The case centers on FC Aris Thessaloniki's appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against FIFA and New Panionios N.F.C. regarding the enforcement of a FIFA Disciplinary Committee decision. The dispute originated when Panionios failed to pay outstanding amounts to two players within the required 30-day period, leading FIFA to rule that 12 points would be deducted from Panionios' league standings if payment was not made. Although Panionios eventually paid the players after the deadline, no points were deducted, which FC Aris argued unfairly impacted its league position and resulted in its relegation. FC Aris filed a complaint with FIFA, seeking enforcement of the decision and sanctions against Panionios and the Hellenic Football Federation (HFF). FIFA responded by stating enforcement was the HFF's responsibility, prompting FC Aris to appeal to CAS.
The CAS Panel examined whether FIFA's response constituted an appealable decision. It concluded that FIFA's communication was merely informational, clarifying the applicable rules and the competence of its Disciplinary Committee, rather than issuing a binding ruling. The Panel emphasized that the substance of the communication, not its form, determined whether it was a decision. Since FIFA had referred the case to its Disciplinary Committee, there was no denial of justice, and FC Aris had not exhausted all internal FIFA remedies before appealing to CAS. The Panel ruled it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case in the absence of a final FIFA decision.
FC Aris contended that FIFA's letters of June 6 and 7, 2005, were appealable decisions, citing a prior CAS ruling where a FIFA letter was deemed a decision. It also argued that FIFA had an obligation to ensure its decisions were enforced, especially when non-compliance affected third parties like FC Aris. FIFA and Panionios countered that the letters were purely informational and did not constitute a decision, making the appeal inadmissible.
The Panel applied FIFA regulations and Swiss law, noting that CAS jurisdiction required the exhaustion of internal appeals under FIFA's statutes. It reiterated that CAS could only hear appeals against final decisions after all internal remedies were exhausted, which FC Aris had not done. The hearing took place on July 4, 2005, with Panionios asserting it had complied by paying the players and should not face further sanctions.
The Panel dismissed FC Aris' appeal, ruling that no appealable decision had been issued by FIFA and that internal remedies had not been fully pursued. It clarified that FIFA's role was to refer matters to the Disciplinary Committee, not to decide on disciplinary actions, and found no undue refusal by FIFA to act. The Panel also addressed concerns about delays, urging FIFA to expedite the process but noting that the delay did not yet constitute a denial of justice. The case underscores the importance of exhausting all procedural steps before seeking external arbitration and highlights the procedural boundaries of CAS jurisdiction.
Ultimately, the CAS ruled it had no jurisdiction over the appeal, as FIFA's letters were not final decisions and internal remedies had not been exhausted. The case clarifies that the substance of a communication, not its form, determines whether it constitutes a decision and reinforces the need for parties to follow all internal procedures before appealing to CAS.