The case of Ramon Castillo Segura v. FIFA, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in 2016, revolved around the enforcement of financial claims against the Mexican club FC Puebla and the standing of an intermediary to invoke Article 64 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC). Castillo Segura, an intermediary registered with the Royal Spanish Football Federation (RFEF), sought to enforce payment decisions against FC Puebla for unpaid fees related to player transfers, despite temporarily losing his license. The CAS panel, composed of Prof. Martin Schimke, Mr. Patrick Lafranchi, and Mr. Bernhard Heusler, addressed key legal issues, including procedural fairness, the interpretation of Article 64 FDC, and the validity of claim assignments.
The CAS emphasized its de novo competence, allowing it to rectify procedural deficiencies from prior proceedings, provided the appellant’s rights were not irreparably harmed. The panel found that Castillo Segura had a full opportunity to present his case before CAS, thus remedying any prior flaws. On the issue of standing under Article 64 FDC, the CAS ruled that there are no explicit restrictions on who may invoke this provision, provided the claimant is an (in)direct member of FIFA and has a legitimate interest in enforcing the decision. The panel determined that standing should be assessed at the time the claim is lodged, not during subsequent proceedings. Since Castillo Segura was registered with the RFEF when he initiated enforcement proceedings, his temporary loss of license did not invalidate his standing, especially as FIFA had discontinued the licensing system for agents.
The factual background revealed that Castillo Segura had acquired claims against FC Puebla through assignments from FK Budocnost and FK Rad, clubs owed payments per FIFA decisions. FIFA initially refused to act on his enforcement request, arguing only the original creditor clubs could invoke Article 64 FDC. The CAS rejected this interpretation, noting that FIFA’s disciplinary system functions as a private sanctioning mechanism rather than state-backed enforcement. The panel concluded that Castillo Segura had standing to request enforcement under Article 64 FDC, as he met the necessary criteria at the time of filing his claim. The decision reinforced the principle that procedural and membership statuses are evaluated at the time of claim submission, ensuring fairness in disciplinary proceedings.
The case also highlighted procedural delays and unclear communication from FIFA, including a 2013 decision that was never communicated to Castillo Segura. The CAS panel criticized FIFA’s handling of the case but noted that its de novo review process rectified these issues. The panel rejected FIFA’s argument that assignments of claims should be categorically prohibited due to potential abuse or administrative burden, stating that such restrictions require a clear regulatory basis, which was absent at the time. The panel emphasized that assignments should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Ultimately, the CAS partially upheld Castillo Segura’s appeal, set aside FIFA’s decision, and remanded the case to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee with instructions to proceed with enforcement under Article 64 FDC in his favor. The decision underscores the importance of evaluating standing at the time of filing and ensuring procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings, while also clarifying the scope of Article 64 FDC and the rights of intermediaries in enforcement actions. The ruling has significant implications for the enforcement of financial decisions in international football governance, balancing regulatory control with the rights of claimants.