The case involves a legal dispute between the Football Association of Serbia (FSS) and the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) regarding UEFA's decision to admit the Football Federation of Kosovo (FFK) as a member. The FSS appealed the decision, arguing that the resolution passed by the UEFA Congress was invalid because Kosovo did not meet the membership criteria outlined in UEFA's statutes, specifically Article 5(1), which requires a federation to be based in a country recognized by the United Nations as an independent state. The FSS contended that Kosovo, not being a UN member, failed this requirement. The case was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which examined the legal standing of the FSS to challenge the decision, the validity of the membership contract, and the interpretation of UEFA's statutes.
The CAS panel, composed of Prof. Ulrich Haas, Mr. José Juan Pintó, and Mr. Patrick Lafranchi, first addressed the issue of legal standing. Under Swiss law, which governs UEFA's statutes, a member of an association can challenge a resolution if they are a member and did not consent to it. The FSS met this criterion as it was a UEFA member and had publicly opposed FFK's admission during the UEFA Congress. The panel rejected UEFA's argument that the FSS lacked standing, emphasizing that legal protection against association decisions is fundamental under Swiss law. The panel also clarified that the appeal was correctly directed against UEFA alone, as the association is the proper defendant in such disputes, not individual members or affected parties.
On the substantive issues, the panel focused on interpreting Article 5(1) of the UEFA Statutes. The FSS argued that the provision required UN membership, while UEFA maintained that recognition by a majority of UN member states sufficed. The panel found the wording of Article 5(1) ambiguous and examined its history, purpose, and context. It noted that the provision aimed to limit membership to one federation per country and accepted secessions only when the territory was unequivocally recognized as an independent state. The panel concluded that the term "recognized by the United Nations as an independent state" should be interpreted in line with public international law, meaning recognition by a majority of UN members, not formal UN membership. This interpretation aligned with UEFA's position and broader sporting contexts, such as FIFA and the Olympic Charter, which emphasize international recognition over UN membership. The panel also considered the legitimate expectations of new members and the lack of compelling reasons to impose stricter criteria than those in public international law.
The panel further dismissed the FSS's procedural objections, such as insufficient notification and documentation, noting that the FSS had failed to raise these issues during the Congress, barring them from doing so later under the principle of good faith. The panel also rejected the FSS's claim that the resolution violated its freedom of association under Swiss law and the European Convention on Human Rights, finding no evidence that the resolution threatened the FSS's existence or forced clubs to leave.
Ultimately, the CAS panel ruled in favor of UEFA, upholding the resolution and affirming the validity of FFK's membership. The decision clarified the conditions for UEFA membership and the rights of existing members to challenge decisions, highlighting the intersection of sports governance, legal standing, and international recognition in football associations. The case underscored the importance of procedural fairness and the interpretation of ambiguous statutory provisions in resolving disputes within sports organizations. The panel's ruling emphasized that UEFA's actions were within its regulatory framework and did not unlawfully interfere with the FSS's rights.