The case revolves around a contractual dispute between Sergio Navarro Barquero, a Spanish football coach, and FC Rubin Kazan, a Russian football club. Navarro joined Rubin Kazan's coaching staff in 2009 and signed a new employment contract in 2013, valid until 2015. The contract included termination clauses, particularly concerning Navarro's possession of a valid UEFA license. In January 2014, Rubin Kazan terminated the contract, citing Navarro's lack of a valid UEFA license, which Navarro contested, claiming he held a valid license issued by the Spanish Football Federation. Navarro filed a claim with FIFA's Players' Status Committee (PSC), seeking compensation for breach of contract. The PSC ruled the claim inadmissible, prompting Navarro to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS panel addressed two key legal issues. First, it clarified that in appeals against decisions by an association like FIFA, the proper respondent is the association itself, even if the decision affects a co-member like Rubin Kazan. This distinction is crucial in "vertical" disputes involving FIFA's prerogatives versus "horizontal" disputes between members, such as clubs and players. The panel noted that FIFA's involvement as a respondent was necessary since Navarro's appeal challenged FIFA's jurisdictional decision. Second, the panel differentiated between "horizontal" disputes, involving members without FIFA's direct stake, and "vertical" disputes, involving FIFA's disciplinary or regulatory powers. In cases with both elements, such as contractual breaches with associated sporting sanctions, the distinction becomes relevant for determining proper respondents and jurisdictional scope.
Navarro sought to annul FIFA's decision and have the case referred back to FIFA for reconsideration. He also requested consolidation with related cases involving other coaches, but the CAS Court Office denied this, citing procedural rules. The panel's analysis focused on the contractual terms, Rubin Kazan's termination justification, and Navarro's claims regarding his UEFA license. The case underscores the complexities of football-related disputes, particularly the interplay between contractual obligations, jurisdictional authority, and procedural rules in sports arbitration. The panel's decision highlights the importance of distinguishing between disputes involving associations and those between members, ensuring proper legal standing and procedural fairness in arbitration proceedings.
Navarro argued that the National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) of the Russian Football Union (RFU) lacked independence and impartiality, failing the "stand-alone test" as it was subordinate to the RFU. He contended that the NDRC's decisions should be considered those of the RFU, which Rubin Kazan was affiliated with, and that the NDRC did not meet the minimum procedural standards for an independent and impartial arbitration tribunal as required by FIFA regulations. Rubin Kazan countered by asserting that the NDRC was compliant with FIFA’s criteria, citing amendments to the RFU Regulations for Dispute Resolution following consultations with various football stakeholders. They also highlighted that 84% of NDRC decisions favored coaches, demonstrating fairness.
The panel concluded that Navarro’s challenge was a "vertical" dispute directed at FIFA, as it sought to overturn FIFA’s jurisdictional decision rather than resolve a contractual claim against Rubin Kazan. Consequently, FIFA should have been summoned as the respondent, while Rubin Kazan lacked standing to be sued in this context. The panel dismissed Navarro’s appeal, upholding the FIFA PSC’s decision and confirming that the proper party for such challenges is the association itself. The ruling underscores the importance of correctly identifying the nature of the dispute (vertical or horizontal) and the appropriate defendant in association-related legal challenges. The decision is final and concludes the matter.