X. v. Y. [The First Division Championship] - Swiss International Arbitration Law Reports (SIALR) - 2007 Vol. 1 Nos. 1 & 2

Page Count:

17 pages

Media Description:

1 PDF Download

Published:

December, 2007

Practice Areas:

PDF206.75 KB

$40.00

Description:

Preview Page

Headnote

A CAS panel is entitled to deny jurisdiction on the ground that the

appellant does not appeal against a decision within the meaning of article

R-47 of the Code of Sports-Related Arbitration and article 61 of the

FIFA Statutes. Under the rules of good faith, a party is expected to

complain forthwith of any breach of procedure by the arbitrator. It is

contrary to the rules of good faith for a party to keep silent in the face of

such breach and raise its complaint only after an unfavourable decision

has been notified.

Summary of the Decision

X. is a football club that participated in a First Division Championship

organised by A. Association, which is in turn a member of Y.

Association. X. won an official match, the result of which was contested

by Y., X.’s opponent. The Competition Organising Committee of A. (the

Committee) ruled in favour of Y. After unsuccessfully exhausting all

available internal appeal channels of Y., X. brought the matter before the

Federal Commission for the Registration of Youth Association in Sports

(the Federal Commission), a government organisation. The Federal

Commission decided in favour of X.

Y. did not follow the Federal Commission’s decision, and subsequently

filed an appeal before the Federal Arbitration Committee of Youth and

Sport (the Arbitration Committee). The Arbitration Committee rejected

the appeal, whereupon Y. brought further proceedings before the

Administrative Court of Appeal (the Court of Appeal) of the appropriate

province. The Court of Appeal stayed the Federal Commission’s

decision, and X. then brought an appeal before a Court of Arbitration for

Sport (CAS) panel seeking to have the stay lifted and the Federal

Commission’s decision enforced; the CAS panel declared that it lacked

jurisdiction. Thereafter, X. brought setting aside proceedings before the

Federal Supreme Court on the grounds that the CAS panel (1) had

wrongly denied jurisdiction, (2) violated X.’s right to present its case and

(3) was improperly constituted.

The Federal Supreme Court held that a CAS panel is entitled to deny

jurisdiction on the ground that the appellant does not appeal against a

decision within the meaning of article R-47 of the Code of Sports-