The case involves a dispute between Alexander Lopyrev, a Russian football agent, and the Russian Football Union (RFU) along with FC Krylya Sovetov, a Russian football club, over unpaid agency fees. Lopyrev initially filed a claim with the RFU Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which ruled in his favor, ordering the club to pay the outstanding amount. However, the club failed to comply, prompting Lopyrev to request enforcement proceedings and sanctions. The RFU DRC initially confirmed its jurisdiction under the regulations in force at the time of the claim but later declined to enforce the decision, citing amendments to RFU regulations that removed agents from the category of "subjects of football." This led Lopyrev to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the RFU's refusal to enforce its own decision was incorrect.
The CAS panel, led by sole arbitrator Lars Hilliger, ruled that amendments to regulations should not retroactively affect cases initiated under prior rules, adhering to the principle of "tempus regit actum" (the time governs the act). The panel found that the RFU's judicial bodies had wrongly denied their competence to enforce the decision, as the original claim was valid under the regulations in effect at the time. Since the RFU's judicial bodies had not properly considered whether sanctions should be imposed on the club for non-compliance, the CAS referred the matter back to the RFU for reconsideration.
The dispute highlights the tension between procedural changes in regulations and the enforcement of prior decisions. Lopyrev argued that the principle of legal consistency should apply, ensuring that the original regulations governed the entire dispute, including enforcement. The respondents, RFU and FC Krylya Sovetov, failed to submit timely responses or attend the hearing, leading the CAS to proceed in their absence. The Sole Arbitrator confirmed CAS jurisdiction under Article 47 of the RFU Statutes, which allows appeals to CAS against final decisions of the RFU after exhausting internal remedies. The arbitrator emphasized that the RFU PSC and DRC were wrong in declaring themselves incompetent, as the Appellant was entitled to seek enforcement under the regulations applicable when the claim was filed.
The case underscores the importance of consistent application of regulations and the principle of non-retroactivity in sports governance. It also highlights the need for federations to enforce their own decisions to maintain fairness and accountability in contractual disputes. The CAS decision ensures that Lopyrev’s claim will be re-examined under the correct legal framework, reinforcing the integrity of dispute resolution processes in football. The Sole Arbitrator annulled the RFU PSC's decision and remitted the case back for reconsideration, partially upholding Lopyrev’s appeal while dismissing other requests for relief. The outcome emphasizes the structured dispute resolution mechanisms within sports governance, ensuring parties exhaust internal remedies before seeking external arbitration. The case serves as a reminder of the obligations of football clubs to comply with the rulings of their governing bodies and the procedural fairness required in resolving such disputes.