TAS-CAS – Tribunale Arbitrale dello Sport – Corte arbitrale dello Sport (2007-2008)———-Tribunal Arbitral du Sport – Court of Arbitration for Sport (2007-2008) – official version by www.tas-cas.org Arbitration CAS 2007/A/1367 FC Metallurg v. Leo Lerinc, order of 5 March 2008 Panel: Mr. Otto de Witt Wijnen (the Netherlands), Sole Arbitrator

TAS-CAS - Tribunale Arbitrale dello Sport - Corte arbitrale dello Sport (2007-2008)----------Tribunal Arbitral du Sport - Court of Arbitration for Sport (2007-2008) - official version by www.tas-cas.org Arbitration CAS 2007/A/1367 FC Metallurg v. Leo Lerinc, order of 5 March 2008 Panel: Mr. Otto de Witt Wijnen (the Netherlands), Sole Arbitrator Football Request for a stay of a FIFA decision Summoning of the wrong respondent CAS does not have the power to include, on its own, a third party in an arbitration procedure. It is the responsibility of the Appellant to identify the proper Respondent at the beginning of the procedure, according to the general principles of procedural law and to article R48 of the Code. A letter sent almost 4 months after the Appeal Brief is far too late, in the light of proper proceedings, to make a correction in this respect. Mr Leo Lerinc (“the Player” or “the Respondent”), born in 1984, is a football player from Serbia and Montenegro. Football Club “Metallurg” (“the Club” or “the Appellant”) is a football club with its seat in Ukraine. It is a member of the Football Federation of Ukraine, which in turn is a member of FIFA. On 10 August 2007, the FIFA Disciplinary Committee (“the DC”) rendered a decision (“the Decision”) in this matter. This Decision was as follows: “1. The debtor is pronounced guilty of failing to comply with a decision of a FIFA body in accordance with art. 71 FDC. 2. The debtor is ordered to pay a fine to the amount of CHF 15,000. The fine is to be paid within 30 days of notification of the decision. (…). 3. The debtor is granted a final period of grace of 45 days as from notification of the decision in which to settle its debt to the creditor. 4. If payment is not made by this deadline, the creditor may demand in writing of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee that 6 points be deducted from the debtor’s first team in the domestic league championship. Once the creditor has made this request, the points are to be deducted mandatory in any case. 5. If the debtor still fails to pay the amount due even after deduction of the points in accordance with point 4, the first team will be relegated to the next lower division. 6. As a Member of FIFA, the Football Federation of Ukraine is reminded of its duty to implement this decision and, if necessary, to produce proof to FIFA that the points have been deducted or the team has been relegated. If the Football Federation of Ukraine does not comply with this decision despite being ordered to do so by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee, the latter will inflict an appropriate sanction on the Member. This can lead to expulsion from all FIFA competitions. 7. The costs of these proceedings amounting to CHF 2,000 are to be borne by the debtor. 8. The creditor is directed to notify the Disciplinary Committee of every payment received”. By fax letters of 14 August 2007, this Decision was forwarded inter alia to the Football Federation of Ukraine, with the request to forward it to the Club. On 27 August 2007, the Appellant lodged, by fax letter, an appeal with the CAS against this Decision. In its response letter confirming this Appeal of 28 August 2007, the CAS, in accordance with R 48 of the Code, requested further information from the Appellant as follows: i.) a copy of the decision appealed against; ii.) the name and full address of the Respondent; iii.) the appointment of the arbitrator chosen by the Appellant from the CAS list, unless the parties have agreed to a Panel composed of a sole arbitrator; iv.) a copy of the provisions of the statutes or regulations or the specific agreement providing for appeal to the CAS. On 31 August 2007 the Appellant responded to this letter. It attached the documents requested by the CAS. It gave the name and full address of the Respondent as follows. “Player Leo Lerinc (…) Serbia and Montenegro Represented by Law office Milosevic (…)” (“the Respondent's law firm”). On 5 September 2007, the Appellant submitted an Appeal Brief. In this Brief, the Relief requested by the Appellant was the following: “1) To suspend the fulfilment of the FIFA DC Decision dated 10, August 2007 until the CAS will pass the judgment according to the present case, because the given decision has financial character. 2) To cancel the FIFA DC decision dated 10, August 2007. 3) To oblige the Creditor to find the compromise with the FC “Metallurg” in the respect of the fulfilment of the Arbitral Court for Sport decision dated 31, January 2007: - by the payment by cash at the FC “Metallurg” in Donetsk; or - by the transfer of money on the account of FIFA by the Club, with the following transfer of money to Mr. Leo Lerinc; or - immediate transfer of money after the receiving of the individual license. 4) To impose the penalty on the Creditor in the amount of 500 CHF in favour of the FC “Metallurg” for the consideration of the present appeal. FC “Metallurg” is ready immediately to provide any documents which can be necessary for the consideration of the case, on CAS demand”. On 6 September 2007, the Respondent and the FIFA were advised of this Appeal Brief, with a copy thereof. On 11 September 2007, the Respondent’s law firm advised the CAS as follows: “1. (…); 2. the Respondent objects to the Appellant’s application to stay the execution of the subject FIFA’s decision appealed against because the Appellant failed to set out reasons for such application as required by the Code of Sports. In the present case, there is no need and no legal basis to stay the FIFA’s decision. The Appellant did not make credible case that the facts alleged by him and the rights which he seeks exist. Therefore, Respondent asks the CAS to dismisses (sic) Applicant’s application to stay the execution of the subject FIFA’s decision”. On 18 September 2007, the FIFA advised that it would not intervene in this arbitration. On 26 September 2007, the Respondent’s law firm advised that the amount due pursuant to the Decision had been paid, except for the amount of CHF 500 for the Respondent’s legal and other costs, incurred by the Respondent in the earlier proceedings. On 27 September 2007, the CAS received a fax letter from the Appellant advising that indeed an amount of USD 99,800 had been paid, pursuant to the CAS decision of 31.08.2007. The Appellant added: “We kindly ask CAS to pay attention to the fact of the payment as to the main argument that FC “Metallurg” is not guilty in untimely payment according to the decision of the Arbitral Court for Sport dated 31.01.2007. The present payment is also the confirmation of the fact that FC “Metallurg” did not delay the fulfilment of the decision of CAS, but we had all legal grounds for not-fulfilment of the payment before we would have the decision of CAS in respect of the notice of appeal of FC “Metallurg” against the decision of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee dated 10.08.2007. Taking into account the fact that at the present moment the situation has changed and FC “Metallurg” has fulfilled the decision of CAS, we also make the request to the Respondent to express his opinion according to the fine in amount of 15000 CHF settled by the decision of FIFA Disciplinary Committee dated 10.08.2007. We hope that the Respondent will support us and confirm about it in CAS”. Further correspondence was exchanged thereafter with the Parties and with the FIFA. In the course thereof, on 20 December 2007, the Appellant wrote: “In our application for appeal, dated 05 of September 2007, FC Metallurg really named Mr. Leo Lerinc as the Respondent. At the same time demands were submitted only to the FIFA’s body - Disciplinary Committee. In connection with this FC Metallurg want to indicate its position as for the Respondent of the present case - it is FIFA Disciplinary Committee”. LAW Jurisdiction 1. The jurisdiction of CAS, which is not disputed, derives from articles 60 and 61 of the FIFA Statutes and article R 47 of the CAS Code. Admissibility 2. The Statement of Appeal filed by the Appellant was lodged within the deadline provided by Art. 60 of the FIFA Statutes, namely 21 days from the notification of the Decision. It further complies with the requirements of Art. R48 of the Code. 3. In that light the Appeal is admissible. Application for suspension 4. The Appellant requests an order for a suspension of the fulfilment of the challenged Decision until the CAS will pass judgment. 5. As considered in CAS 2007/A/1369, according to the CAS jurisprudence to which reference is made in that ruling, as a general rule, when deciding whether to stay the execution of the decision appealed against, it is necessary to consider whether the measure is useful to protect the applicant from irreparable harm, the likelihood of success on the merits of the Appeal and whether the interests of the Appellant outweigh those of the opposite party. It is necessary to compare the risks incurred by the Appellant in the event of immediate execution of the decision with the disadvantages for the Respondent in being deprived such execution - the so-called balance of convenience or interests. The Appellant must make at least a plausible case that the facts relied upon by him and the rights which he seeks to enforce exist and that the material conditions for a legal action are fulfilled. 6. Considering the facts of the present case, the Panel notes that the CAS Court Office invited the Appellant, immediately after its Notice of Appeal, to declare to whom its Appeal was directed. In response to this request, the Appellant replied that his Appeal was directed against the Player as the Respondent. Later, in its letter of 20 December 2007, the Appellant named FIFA as the co Respondent. 7. The FIFA, in several letters, renounced its right to intervene in the procedure. 8. The Panel refers to Orders rendered by the President of the Appeals Arbitration Division in the cases CAS 2005/A/850 and 2007/A/1369, whereby it was stated that any order that CAS may pronounce against the FIFA becomes effective only in the event that the FIFA is a party to the arbitration. A party has no legal interest to contest the principle or the measure of the imposed sanction, except if it complains directly against the authority which has imposed the sanction. 9. In the light of this case law the Panel confirms the fact that CAS does not have the power to include, on its own, a third party in an arbitration procedure. It is the responsibility of the Appellant to identify the proper Respondent at the beginning of the procedure, according to the general principles of procedural law and to article R48 of the Code. The Appellant’s letter of 20 December 2007 - almost 4 months after its Appeal Brief - is far too late, in the light of proper proceedings, to make a correction in this respect. 10. Thus, the Appellant has no plausible case that the right which he seeks to enforce exists, one of the criteria for a ruling whether to stay the execution of a decision which is appealed against. 11. The Request for a Suspension of the fulfilment of the challenged Decision filed by the Appellant is therefore dismissed. The Court of Arbitration for Sport: 1. Dismisses the application by Football Club “Metallurg” to suspend the decision of 10 August 2007 by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee. 2. (…).