Skip to main content
International Arbitration Forum

Jakub Swierczok v. Asian Football Confederation (AFC)

Case summary

At a glance

Parties
Jakub Świerczok (Poland) v. Asian Football Confederation (AFC)
Case no.
CAS 2022/A/9334
Forum and rules
Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeal procedure under the CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration (Articles R47, R48, R56)
Treaty
None. CAS jurisdiction rests on Article 77 of the AFC Anti-Doping Regulations 2021
Tribunal
Prof. Ulrich Haas (President), Jeffrey G. Benz, James Robert Reid KC
Sector
Football; anti-doping
Outcome
Consent award of 27 March 2023. The Panel ratified the parties' settlement: the four-year ban was set aside and replaced by a 6-month period of ineligibility, already served, so the Player became eligible to play at once.
Amount
No monetary award. Each party bears its own legal and other costs. The Player waived any damages claims against the AFC.

The dispute

Jakub Świerczok, a Polish professional footballer under contract with Nagoya Grampus (Japan), gave a doping control sample on 17 October 2021 after an AFC Champions League match against FC Pohang Steelers. The sample tested positive for trimetazidine (TMZ), a hormone and metabolic modulator. The B-sample confirmed the finding, and the Player admitted an anti-doping rule violation. The AFC Disciplinary and Ethics Committee found a violation of Article 6 of the AFC Anti-Doping Regulations 2021 and banned him for four years, starting on 9 December 2021. The Player appealed to CAS and asked for the ban to be removed or reduced. With his Appeal Brief he filed new analytical evidence that a contaminated product was the source of the TMZ. The parties then settled, and WADA approved the settlement.

Key holdings

  1. CAS has jurisdiction under Article 77 of the AFC Anti-Doping Regulations, and neither party contested it. The appeal was filed in time: the Player received the grounds of the decision on 24 November 2022 and appealed on 8 December 2022, within the 21 days set by Article 82.1 of the Regulations. ¶¶ 40–43
  2. Under Swiss law and Article R56 of the CAS Code, a panel may embody a settlement in a consent award, which gives the settlement res judicata effect and makes it enforceable. Before doing so, the panel must check that the agreement is bona fide and that it does not breach public policy or mandatory law. ¶¶ 44–45
  3. Under Article 10.3 lit. c of the WADA International Standard for Results Management, an Anti-Doping Organization may not enter into a settlement embodied in a consent award without WADA's written approval. The Panel asked whether WADA had approved and confirmed that it had. ¶¶ 36–37, 46
  4. Under the settlement, the AFC accepted that the TMZ came from a contaminated product (TMZ was not listed as an ingredient) made by a large, reputable food manufacturer. It also accepted that the Player did not take TMZ knowingly or intentionally and bears no significant fault. ¶ 38 (Settlement Agreement cl. 2.3)
  5. The four-year ban was set aside. In its place, a 6-month period of ineligibility runs from 8 December 2021, the date of the provisional suspension. That period has already been served, so the Player is eligible at once. Each party bears its own costs, and the Player waives any damages claims against the AFC. ¶ 38 (Settlement Agreement cll. 2.2, 2.8–2.11)
  6. The Panel ratified the Settlement Agreement of 22 February 2023 and incorporated its terms into the award. It removed the case from the CAS roll and dismissed all other requests. ¶¶ 47–49; operative part

Procedural history

  1. 17 October 2021The Player gives a doping control sample after an AFC Champions League match.
  2. 8 December 2021The Player is provisionally suspended. The suspension takes effect on 9 December 2021.
  3. 26 October 2022The AFC Disciplinary and Ethics Committee imposes a four-year ban (¶ 13). The Settlement Agreement dates this decision 24 November 2022, which is also the date the Player received its grounds.
  4. 8 December 2022The Player files his Statement of Appeal with CAS.
  5. 28 December 2022The Player files his Appeal Brief with new evidence and applies for urgent provisional measures.
  6. 18 January 2023The Panel is constituted.
  7. 24 January 2023The operative part of the Order for Provisional Measures is issued. The reasoned order follows on 1 February 2023.
  8. 22 February 2023The parties submit a signed Settlement Agreement and ask for a consent award. On 7 March 2023 they confirm that WADA has approved it.
  9. 27 March 2023Consent award ratifying the settlement.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

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/9334
Claimant
Jakub Swierczok
Respondent
Asian Football Confederation (AFC)
Documents

Procedure: Appeal
Sport: Football
Matter: Doping
Panel: Ulrich Haas, Jeffrey G. Benz, Robert Reid
Source: Court of Arbitration for Sport case database.