The case revolves around Iván Bolado Palacios, a professional football player, who appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against FIFA's handling of his request for the grounds of a decision made by the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC). The DRC had ruled both his claim and the counterclaim by PFC CSKA Sofia inadmissible in November 2014. Bolado timely requested the grounds for this decision, but FIFA failed to respond for nearly a year, citing an alleged lack of proof of the initial request. The player argued that FIFA's protracted proceedings caused him moral damages and sought compensation.
The CAS addressed two main issues. First, it determined whether FIFA's letter refusing to provide the grounds constituted an appealable decision. The CAS ruled that a communication qualifies as a decision if it contains a ruling intended to affect the legal situation of the addressee, regardless of its form. Since FIFA's refusal materially impacted the player's rights, it was deemed an appealable decision. Second, the CAS examined the player's claim for moral damages under Swiss law, specifically Article 49 of the Swiss Code of Obligations. To succeed, the player needed to prove a violation of his personality rights, an unlawful act by FIFA, severe moral damage beyond normal tolerance, a causal link between FIFA's conduct and the damage, and that the damage remained unremedied.
The CAS found that while FIFA's delays were regrettable, the player failed to substantiate how these actions specifically caused him moral harm or what unlawful act was committed. Without evidence of tangible consequences, such as medical expenses or lost opportunities, the claim for moral damages could not be upheld. The CAS emphasized that Swiss jurisprudence generally adopts a restrictive approach to awarding moral damages, requiring clear proof of severe harm. Mere procedural delays, without demonstrated unlawful conduct or specific damages, do not suffice.
The timeline of events revealed that Bolado persistently sought access to his file and specific documents, including annexes mentioned in FIFA's correspondence but not provided. FIFA eventually acknowledged the oversight and sent the missing documents but failed to address all of Bolado's requests. On 23 October 2015, Bolado filed an appeal with CAS, challenging FIFA's response and seeking legal aid for arbitration costs. FIFA later admitted it had overlooked Bolado's initial request due to an administrative error and committed to providing the grounds of the decision within two months. Despite this, Bolado maintained his appeal, seeking compensation for legal fees, moral damages, and a commitment from FIFA to deliver the decision's grounds by a specific date. FIFA refused the compensation but provided the grounds by the end of January 2016.
The CAS proceedings continued with written submissions from both parties, and the panel decided against holding a hearing. The panel ruled that FIFA's October 2015 letter was indeed a decision subject to appeal, validating the player's case. However, since the player's main request had already been addressed, the focus shifted to assessing whether FIFA's procedural delays warranted compensation for moral damages. The panel concluded that the player did not meet the legal criteria for compensation, as he failed to provide evidence of specific damages or a causal link between FIFA's conduct and the alleged harm.
Ultimately, the CAS dismissed the player's appeal, underscoring the importance of timely and transparent decision-making by sports governing bodies while highlighting the high evidentiary burden for moral damages claims. The case illustrates the complexities of sports arbitration and the challenges athletes face in seeking redress for procedural delays and administrative errors.