The case involves an arbitration appeal filed by FK Olimpik Sarajevo (the Appellant) against the Football Association of Bosnia and Herzegovina, MSK Zilina, the Slovakian Football Association, and Admir Vladavic (the Respondents) before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The dispute stemmed from a FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber decision in 2013, which ruled that Admir Vladavic owed payments to MSK Zilina, with the Appellant held jointly and severally liable. In 2017, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee found the Appellant guilty of failing to comply with this decision, imposing a fine of CHF 15,000 and a 60-day grace period to settle the debt, with potential point deductions and relegation if unpaid. The Appellant appealed to CAS on September 7, 2017, requesting a stay of execution due to financial difficulties and relegation. However, the appeal initially failed to identify the correct respondents, later naming the four Respondents but excluding FIFA. FIFA asserted it was the only proper respondent in disciplinary sanction cases, citing longstanding CAS jurisprudence, and declined to intervene, arguing the appeal was improperly directed. MSK Zilina supported FIFA's position, urging dismissal of the appeal. Despite objections, the Appellant persisted, but its request for provisional measures was dismissed by the CAS President in November 2017. The parties were then asked to choose between a hearing or written submissions, though the final outcome remains unspecified.
The case highlights procedural complexities in football disciplinary sanctions and the critical need to correctly identify parties in CAS appeals. The Appellant argued the fine was disproportionately high given its financial struggles, including relegation and loss of sponsors, and claimed attempts to negotiate with MSK Zilina had failed. The Respondents, except MSK Zilina, did not file substantive answers, while MSK Zilina contended the appeal was improperly directed. CAS confirmed its jurisdiction based on FIFA statutes and the parties' agreement, deeming the appeal admissible as it met the 21-day filing deadline. The Sole Arbitrator, Ivaylo Dermendjiev, opted for a decision based on written submissions, bypassing a hearing. The Appellant sought abolition or reduction of the fine, citing financial hardship and good faith efforts, while the Respondents, except MSK Zilina, did not oppose the appeal. The applicable law derived from FIFA regulations and, subsidiarily, Swiss law, given FIFA's Swiss domicile.
A pivotal issue was the correct identification of respondents. CAS jurisprudence and Swiss law stipulate that only parties with a stake in the dispute can be sued. In appeals against FIFA disciplinary decisions, only FIFA has standing, as the proceedings protect its interests. The Appellant's failure to name FIFA as a respondent, despite opportunities to correct this, proved fatal to its case. FIFA explicitly renounced participation, reinforcing its exclusion as a party. The Sole Arbitrator, referencing Article R48 of the CAS Code, ruled that FIFA could not be considered a respondent since it was not formally named. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the FIFA Disciplinary Committee's 2017 decision and rejecting all other motions. The case underscores the necessity of procedural compliance in CAS appeals, particularly in naming proper respondents, and aligns with prior CAS rulings to ensure procedural integrity. The dismissal reaffirms the importance of adhering to established legal principles in sports arbitration.