The case revolves around a dispute between FK Senica, a Slovakian football club, and PFC Ludogorets 1945, a Bulgarian football club, along with FIFA, concerning training compensation for a player's transfer. Senica initially filed a claim with FIFA in 2012, arguing that Ludogorets owed training compensation for registering a Slovakian player. FIFA rejected the claim, stating that Ludogorets, as a category IV club, was exempt from such payments under FIFA regulations. Senica disagreed and sought further review, but FIFA maintained its position. Senica then appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in 2012 but withdrew the appeal shortly after, leading to the termination of proceedings.
In 2015, Senica filed a new appeal with CAS, alleging that FIFA had failed to issue a formal decision, resulting in a denial of justice. Senica claimed it had exhausted all internal remedies and sought compensation from Ludogorets. However, the CAS panel, led by sole arbitrator Manfred Nan, ruled the appeal inadmissible. The panel found that Senica had not demonstrated a legitimate expectation of a decision from FIFA, as there was no evidence it had followed up on the case for over two years after withdrawing its initial appeal. The panel also invoked the principle of venire contra factum proprium, which prevents a party from contradicting its prior conduct to the detriment of another. Since Senica had withdrawn its first appeal without further action, it could not later claim a denial of justice.
The CAS further examined jurisdictional issues under Article R47 of the CAS Code, which permits appeals against decisions of sports bodies if internal remedies are exhausted. FIFA and Ludogorets argued that Senica's 2012 appeal withdrawal created a res judicata situation, meaning the matter had already been conclusively decided. The sole arbitrator agreed, noting that Senica's inconsistent treatment of FIFA's 2012 letter—first as a decision and later as a non-decision—demonstrated bad faith. The arbitrator emphasized that Senica's prolonged inactivity, including failing to contact FIFA for over two and a half years, undermined its claim of awaiting a decision.
Ultimately, the CAS concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as there was no appealable decision from FIFA and no proof of a denial of justice. The panel dismissed Senica's claims, reinforcing the principle that parties must actively pursue their legal remedies and cannot rely on inaction to justify late appeals. The decision highlights the procedural rigor required in sports arbitration and the finality of prior rulings, preventing the relitigation of resolved or resolvable issues. The case underscores the importance of timely and consistent legal action in disputes before sports arbitration bodies.