The case involves a legal dispute between LLC CPF Karpaty, a Ukrainian football club, and Volodymyr Hudyma, a professional football player, concerning financial obligations under their contract. The Football Federation of Ukraine (FFU) Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) initially ruled in 2014 that Karpaty owed Hudyma $73,800 in additional remuneration. Karpaty did not appeal this decision at the time. In 2016, the FFU Control and Disciplinary Committee (CDC) ordered Karpaty to comply with the 2014 decision or face sanctions, prompting Karpaty to file a lawsuit in a Ukrainian civil court, which ruled in its favor in 2017. Karpaty then petitioned the FFU DRC to reconsider its 2014 decision, citing new evidence and the civil court ruling. The FFU DRC refused, invoking the principle of res judicata, stating the decision was final and binding since Karpaty had not appealed it to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within the required timeframe.
Karpaty subsequently appealed to CAS, arguing the FFU DRC’s refusal constituted a new appealable decision. The sole arbitrator ruled that a request for reconsideration does not restart or suspend the appeal deadline, emphasizing the importance of finality and the fixed time limits under CAS rules. The arbitrator concluded that Karpaty’s appeal was inadmissible as it was filed outside the permissible period, upholding the principle that parties cannot indefinitely extend appeal deadlines by requesting reconsiderations. The decision underscores the CAS’s commitment to legal certainty and the enforcement of procedural timelines in sports arbitration.
The procedural timeline details the exchanges between the parties and CAS. Karpaty filed an appeal with CAS on May 5, 2017, challenging the FFU DRC's resolution and requesting a stay of execution of the sanctions during the appeal process. The appeal was submitted without detailed reasoning for the stay request. The President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division rejected Karpaty's request for a stay, and a sole arbitrator was appointed. The parties were given opportunities to submit further arguments, particularly on jurisdiction, but Karpaty eventually confirmed it had no additional submissions. The respondent continued to challenge CAS jurisdiction, submitting supporting documents.
Karpaty sought several remedies, including the revocation of the FFU DRC's decision and a reconsideration of the 2014 decision based on newly discovered evidence. They argued that a ruling from the District Court of Lviv presented significant new circumstances that undermined the basis of the original decision. The CAS proceedings concluded without a hearing, as the sole arbitrator determined that the written submissions provided sufficient information for a decision. The final award was issued on November 24, 2017, though the document does not detail the outcome.
The case highlights the procedural steps in CAS appeals, including jurisdictional challenges, requests for provisional measures, and the evaluation of new evidence in disciplinary disputes. The Sole Arbitrator affirmed CAS jurisdiction over the appeal, rejecting the respondent's arguments that the challenged decision was not a formal decision. The arbitrator emphasized the importance of ensuring access to legal remedies in sports-related disputes while upholding the principle of finality and adherence to procedural deadlines. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, reinforcing the enforceability of time limits and preventing indefinite extension of appeal periods through repeated reconsideration requests. The CAS upheld the original decision, underscoring its role in ensuring timely and fair resolution of sports-related disputes.