The case involves a dispute between Club Estudiantes de Mérida and FIFA, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), concerning disciplinary sanctions imposed on the club for non-compliance with a FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) decision. The dispute originated from an employment contract between the club and an Argentinian player, who claimed unpaid salaries and sought contract termination. The player filed claims with both the Venezuelan Football Federation’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) and FIFA’s DRC. The club argued it had already paid the player before the FIFA DRC decision was issued, but FIFA maintained the club was properly notified and failed to comply. The case highlights key legal principles, including proper service of documents, the distinction between revision and appeal of decisions, and FIFA’s jurisdiction in disciplinary proceedings.
FIFA’s DRC partially accepted the player’s claim, ordering the club to pay VEF 100,000 and USD 48,000 within 30 days, with a 5% annual interest penalty for late payment. The decision was notified to the Venezuelan Football Federation (FVF) in September 2015, but the club claimed it only received the communication in 2017 due to an incorrect fax number. FIFA insisted the decision was validly forwarded. The player repeatedly informed FIFA of non-payment, leading FIFA to urge the club to settle the debt and later refer the matter to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee. The club argued it had already paid the player and requested a revision of the DRC decision but failed to provide conclusive evidence. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee found the club guilty of non-compliance, imposing a CHF 7,500 fine and granting a final 30-day grace period to pay the debt, with potential penalties including a six-point deduction and relegation.
The club appealed to CAS, arguing the FIFA DRC decision was null and void due to procedural violations, including improper notification and lack of jurisdiction. The club claimed it was unaware of the proceedings until it was too late to appeal, as FIFA allegedly sent notifications to an incorrect fax number. FIFA countered that the club had provided the fax number in question to the Venezuelan national sports registry and that all communications were properly sent. The CAS Panel rejected the club’s late-filed documents, citing lack of justification for the delay and insufficient relevance. The Panel emphasized that the club’s awareness of the proceedings and the DRC decision was undisputed, making its inaction unjustifiable. While acknowledging shortcomings in FIFA’s notification process, the Panel found the club’s procedural rights were not violated to the extent of nullifying the decision.
Regarding sanctions, the club argued it had issued a cheque for VEF 230,100 to the player in June 2015, though it was unclear whether the player cashed it. The Panel criticized the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for not considering this evidence but noted the player’s failure to cash the cheque did not absolve the club of its debt. The Panel distinguished between disciplinary proceedings and actual enforcement, reducing the fine from CHF 7,500 to CHF 2,500 to reflect the partial payment. The CAS upheld the validity of the FIFA DRC decision but adjusted the sanctions, maintaining the threat of point deductions and relegation if the remaining debt (USD 27,349.23) was unpaid within 30 days. The case underscores the importance of procedural diligence and timely challenges in legal disputes, reinforcing FIFA’s disciplinary framework and the consequences of non-compliance.