Javier Gonzalez Lopez v. Hapoel Tel Aviv, Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

At a glance

Parties

Javier González López (Spain) v. Hapoel Tel Aviv FC and Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

Case no.

CAS 2021/A/7915 (heard together with CAS 2021/A/7914)

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, Appeals Arbitration Division; CAS Code (Article R47 et seq.); seat in Switzerland

Treaty

Clause 7 of the Employment Contract (CAS clause); Article 58(1) FIFA Statutes

Tribunal

Prof. Ulrich Haas (Sole Arbitrator)

Sector

Football; coach employment; sporting succession

Outcome

Appeal dismissed (7 November 2022). FIFA's decision of 7 April 2021, by which the Players' Status Committee declined competence, is upheld.

Amount

Underlying CAS award (CAS 2015/O/4261): EUR 507,551.85 plus 5% interest per annum from 15 October 2015, owed by Harel Holdings. Nothing was awarded in this appeal. The published award omits the costs rulings.

The dispute

Javier González López, a Spanish football coach, signed an employment contract on 9 March 2015 with Hapoel Tel Aviv FC, which was then operated by Harel Holdings Ltd. Clause 7 of the contract sent disputes to CAS. Harel Holdings terminated the contract on 4 September 2015. In CAS 2015/O/4261 (award of 22 June 2016), the coach obtained an award of EUR 507,551.85 plus interest. Harel Holdings did not pay and went into insolvency in December 2016. Poalei Tel Aviv Holdings Ltd (the Nissanov Group) then acquired assets with court consent and continued running the club. The coach first asked the FIFA Disciplinary Committee to enforce the award. It declined on 26 October 2020 under the transitional rule in Article 72(2) of the FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC). Before that, on 17 September 2020, he had filed a claim with the Players' Status Committee (PSC) asking it to declare the new club the sporting successor of Harel Holdings and liable for the award debt. FIFA held on 7 April 2021 that the PSC lacked competence because of the CAS clause. The coach appealed. The club argued res judicata, lis pendens, time-bar and lack of FIFA jurisdiction. FIFA argued res judicata from the Disciplinary Committee's decision and that the PSC had no competence.

Key holdings

1. No res judicata. The earlier CAS award involved a different party: Harel Holdings, not Poalei Tel Aviv Holdings Ltd. FIFA was also not a party to it. The Disciplinary Committee's decision of 26 October 2020 has no res judicata effect, because decisions of association bodies are not judicial acts. In any event, that decision refused to act on admissibility grounds and did not rule on the merits. ¶¶ 82–87
2. No stay of the proceedings. The Israeli insolvency proceedings and the consolidated CAS appeals do not involve the same parties. No exceptional or compelling reason justified a stay, and the matter was ready for decision. ¶¶ 93–97
3. FIFA's letter of 7 April 2021 is an appealable decision, and the appeal was filed in time. There was no denial of justice, because FIFA did issue a decision. ¶¶ 89–91
4. Bringing main proceedings under Article 24ter of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) after failing in enforcement proceedings under Article 15 FDC was not a circumvention of the rules. The Disciplinary Committee had dismissed the enforcement request as inadmissible without deciding whether the club was a sporting successor. ¶¶ 103–107
5. The claim against the alleged sporting successor is employment-related within Article 22(1)(c) RSTP. Under Article 24ter, the successor steps into the procedural shoes of the original debtor, so sporting succession does not change the nature of the dispute. It makes no difference that the coach asked for declaratory relief rather than an order to pay. ¶¶ 110–112
6. Parties may opt out of FIFA's competence in favour of CAS. Sporting succession works like a legal assumption of debt, so the CAS clause in the employment contract also binds the alleged successor; the award relies on Swiss Federal Tribunal case law on Art. 178(1) of the Swiss Code of Obligations. The PSC was therefore not competent, and the appeal was dismissed. The time-bar question under Article 25(5) RSTP did not need to be decided. ¶¶ 113–122

Procedural history

1. 22 June 2016Award in CAS 2015/O/4261 orders Hapoel Tel-Aviv (Harel Holdings) to pay the coach EUR 507,551.85 plus 5% interest per annum from 15 October 2015.
2. 4 January 2017Following insolvency proceedings opened in December 2016 over Harel Holdings, the District Court in Tel Aviv-Jaffa issues a decision; Poalei Tel Aviv Holdings Ltd (Nissanov Group) acquires certain assets with court consent and continues to operate the club.
3. 17 September 2020The coach files a sporting-succession claim against the club with the FIFA Players' Status Committee.
4. 26 October 2020The FIFA Disciplinary Committee closes the enforcement proceedings under Article 72(2) FDC.
5. 7 April 2021FIFA decides that the Players' Status Committee is not competent because of the CAS clause in the employment contract.
6. 28 April 2021The coach files his Statement of Appeal with CAS.
7. 16 August 2021Prof. Ulrich Haas is appointed Sole Arbitrator.
8. 26 July 2022Hearing in Lausanne, held jointly with CAS 2021/A/7914.
9. 7 November 2022Award: appeal dismissed and FIFA's decision upheld.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

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

For the claimant

Juan de Dios Crespo Pérez · Alfonso Leon Lleo · Gytis Rackauskas · Amnon Dardik

For the respondent

FIFA · Joseph Gayer · Omri Applebaum

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• sporting succession
• Article 24ter RSTP
• Article 15 FIFA Disciplinary Code
• Article 22 RSTP
• Players' Status Committee
• res judicata
• lis pendens
• stay of proceedings
• CAS arbitration clause
• assumption of debt
• Art. 178 Swiss Code of Obligations
• extension of arbitration agreement
• insolvency
• Harel Holdings
• Poalei Tel Aviv Holdings
• football coach
• Hapoel Tel Aviv
• denial of justice

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