforcement of the 2008 Utrecht judgment, compensation for damages due to the CRFA's failure to enforce the judgment, and coverage of CAS-related costs. He argued that his original contract with FC Brno had been falsified and that the CRFA was aware of the forgery but failed to act. He contended that the Dutch judgment was enforceable in the Czech Republic and that the CRFA's judicial bodies had jurisdiction over his claim. The Respondent, the CRFA, argued that it had complied with the Dutch judgment by allowing Sus to play for FC Twente and that only Czech courts could enforce foreign judgments. The CRFA also asserted that its judicial bodies lacked jurisdiction over the dispute and that the Dutch judgment was rendered without proper notification, violating procedural rights.
The CAS panel concluded that the CRFA's judicial organs did not have jurisdiction to hear Sus's claim, as the dispute involved the CRFA itself and thus fell outside the scope of their competences. The panel emphasized a systematic and objective interpretation of the relevant provisions, dismissing the appeal and confirming the decision of the Arbitration Committee. The ruling underscored the lack of jurisdiction of the CRFA's internal judicial bodies in disputes where the CRFA is a party and upheld the initial decision. The case highlights the complexities of resolving disputes involving international sports governance, cross-border legal enforcement, and the autonomy of sports associations in structuring their dispute resolution mechanisms.