The case involves a dispute between Club Atlético River Plate (River), AS Trencin (Trencin), and the player Iván Santiago Díaz, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The dispute arose from Díaz's employment contract with Trencin, signed in 2012, which stipulated his salary and benefits over four years. In December 2012, Díaz traveled to Argentina and did not return, leading Trencin to file a claim against him before FIFA in March 2013, alleging breach of contract and seeking financial compensation. Díaz countered by claiming Trencin had failed to pay his salaries and bonuses, justifying his termination of the contract. In July 2013, Díaz signed a new contract with River, which Trencin later highlighted in its communications with FIFA.
FIFA's proceedings initially involved only Trencin and Díaz, with Trencin's claim exclusively directed at the player. FIFA requested additional documentation and notified Díaz of the claim, to which he responded with a counterclaim for unpaid wages. Trencin later informed FIFA of Díaz's involvement with River, prompting FIFA to notify River of the ongoing proceedings and request information. The case eventually reached CAS after FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber issued a decision on April 10, 2015, which River appealed.
The CAS panel emphasized the procedural requirements under FIFA's rules, stating that a respondent must be clearly identified by the claimant, have standing to be sued, and be formally notified of the claim. The panel noted that FIFA cannot act ex officio to condemn a party not formally involved in the proceedings. Trencin did not dispute the facts presented by River but disagreed with the legal arguments, while Díaz did not respond to the proceedings. The panel reviewed all submissions and evidence, including documents in Spanish, to reach its decision.
Ultimately, the case centered on whether Trencin's claim was properly directed and whether FIFA or CAS could impose liability on a party not formally named as a respondent. The panel underscored the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to FIFA's regulations in determining the parties' rights and obligations. The award clarified that without proper identification and notification, a person or entity cannot be held liable in such proceedings. The decision highlights the necessity of clear claims and proper procedural steps in resolving football-related disputes.
The document outlines a legal dispute between Club Atlético River Plate (the Appellant), AS Trencin (the First Respondent), and Iván Santiago Díaz (the Second Respondent) before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The case revolves around the termination of a player's contract and the subsequent liability for compensation. On 18 November 2015, the CAS Court Office sent the Order of Procedure to the parties, which was signed by the Appellant and the First Respondent but not by the Second Respondent. FIFA later provided the complete case file to the CAS on 16 December 2015.
The Appellant, River Plate, argued that the player terminated his contract with Trencin in January 2013 and remained a free agent for six months before signing with River Plate, asserting that River never induced the breach. They emphasized that the player assured them he was a free agent and that River was not involved in the termination. River Plate contended that Article 17 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) should be interpreted as a whole, focusing on contractual stability, and that liability should only apply if the new club induced the breach. They also argued that the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) did not allow River to participate in the proceedings, violating their right to defense. Additionally, they claimed that Trencin never filed a claim against River and even acknowledged owing River training compensation.
The First Respondent, Trencin, countered that River Plate was jointly and severally liable for compensation under Article 17.2 of the RSTP, regardless of River's involvement in the breach. Trencin argued that River was aware of the player's existing contract, as evidenced by the Slovak Football Association's refusal to issue an International Transfer Certificate (ITC). They maintained that the DRC's jurisprudence consistently holds new clubs liable and that River had the opportunity to participate in the proceedings as an intervening party. Trencin also denied relinquishing any claims against River regarding training compensation.
The Second Respondent, the player, did not submit a response despite being invited to do so.
The CAS examined its jurisdiction under Article R47 of its Code and Article 67 of the FIFA Statutes