The case of Aliaksandr Khatskevich v. Belarus Football Federation (BFF) centered on a contractual dispute following Khatskevich's termination as Head Coach of the Belarus national football team. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled on December 14, 2017, with a panel comprising Clifford Hendel, Manfred Peter Nan, and Michele Bernasconi. The primary issue was whether CAS had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the dispute was domestic and the BFF's statutes did not explicitly grant CAS jurisdiction. Khatskevich, a Belarusian national, had signed a contract with the BFF in December 2014, valid until November 2017, which included performance-based clauses allowing early termination if certain conditions were unmet. In December 2016, the BFF terminated the contract, citing breaches such as Khatskevich's failure to reside in Belarus, unauthorized media interviews, and unsatisfactory team performance. Khatskevich appealed to the BFF's Football Arbitration Body, which partially ruled in his favor, ordering payment for six unpaid working days but dismissing his broader compensation claim.
Khatskevich then appealed to CAS, arguing that the BFF's statutes implicitly recognized CAS jurisdiction. However, the CAS panel found that jurisdiction must be explicitly and unambiguously granted, which was not the case in the BFF's statutes or through indirect references to FIFA regulations. The panel emphasized that domestic disputes typically fall under national courts unless clear arbitration agreements exist. Procedurally, the BFF faced delays in submitting its response due to translation issues, leading the panel to declare its formal answer inadmissible, though supplementary documents were considered. A hearing was held in October 2017, where oral arguments were presented. The Respondent, BFF, contended that the dispute was purely national, involving a contract signed in Minsk between Belarusian residents, and that its statutes designated domestic disputes for national arbitration bodies, with CAS jurisdiction only applicable to international cases.
The Panel analyzed jurisdictional objections, confirming its authority to rule on its own jurisdiction under Swiss law, as the arbitration seat was in Lausanne. It referenced Article R47 of the CAS Code, which requires either an express agreement between the parties or a provision in the relevant statutes for CAS jurisdiction. The Panel found no such express agreement in the contract, as Article 4.6 only referred to initial claims being filed with the Football Arbitration Body. It also rejected Khatskevich's argument that the dispute's nature (domestic or international) was unclear, affirming it was a domestic matter subject to Belarusian courts. The Panel dismissed reliance on indirect references to CAS in the BFF or FIFA statutes, reiterating that CAS jurisdiction must be explicitly established. Ultimately, the CAS dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, reinforcing the principle that arbitration requires clear consent. The case highlights the necessity for unambiguous jurisdictional clauses in sports governance documents to avoid disputes over arbitration authority.