CAS 2006/A/1192 Chelsea Football Club Ltd. v. M.
- Football
- Breach of the employment contract without just cause
- Standing to be sued
- Dispute settlement system of the FIFA
- Competence to impose sanctions
1. A club is entitled to direct its appeal at a player in order to require him to accept the FIFA jurisdiction to rule on the issue of sanction and of compensation as the FIFA Regulations provide that every player must have a written contract with the club employing him and that the contract shall be subject to the rules of FIFA which are applicable to any dispute arising out of the breach of that contract by one of the parties.
2. Art. 42 of the FIFA Regulations and Circular no. 769 expressly distinguish, for jurisdictional purposes, between the “triggering elements” or “liability stage” of a claim and the “remedies” or “quantum” stage. The “triggering elements” of the dispute may be decided either by the DRC or by a national football tribunal provided that
(a) that national tribunal is composed of “members chosen in equal numbers by players and clubs, as well as an independent chairman”, and
(b) both parties to the dispute agree to the national tribunal determining the triggering elements. Then it is the DRC alone that is exclusively competent to determine what sporting sanctions should be imposed and what financial compensation should be awarded.
In October 2004 the Player Adrian Mute tested positive for the prohibited substance cocaine and the Club terminated the contract with the Player with immediate effect.
Consequently on 4 November 2004, the FA’s Disciplinary Commission imposed a seven-month ban on the Player commencing on 25 October 2004. Thereupon the FIFA Disciplinary Committee extended the sanction in order to obtain a worldwide effect by a decision dated 12 November 2004.
On 10 November 2004, the Player appealed against the Club’s decision with the Board of Directors of the FAPL and on 19 January 2005 Chelsea filed a claim for compensation against the Player.
At the hearing on 19 January 2005 the panel was informed of an agreement between Chelsea and Adrian Muti as to the method of resolution of the Player’s appeal and Chelsea’s claim for compensation.
By joint letter dated 26 January 2005, the Parties agreed to refer the “triggering element of the dispute”, that is, the issue of whether the Player had acted in breach of the employment contract with or without just cause or sporting just cause, to the Football Association Premier League Appeal Committee (FAPLAC).
On 20 April 2005, FAPLAC decided that the Player had committed a breach of contract without just cause within the protected period against Chelsea.
Hereafter in April 2005 the Player appealed the decision with the Court of Arbitration of Sport (CAS). On 15 December 2005 CAS decided to dismissed the Player’s appeal (CAS/A/786).
On 11 May 2006 Chelsea applied to FIFA for an award of compensation against the Player Adrian Muti. That application followed the 20 April 2005 decision and was consistent with the claim dated 4 February 2005. In particular, Chelsea requested that the DRC should award an amount of compensation in favour of the Club following the established breach of contract committed by the Player without just cause.
On 26 October 2006, the DRC decided that it did not have jurisdiction to make a decision in the dispute between Chelsea and the Player and that the claim of Chelsea was therefore not admissible.
Hereafter on 22 December 2006 Chelsea filed an appeal against the FIFA Decision with CAS.
The Panel holds that under Article 21 of the 2001 FIFA Regulations, where a party has been determined unilaterally to have breached his contract with the other party without just cause, compensation for the loss of the non-breaching party is payable, calculated as set out in Article 22.
the Panel rules that the two-stage procedure is perfectly admissible under Article 42 of the 2001 FIFA Regulations. Indeed, it is a procedure specifically provided for by FIFA. The Panel, therefore, rejects the Player’s different construction.
As a result the Panel finds that, at the second stage of the Article 42 procedure, the DRC does have jurisdiction to determine the appropriate sanction and/or order for compensation arising out of the dispute between Chelsea and the Player. He is not entitled to object to the FIFA jurisdiction.
Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 21 May 2007:
1.) The appeal filed by Chelsea Football Club against the decision rendered on 26 October 2006 by the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber is upheld;
2.) The decision rendered on 26 October 2006 by the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber is set aside;
3.) The matter is referred back to the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber which does have jurisdiction to determine and impose the appropriate sporting sanction and/or order for compensation, if any, arising out of the dispute between Chelsea Football Club and Mutu;
4.) (…);
5.) (…);
6.) All other prayers for relief are dismissed.
