Skip to main content
International Arbitration Forum

Anatoliy Tymoshchuk v. Ukrainian Association of Football (UAF)

Case summary

At a glance

Parties
Anatoliy Tymoshchuk (Ukrainian football coach) v. Ukrainian Association of Football (UAF)
Case no.
CAS 2023/A/9443
Forum and rules
Court of Arbitration for Sport, Appeals Arbitration Division; Code of Sports-related Arbitration
Tribunal
Panel: Klaus Reichert (President), Wouter Lambrecht, Maciej Bałaziński
Sector
Football; disciplinary sanctions
Outcome
Appeal upheld (award of 18 November 2024). The UAF Appeals Committee decision of 24 January 2023, which had confirmed the Control and Disciplinary Committee's sanctions of 11 March 2022, was set aside and annulled.
Amount
The appellant sought reimbursement of UAH 2,500 for the internal appeal fee and a contribution of EUR 20,000 towards his legal costs. The cost rulings in the operative part are not reproduced in the published award.

The dispute

Anatoliy Tymoshchuk, a former captain of Ukraine's national team, had worked as a coach at Zenit St Petersburg since 2017 under a UEFA Pro licence issued by the UAF Licensing Centre. On 24 February 2022, the day of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, he posted an Instagram story calling for peace with the hashtag "no to war". He kept working at Zenit and made no further public statement. The UAF found that this conduct damaged the reputation of football and of the UAF. It banned him for life from football-related activity, stripped him of his Ukrainian titles, and proposed the revocation of his coaching licence and his state awards. On appeal, Tymoshchuk argued that the UAF had no personal or material jurisdiction over him and that he had broken no UAF rule. He also relied on preclusion, legitimate expectations, fault, equal treatment and proportionality. The UAF argued that his acts and omissions as a public figure had brought Ukrainian football into disrepute and that the sanctions were proportionate.

Key holdings

  1. The appellant's Ukrainian citizenship gave the UAF no authority over him. Citizenship is a relationship with the State, and a private law body cannot rely on it to exercise authority over a person, even if the State supports that body. His player contracts with Ukrainian clubs had ended by 2007 at the latest and left no residual authority. ¶¶ 63–65
  2. The UEFA Pro licence, which the appellant obtained and renewed through the UAF Licensing Centre, did create a relevant legal relationship as of 9 March 2022. Under Article 32(3) of the UEFA Coaching Convention 2020, holding the licence carries an obligation to adhere to the issuing association's statutes, regulations, directives and decisions. ¶¶ 66–75
  3. The UAF Code of Ethics and Fair Play did not apply to the appellant. It covers only persons working in football on the territory of Ukraine. The proceedings against him had therefore been started solely on an inapplicable set of rules, and he was not told before the decision that he faced charges under the Disciplinary Rules. ¶¶ 61, 76(e)
  4. Bringing a sport or a sports body into disrepute requires actual, not potential, disrepute. Public opinion of the sport or the body must have been diminished as a result of the conduct. The Panel adopted this test from CAS 2007/A/1291, the FINA case. ¶¶ 85–88
  5. It was not established that the appellant's acts or omissions between 24 February and 11 March 2022 brought Ukrainian football or the UAF into disrepute. The Instagram map did include Crimea, and the story disappeared after 24 hours because of how the platform works, not because he deleted it. The appeal is upheld and the sanctions are annulled. ¶¶ 81–82, 89–90
  6. The Panel also commented on the sanctions. Titles won on the field years earlier could not be taken away for unrelated conduct. The UAF's attempt after the hearing to reword the decision, limiting the ban to Ukraine, was not legitimate. The disciplinary rules gave no legal basis for asking the State to revoke national honours. ¶¶ 92–95

Procedural history

  1. 24 February 2022Tymoshchuk posts an Instagram story calling for peace with the hashtag "no to war".
  2. 8 March 2022The UAF Committee on Ethics and Fair Play finds a breach of Article 4(1)(1.4) of the Ethics Code and proposes sanctions to the Control and Disciplinary Committee.
  3. 11 March 2022The UAF Control and Disciplinary Committee imposes a lifetime ban from football-related activity and strips him of his titles. It also advises revocation of his UEFA Pro licence and of his state awards.
  4. 24 January 2023The UAF Appeals Committee dismisses his appeal, which was filed on 19 July 2022. The operative part is notified on 1 February 2023 and the reasons on 16 May 2023.
  5. 16 February 2023Statement of Appeal filed with CAS. The operative part of the award refers to an appeal filed on 16 February 2024.
  6. 27 June 2023Panel constituted.
  7. 15 February 2024Without a hearing, the Panel rules that the coaching licence, but not citizenship or the prior club contracts, created a relevant legal relationship with the UAF.
  8. 22 April 2024Hearing at CAS in Lausanne, with six witnesses called by the UAF.
  9. 18 November 2024Award: appeal upheld; the Appeals Committee decision is set aside and annulled.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by
For the respondent
Kellerhals Carrard · Ukrainian Association of Football (party representatives)

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.

Case ID
CAS 2023/A/9443
Claimant
Anatoliy Tymoshchuk
Respondent
Ukrainian Association of Football (UAF)
Documents

Procedure: Appeal
Sport: Football
Matter: Disciplinary (except doping)
Outcome: Upheld
Panel: Maciej Balazinski, Wouter Lambrecht, Klaus Reichert
Source: Court of Arbitration for Sport case database.