DVSC Futball Szervezo Zrt v. Juan Carillo Milan

At a glance

Parties

DVSC Futball Szervezo ZRT (Hungary), appellant, v. Juan Carillo Milan (Spain), football coach, respondent

Case no.

CAS 2024/A/10946

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeals procedure under the CAS Code (appeal against a decision of the FIFA Players' Status Chamber)

Treaty

Contract clause: Article 22 of the employment contract (FIFA dispute resolution), with Article 50(1) of the FIFA Statutes

Tribunal

Prof. Ulrich Haas (Sole Arbitrator)

Sector

Football; coach employment contract

Outcome

Appeal dismissed (12 June 2025). The FIFA PSC decision of 29 August 2024 finding termination without just cause is confirmed.

Amount

Claimed before the FIFA PSC: HUF 62,027,226 (alternatively HUF 58,027,226) plus 12% interest p.a. from 27 June 2022. Awarded by the PSC and confirmed: HUF 27,998,835 plus 5% interest p.a. from 27 June 2022. The costs provisions of the operative part are not published.

The dispute

The Hungarian club DVSC (Debrecen) employed the Spanish coach Juan Carillo Milan under a contract valid from 8 November 2021 to 30 June 2023. On 27 June 2022 the club terminated the contract without stating reasons. It relied on Article 17 of the contract, which allowed termination before 30 June 2022 against payment of the basic salary to that date and the end-of-season bonus, and on Article 210(1)(b) of the Hungarian Labour Code. The coach sued both before FIFA and before Hungarian courts, then withdrew the Hungarian claim. A first CAS award held that he had not engaged in forum shopping and sent the case back to FIFA, which awarded him compensation. On appeal the club argued that Hungarian labour law governed and permitted the termination, that FIFA lacked jurisdiction because of forum shopping, and that the PSC decision was insufficiently reasoned. The coach argued that the appeal was inadmissible because the club had withdrawn it against FIFA, and that jurisdiction and the applicable law were already res judicata.

Key holdings

1. The dispute is horizontal: a contractual dispute between indirect members of FIFA, in which FIFA acted only as adjudicator. FIFA's ruling on a jurisdictional objection does not make the dispute vertical. The coach alone has standing to be sued, so the club's withdrawal of the appeal against FIFA did not defeat it. ¶¶ 93–97
2. The Sole Arbitrator left open whether the two CAS proceedings are one procedure or two. Under res judicata, the First CAS Award's findings on applicable law were only preliminary grounds and did not bind him. Under the intra-procedural binding effect, he would be bound by them. Either way the result is the same: FIFA regulations (the RSTP) apply primarily, Swiss law applies to interpret them, and Hungarian law applies to issues the FIFA regulations do not address. ¶¶ 76–84
3. The First CAS Award (CAS 2023/A/9477) finally decided that FIFA had jurisdiction and that the coach had not engaged in forum shopping. By referring the case back to the PSC only 'to decide on the merits', it removed the jurisdiction question from the PSC's mandate. The club could not reopen the question. ¶¶ 103–105
4. Unlike the PSC, the Sole Arbitrator did not treat the one-sided termination clause (Article 17) as void per se. FIFA regulations are silent on the limits of contractual autonomy, so the validity of a potestative clause must be judged under the subsidiarily applicable law. Here that is Hungarian law, the law chosen by the parties, not Swiss law. He was not persuaded that Article 17 breaches Hungarian law, but left the point open. ¶¶ 118–120
5. The termination was improperly exercised even if Article 17 is valid. The clause required termination before 30 June 2022 and, as conditions precedent, payment of the basic salary to 30 June 2022 and of the end-of-season bonus. It was uncontested that the club paid only part of the remaining wages and the bonus, and did so six days after the deadline. ¶¶ 121–123
6. The appeal is dismissed and the PSC decision of 29 August 2024 is confirmed. Operative part, ¶¶ 1–2

Procedural history

1. 7 November 2021The club and the coach sign the employment contract, valid from 8 November 2021 to 30 June 2023.
2. 27 June 2022The club terminates the contract unilaterally under Article 17 of the contract and Article 210(1)(b) of the Hungarian Labour Code.
3. 24–26 July 2022The coach files a claim with FIFA (24 July) and a claim before the Tribunal of Székesfehérvár (26 July). The Hungarian claim is later referred to the Debrecen Regional Court.
4. 22 November 2022First PSC Decision: FIFA's Players' Status Chamber declares the coach's claim inadmissible for forum shopping.
5. 24 February 2023The coach withdraws his claim before the Debrecen Regional Court. The court terminates the proceedings on 20 March 2023.
6. 14 February 2024First CAS Award (CAS 2023/A/9477): the coach's appeal is upheld, the First PSC Decision is annulled and the case is referred back to the PSC on the merits.
7. 29 August 2024PSC decision: the club terminated without just cause and must pay HUF 27,998,835 plus 5% interest. The grounds are notified on 27 September 2024.
8. 18 October 2024The club files its Statement of Appeal with CAS against the coach and FIFA. It withdraws the appeal against FIFA on 25 October 2024.
9. 6 January 2025Sole Arbitrator Ulrich Haas is appointed. The case is decided on the written submissions without a hearing.
10. 12 June 2025Award: the appeal is dismissed and the PSC decision is confirmed.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Ulrich Haas Sole arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport — appointed by the institution

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• football coach
• termination without just cause
• potestative clause
• unilateral termination clause
• res judicata
• intra-procedural binding effect
• innerprozessuale Bindungswirkung
• procedural public policy
• forum shopping
• standing to be sued
• horizontal and vertical disputes
• Article 75 Swiss Civil Code
• FIFA Players' Status Chamber
• RSTP
• Hungarian Labour Code
• applicable law
• remittal
• CAS 2023/A/9477

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