FC Zenit St. Petersburg v. Nikolai Solovev, OFK Grbalj, Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

At a glance

Parties

FC Zenit (Russia) v. Nikolai Solovev (Russia), OFK Grbalj (Montenegro) and FIFA

Case no.

CAS 2023/A/9955

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeal arbitration under the CAS Code (Articles R47, R48, R57)

Treaty

None. FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), May 2023 edition, Article 22(1)(a)

Tribunal

Rui Botica Santos (President), Ulrich Haas, Michele A.R. Bernasconi

Sector

Football; player employment contracts

Outcome

Appeal upheld (6 May 2024). The FIFA DRC's decision declining jurisdiction was set aside, and the claim was sent back to the FIFA DRC to be decided on the merits.

Amount

Claimed: EUR 15,077.00 net (based on RUB 911,221.00), plus 5% annual interest from 21 October 2022. The Panel did not decide the amount.

The dispute

FC Zenit employed the Russian player Nikolai Solovev under a contract running from 1 July 2022 to 10 June 2023. The contract referred disputes to the FUR Dispute Resolution Chamber. In October 2022 the player left Russia for Serbia. He gave notice of resignation on 17 October 2022, and Zenit terminated the contract on 20 October 2022 for unauthorised absence. On 8 February 2023 the player signed with the Montenegrin club OFK Grbalj, and the FUR issued his International Transfer Certificate (ITC) without objection. Zenit then claimed compensation before the FIFA DRC against the player, and against OFK Grbalj as jointly liable under Article 17(2) RSTP. The DRC declined jurisdiction on 3 August 2023. It reasoned that the dispute had no international dimension: the club and the player were both Russian, the transfer came months after the termination, and no dispute had been raised about the ITC. The respondents also relied on the FUR jurisdiction clause and argued that the timeline showed no link between the termination and the transfer.

Key holdings

1. Article 22(1)(a) RSTP must be read broadly. The FIFA DRC's competence does not depend on a challenge to the issuance of the ITC. It covers a dispute that results from an international transfer in which the new club may be jointly liable for compensation under Article 17(2) RSTP. ¶¶ 66–71
2. Jurisdiction could be excluded only if the claim against the new club was an obvious abuse of rights, or if the time between the old and new contracts was so manifestly long that the two events were plainly separate. A gap of about 4 months does not automatically rebut the presumption that the new club induced the breach. Whether that presumption is rebutted is for the merits. ¶¶ 72–75
3. Under the principle of disposition, the claimant shapes the dispute. A claim under Article 17(2) RSTP brought against the player and a new club affiliated to a different national association has an international dimension, even where the player and the former club share the same nationality. ¶¶ 76–81, 90
4. The Panel had the power to decide the merits de novo under Article R57(1) of the CAS Code, but chose not to. The evidence before it was limited, and FIFA should decide the issues of contractual stability at first instance. The case was referred back to the FIFA DRC. ¶¶ 82–89
5. Operative part: the appeal is upheld, the DRC decision of 3 August 2023 is set aside, the DRC has jurisdiction over Zenit's compensation claim, and the matter is referred back to it. All other prayers for relief are dismissed. Operative part

Procedural history

1. 20 June 2022FC Zenit and the player sign an employment contract valid from 1 July 2022 to 10 June 2023.
2. 17–20 October 2022The player gives notice of resignation (17 October). Zenit terminates the contract for unauthorised absence (20 October).
3. 8–13 February 2023The player signs with OFK Grbalj (8 February). The FUR issues the ITC (11 February), and the player is registered with the FAM (13 February).
4. 31 May 2023FC Zenit files its claim with the FIFA DRC.
5. 3 August 2023The FIFA DRC declines jurisdiction.
6. 1 September 2023FC Zenit files its Statement of Appeal with CAS.
7. 8 February 2024The Panel is constituted. The parties agree that no hearing is needed.
8. 6 May 2024Award: appeal upheld and the case referred back to the FIFA DRC.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Rui Botica Santos President, CAS Panel
• Ulrich Haas Co-arbitrator, CAS Panel — appointed by the claimant
• Michele A.R. Bernasconi Co-arbitrator, CAS Panel — appointed by the respondent

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• FC Zenit
• FIFA DRC jurisdiction
• Article 22(1)(a) RSTP
• international dimension
• International Transfer Certificate
• Article 17(2) RSTP
• joint and several liability
• presumption of inducement
• contractual stability
• termination without just cause
• Russian mobilisation
• referral back
• Article R57 CAS Code
• principle of disposition
• Montenegro
• football

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