CAS BULLETIN 2025/1 PUBLISHED
EDITORIAL
Starting in 2025, the CAS Bulletin will transition to a quarterly publication schedule, ensuring more frequent coverage of important cases, i.e. cases containing interesting points of law. These may include new case law, reaffirmations of key legal principles, or high-profile awards. Going forward, selected awards will be published in their original form, accompanied by a concise summary highlighting the key legal issues addressed.
Additionally, extracts from Swiss Federal Tribunal (TF) judgments related to CAS will be featured regularly. Feature articles, however, will be published only once a year, exclusively in the June edition.
As most CAS cases are football-related, this new issue of the Bulletin includes a majority of selected football “leading cases”, namely eight football cases out of 12 cases.
Thus, in the field of football, in the case 8233 RFEF v. FIFA, the CAS Panel addresses the supremacy of FIFA Regulations over national regulations in Spain concerning the international transfer of minors. The contractual dispute in 9851 Nikola Djurdjic v. Chengdu Rongcheng revolves around FIFA’s jurisdiction, particularly in light of the principle of res judicata.
In the training compensation dispute 9940 FK Shkupi v. FIFA & FC Aarau & FC Baden, the CAS Panel clarifies that the FIFA Determination Statement and the Allocation Statement are two distinct decisions. Importantly, the time limit to appeal these decisions only begins once both have been duly notified.
A notable governance case, 9497 & 9523 Wiish Hagi Yabarow v. SFF & Ali Abdi Mohamed, is likely the first instance of CAS adjudicating a dispute involving parallel elections for the presidency of a national football association.
In 9808 Futebol Clube do Porto v. Club Deportivo Popular Junior FC, the CAS Panel clarifies that a loan or transfer agreement may lawfully allow deductions from a sell-on fee, such as payments to intermediaries facilitating a player’s transfer to a third club.
The concept of forum shopping is addressed in 9477 Joan Carrillo Milan v. DVSC Futball Szervezo & FIFA.
In 10102 Esteghlal FC v. Azizbek Amanov & Nasaf FC, the CAS Panel examines multiple legal issues related to contract termination by a player with just cause.
Lastly, the case 9436 FK Apollonia v. KF Laçi revolves around the interpretation and enforcement of sell-on clauses in player transfers.
Outside football, significant arbitration cases have emerged in various sports: In 10209 Alex Schwazer v. World Athletics, the issue of substantial assistance in doping-related investigations within athletics is dealt with.
The sailing case 10588 Anastasiya Valkevich v. World Sailing & IOC addresses the eligibility of an athlete to compete as a neutral participant at the Paris 2024 Olympics.
In 10093 ROC v. IOC, the CAS Panel examines the suspension of a National Olympic Committee due to violations of the Olympic Charter.
Finally, the case 9053 Abderahim Gharsallah v. ITIA focuses on the manipulation of betting markets by a chair umpire in tennis, highlighting integrity concerns in officiating.
A selection of extracts from recent judgments rendered by the Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT) in connection with CAS decisions has been included in this Bulletin. Notably, the SFT dismissed all challenges against CAS awards brought before it in 2024. The SFT reaffirmed the broad autonomy of the CAS in establishing facts and applying legal principles. It confirmed the de novo review power under Article R57 of the CAS Code as well as the CAS’s wide discretion in assessing evidence (4A_232/2024). Furthermore, the SFT held that the imposition of a doping sanction on a minor athlete does not constitute a violation of public policy, emphasizing that differentiating sanctions based on age could undermine the fight against doping (4A_564/2023 and 4A_136/2024). In 3 4A_16/2024, the SFT reaffirmed the importance of clear evidence in arbitration proceedings and reiterated the limited grounds on which an arbitral award may be challenged, particularly regarding alleged procedural violations or public policy concerns. Lastly, in 4A_406/2024, the SFT underscored that under Article 190a para. 1 let. a LDIP, a party cannot rely on facts or evidence that emerged after the contested award, reinforcing the principle of finality in arbitration.
The recent publication of the opinion of the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Seraing/FIFA case, proposing that awards rendered by CAS must be open to full review by national courts to ensure compatibility with EU law, has not gone unnoticed. While it is too early to anticipate the direct consequences of a larger review process of CAS awards, it will be important to maintain an efficient sports disputes resolution mechanism, not only at the CAS level but also during the subsequent appeal process, compatible with EU law, but also resistant to delaying tactics and obstructing strategies. It will be important to avoid any imbalance between European and non-European stakeholders, considering that the CAS jurisdiction is not limited to the European continent.
Most CAS users want to keep a speedy, cost-efficient, specialized and quality procedure. ICAS and CAS will undertake all appropriate measures they can to ensure that the review process of CAS awards remains not only effective but also uncomplicated.
We wish you a pleasant reading of this new edition of the CAS Bulletin.
Matthieu Reeb
CAS Director General
28 March 2025
For more information, log onto the CAS official website at ‘www.tas-cas.org’
