The case involves a dispute between Fulham Football Club and Olympique Lyonnais (OL) over compensation for the international transfer of player Steve Marlet. FIFA's Executive Committee had initially ruled on June 28, 2003, that Fulham must pay OL FF 30,000,000 (approximately EUR 4,573,470.52). Fulham contested this decision by filing for arbitration with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on July 21, 2003, seeking to overturn the FIFA ruling and demanding OL pay FF 90,000,000 instead. Fulham also requested a stay of execution of FIFA's decision, while OL countered by demanding immediate payment of the awarded amount plus interest and opposed the stay. The CAS panel, composed of Jean-Philippe Rochat, Jan Paulsson, and Dirk-Reiner Martens, addressed preliminary issues such as jurisdiction, applicable law, and interim measures.
The CAS confirmed its jurisdiction, noting both parties had implicitly agreed to arbitration—Fulham by filing the request and OL by responding. The applicable law was determined to be FIFA's regulations, supplemented by Swiss law, as no alternative had been specified. The panel dismissed Fulham’s request for a stay of execution, stating that FIFA's decision, as a ruling by a Swiss private association, could not be enforced while under challenge before an arbitral tribunal like the CAS. Similarly, OL’s request for immediate payment was rejected, as Swiss legal doctrine does not recognize the anticipated execution of monetary claims as a valid provisional measure. The panel also noted OL had failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or the likelihood of success on the merits, further justifying the dismissal.
In its preliminary award on September 15, 2003, the CAS ruled it had jurisdiction, dismissed Fulham’s request for interim measures to stay FIFA's decision, and rejected OL’s demand for immediate payment. The case would proceed to a full examination of the merits. The decision was grounded in established CAS jurisprudence and Swiss legal principles, ensuring procedural fairness while deferring substantive issues for further arbitration. The panel emphasized the strict criteria for granting provisional measures, highlighting that neither party met the necessary legal standards. Costs related to the preliminary award were deferred to the final ruling. The outcome underscores the CAS's adherence to procedural rigor and the importance of demonstrating irreparable harm or a strong likelihood of success when seeking interim measures in arbitration.