Hellas Verona Football Club S.p.A. v. FC Sellier & Bellot Vlasim, Udinese Calcio S.p.A, Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

At a glance

Parties

Hellas Verona FC S.p.A. (Italy) v. FC Sellier and Bellot Vlasim (Czech Republic), Udinese Calcio S.p.A. (Italy) and FIFA

Case no.

CAS 2022/A/8737

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeal procedure under the CAS Code (2021 edition)

Treaty

None. Appeal under Article 57(1) of the FIFA Statutes; FIFA RSTP (August 2020 edition) applied

Tribunal

Lars Hilliger (President), Michael Nicholson, Patrick Lafranchi

Sector

Football; solidarity contribution

Outcome

Appeal dismissed and FIFA DRC decision of 11 February 2022 confirmed (award of 7 March 2023).

Amount

FIFA DRC ordered Hellas Verona to pay EUR 13,064.42 in solidarity contribution, which it paid on 23 March 2022. Hellas Verona sought reimbursement from Udinese of all solidarity contribution paid or due; nothing was awarded.

The dispute

On 17 September 2020, Udinese loaned a Czech player to Hellas Verona for a loan fee of EUR 500,000. The loan became a permanent transfer on 1 July 2021 for EUR 3,000,000 at the start of 2021/22 and EUR 3,000,000 at the start of 2022/23. Sellier, a Czech club, had trained the player for 318 days in the season of his 20th birthday. It claimed solidarity contribution from Hellas Verona, and the FIFA DRC awarded it EUR 13,064.42. Hellas Verona did not dispute that Sellier was entitled to the money. It argued that the FIGC clearing-house system had prevented it from deducting the 5% solidarity contribution from the fees paid to Udinese, so Udinese should have been joined and ordered to reimburse it. It appealed the DRC's refusal to involve Udinese and relied on FIFA's "100 minus 5" case law and on unjust enrichment (Article 62 of the Swiss Code of Obligations). The respondents argued that Hellas Verona had no legal interest because it had already paid, that Sellier and Udinese had no standing to be sued, and that FIFA had no jurisdiction over a dispute between two Italian clubs.

Key holdings

1. The appeal is admissible. Hellas Verona had already paid Sellier, but it kept a legitimate interest under Article 59(2)(a) of the Swiss Civil Procedure Code because the appeal was in essence directed at the FIFA DRC's competence and its refusal to include Udinese. ¶¶ 78–90
2. Sellier has no standing to be sued. Hellas Verona had paid Sellier and sought no relief against it. Sellier's likely entitlement to solidarity contribution on the second instalment did not make it a proper respondent. ¶¶ 107–114
3. Udinese has no standing to be sued. It was never a party to the FIFA proceedings, and those proceedings did not concern its conduct. Even if the appeal had succeeded, the prudent course would have been to refer the matter back to the FIFA DRC. ¶¶ 115–120
4. FIFA had no competence over the reimbursement claim. A dispute between two clubs affiliated with the FIGC is national in nature. The fact that the claim arose from a Czech club's solidarity claim over a Czech player does not give it a sufficient international dimension under Article 22(d), (e) or (f) of the FIFA RSTP. ¶¶ 131–134
5. There was no contractual basis for shifting the solidarity contribution to Udinese, and no FIFA rule allows a club to be impleaded by something like a third-party notice. There is no lacuna in the rules: if FIFA decided such internal disputes, it would violate the member association's internal competence. The DRC was therefore right to refuse to include Udinese. ¶¶ 137–148
6. The Panel did not rule on unjust enrichment or on whether the FIGC rules conflict with the FIFA rules. Hellas Verona remains free to seek reimbursement from Udinese before a competent national body or court. ¶¶ 149–150

Procedural history

1. 31 December 2021Sellier filed a claim before the FIFA DRC against Hellas Verona for solidarity contribution.
2. 11 February 2022The FIFA DRC partially accepted the claim and ordered Hellas Verona to pay EUR 13,064.42. The grounds were notified on 28 February 2022.
3. 18 March 2022Hellas Verona filed its Statement of Appeal with CAS.
4. 23 March 2022Hellas Verona paid Sellier EUR 13,064.42.
5. 18 May 2022The parties were informed that the Panel had been constituted. On 20 May 2022 the Panel refused Udinese's request for an interlocutory award on its standing to be sued.
6. 14 October 2022Hearing held by videoconference.
7. 7 March 2023Award: appeal dismissed and the FIFA DRC decision confirmed.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Lars Hilliger President, Court of Arbitration for Sport
• Michael Nicholson Co-arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport — appointed by the claimant
• Patrick Lafranchi Co-arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport — appointed by the respondent

For the claimant

Paolo Lombardi · James Mungavin · Ian Laing

For the respondent

FIFA · Markéta Vochoska Haindlová · Jakub Porsch · Ryan Parker · Gianpaolo Monteneri · Anna Smirnova

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• solidarity contribution
• FIFA RSTP Annexe 5
• Article 22 FIFA RSTP
• FIFA DRC competence
• international dimension
• domestic transfer
• standing to be sued
• legal interest
• Article 59 Swiss Civil Procedure Code
• Article 75 Swiss Civil Code
• FIGC clearing house
• 100 minus 5
• unjust enrichment
• Hellas Verona
• Udinese
• loan agreement
• football transfer

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