Skip to main content
International Arbitration Forum

FC Zenit St. Petersburg, FC Sochi, CSKA Moscow, FC Dynamo Moscow v. Union of European Football Associations (UEFA)

Case summary

At a glance

Parties
FC Zenit JSC, FC Sochi, PFC CSKA Moscow and FC Dynamo Moscow (Russia) v. Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)
Case no.
CAS 2022/A/8865, 8866, 8867 & 8868 (consolidated)
Forum and rules
Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeals procedure under the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (2020 edition); UEFA Statutes (2021) and UEFA regulations, Swiss law applying subsidiarily
Treaty
None. CAS jurisdiction rests on Article 62.1 of the UEFA Statutes and Article 86/85 of the UEFA competition regulations
Tribunal
Leanne O'Leary (President), Michael Beloff, Jeffrey G. Benz
Sector
Football; eligibility for UEFA club competitions
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; the UEFA Executive Committee decision of 2 May 2022 was confirmed. The operative part was issued on 15 July 2022 and the reasoned award on 25 November 2022.
Amount
No damages were claimed. The published award redacts the costs orders (operative points 6–10).

The dispute

Four Russian Premier League clubs, all affiliated to the Football Union of Russia (FUR), appealed a decision of the UEFA Executive Committee of 2 May 2022 (point 5 of Circular No. 21/2022). That decision removed Russia and Russian clubs from the access lists for the 2022/23 Champions League, Europa League and Europa Conference League. It also set Russia's coefficient at its lowest five-season figure (4.333 points for men's clubs and 1.750 for women's clubs). It followed UEFA's Suspension Decision of 28 February 2022, which suspended all Russian teams and clubs after the military conflict in Ukraine began on 24 February 2022. The FUR was challenging that suspension separately in CAS 2022/A/8709. The clubs argued that the decision was a politically motivated sanction. They alleged breaches of natural justice, legitimate expectations, equal treatment, political neutrality, non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, personality rights (Article 28 of the Swiss Civil Code) and proportionality, and an abuse of a dominant position. UEFA argued that the appeals were inadmissible because the 2 May decision only implemented the unchallenged Suspension Decision, and that the decision was in any case a lawful administrative measure taken for safety, security and the integrity of its competitions.

Key holdings

  1. The appeals are admissible. Point 5 of Circular No. 21/2022 is an appealable decision because it had legal effects beyond the Suspension Decision. The clubs had no guarantee of reinstatement if the FUR won CAS 2022/A/8709. The coefficient was also adjusted in a way the clubs did not know in advance, which appears, prima facie, not to follow the formula in the regulations and for which no explanation was given. The appeals were filed within the 10-day limit of Article 62.3 of the UEFA Statutes. ¶¶ 61–66
  2. The clubs have standing to sue. They are directly affected under Article 62.2 of the UEFA Statutes and have a sporting interest in their place on the access list and in how the coefficient is calculated. UEFA's argument that they waived this right by not challenging the Suspension Decision fails. ¶¶ 74–78
  3. The decision is administrative, not a disciplinary sanction or a moral judgment on Russia. Its review is de novo under Article R57, but with deference to the association's autonomy. Any procedural defect, such as the lack of a hearing, was cured by the CAS proceedings. ¶¶ 80–91
  4. The Executive Committee had power to take the decision under Article 65 of the UEFA Statutes (found by majority). The Emergency Panel provision of the competition regulations did not apply, because the clubs had already been suspended. ¶¶ 95–99
  5. No abuse of a dominant position: the clubs offered no market or economic evidence. No breach of equal treatment: Belarus and Ukraine had not been suspended. No discrimination on grounds of nationality. No breach of political neutrality: the decision responded to extraordinary and unforeseen circumstances, not to external pressure or a political preference, and furthered the objectives in Article 2.1(b) and (d) of the UEFA Statutes. ¶¶ 104–130
  6. No infringement of personality rights under Article 28 of the Swiss Civil Code was proven. Any infringement would in any case likely be justified by UEFA's overriding interest in the integrity and security of its competitions (majority). ¶¶ 136–138
  7. The decision was proportionate (majority). It was a necessary step to implement the Suspension Decision. The clubs' proposed alternatives (disciplinary measures, case-by-case decisions, neutral venues, a COVID-19-type protocol) were reactive or would not remove the security risks. The appeals were dismissed and the decision confirmed. ¶¶ 141–148; operative part

Procedural history

  1. 28 February 2022The UEFA Executive Committee suspends all Russian representative teams and clubs from UEFA competitions until further notice (the Suspension Decision).
  2. 2 May 2022The UEFA Executive Committee removes Russia from the 2022/23 access lists and adjusts its coefficient (Circular No. 21/2022).
  3. 12 May 2022The four clubs, and FC Spartak Moscow, file appeals with CAS.
  4. 25 May 2022The CAS Deputy Division President rejects the request for an expedited procedure.
  5. 7 June 2022The Panel is constituted. FC Spartak Moscow's appeal (CAS 2022/A/8869) is terminated after it withdraws.
  6. 11 July 2022Hearing held by videoconference.
  7. 15 July 2022Operative part of the award issued: the appeals are dismissed.
  8. 25 November 2022Reasoned award issued.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by
For the claimant
In-house counsel of the clubs · Georgi Gradev · Mikhail Prokopets · Martin Kiss
For the respondent
UEFA · Antonio Rigozzi · Brianna Quinn

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 2022/A/8865-8868
Claimant
FC Zenit St. Petersburg, FC Sochi, CSKA Moscow, FC Dynamo Moscow
Respondent
Union of European Football Associations (UEFA)

Procedure: Appeal
Sport: Football
Matter: Eligibility (except nationality)
Outcome: Dismissed
Panel: Michael Beloff, Jeffrey G. Benz, Leanne O’Leary
Source: Court of Arbitration for Sport case database.