TAS xxx

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CAS 2008/A/1705 Grasshopper v. Alianza Lima, award of 18 June 2009 4 By means of a fax dated 3 November 2008, which was only received by the CAS Court Office on 3 December 2008 and which thus probably bears the wrong date, the Respondent approached the CAS Court Office to raise two irregularities of form, which, in its opinion, required immediate attention so as to avert a long and costly arbitration that most likely would be dismissed. In response hereto, the CAS Court Office announced by letter dated 3 December 2008 to the Respondent that the nature and complexity of the issues raised by the parties called for a decision by the Panel, once constituted. Consequently, the CAS Court Office established that the procedure would continue its course and that the Respondent would be requested to provide its answer within the deadline stipulated. FIFA sent its response to the CAS Court office on 28 November 2008, communicating that it renounces its right to intervene in the arbitration. FIFA added, however, that in accordance with Art. 15 par. 1 of the FIFA Rules governing the Procedures of the Players‟ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (the “DRC Procedural Rules”) only the findings of the DRC and not the grounds had been communicated to the parties. According to FIFA: “… the parties were explicitly informed in par. 7 of the said findings that a request for the grounds of the decision had to be sent in writing to the FIFA general secretariat within 10 days of receipt of notification of the findings of the decision. Failure to do so within the stated deadline will result in the decision coming into force”. FIFA added that: “… the same paragraph of the findings unmistakeably states that the time limit to lodge an appeal before the CAS begins upon receipt of the motivated decision only”. FIFA concluded its communication by underlining that: “… Grasshopper did not file a request for the grounds of the decision to the FIFA general secretariat at all. This fact was already confirmed by the Appellant. Consequently, the presently challenged decision of the DRC is to be considered as final and binding and the appeal challenging the said decision shall therefore be dismissed by the CAS without entering into its substance. Moreover, we would like to mention that an appeal against a non-motivated decision can per se not be admissible”. With letter dated 11 December 2008 the CAS Court Office acknowledged receipt of the Respondent‟s Answer. With letter dated 19 an 22 December 2008 the CAS Court Office acknowledged that both parties have waived their right for a hearing. In view of the fact that no hearing was to be held in the case at hand the Panel deemed it necessary to have a second round of submissions in order to be sufficiently informed to deliver the award. On 14 January 2009 the parties were informed by the CAS Court Office of the constitution of the Panel.
CAS 2008/A/1705 Grasshopper v. Alianza Lima, award of 18 June 2009 5 By letter dated 5 February 2009 FIFA was invited to lodge with the CAS Court Office a complete copy of its file on the matter. By letter dated 6 February 2009 the Swiss Football Federation was asked to provide information on the categorisation of the Appellant‟s A-team in season 2006/2007. By letter dated the same day the FPF was solicited to provide information on the date of birth and the registration dates of the Player. With letter dated 12 February 2009 FIFA forwarded a copy of the file to CAS. The second submission of the Appellant was received by the CAS Court Office on 20 February 2009, that of the Respondent on 9 March 2009. By letter dated 24 April 2009, the CAS Court Office, on behalf of the President of the Panel, issued an order of procedure, which was returned duly signed by all of the parties. In its Appeal Brief dated 17 November 2008 and further submission of 20 February 2009, the Appellant requests the CAS – inter alia – to, (1) “accept the present appeal against the challenged decision”; (2) “set aside the challenged decision”; (3) “establish that the compensation decided in the challenged decision for the training of the Player is disproportionate and to reduce it accordingly”; (4) “establish that the training of the Player terminated before his 21 st birthday”; (5) “establish that the training compensation due to the Respondent is limited to the season 2002 only”; and to (6) “accept the proposal of the Appellant and recognise to the Respondent a training compensation in the amount of EUR 60,000”. In its Answer and further submission dated 9 March 2009, the Respondent requests the Panel: (a) (b) (c) “To accept the present response to the “Appeal Brief” together will all the exhibits enclosed therein”; “to dismiss the appeal of the Appellant and to confirm the original ruling of the DRC”; and to “sentence the Appellant to pay the sum of 305,000 to the Respondent plus interest at 5% from 24 th February 2007”.
Page 1 and 2: Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of
Page 3: CAS 2008/A/1705 Grasshopper v. Alia
Page 7 and 8: CAS 2008/A/1705 Grasshopper v. Alia

TAS xxx

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?