Nikola Djurdjic v. Chengdu Rongcheng Football Club LTD

At a glance

Parties

Nikola Djurdjic (Serbian former professional footballer) v. Chengdu Rongcheng Football Club (China)

Case no.

CAS 2023/A/9851

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeal procedure under the CAS Code; appeal against a decision of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber

Treaty

None. Jurisdiction rested on Article 56 of the FIFA Statutes and Article 8(2) of the employment contract

Tribunal

Lars Hilliger (Sole Arbitrator)

Sector

Football; player employment and image rights

Outcome

Appeal upheld (23 September 2024). The FIFA DRC was wrong to declare the claim inadmissible on res judicata grounds, and the matter was sent back to the FIFA DRC.

Amount

Claimed: EUR 55,555.50 gross (alternatively EUR 30,555.52 net) as outstanding June 2021 salary, and EUR 2,994,649.56 gross (alternatively EUR 1,647,058 net) as compensation linked to the image rights agreement, each with 5% interest. No amount was awarded because the claims were referred back.

The dispute

The Player signed an employment contract with Chengdu Rongcheng on 23 January 2020. On the same day the Club signed a separate image rights agreement (IRA) with Supervision Management, a Dutch company run by Mr Patel. The IRA contained its own clause giving the courts of Lausanne exclusive jurisdiction. In earlier proceedings the FIFA DRC held that the Club had terminated the contract without just cause on 13 July 2021. In CAS 2022/A/8621 (award of 30 December 2022) the CAS increased the compensation but held that it had no jurisdiction over the claims under the IRA. The Player then brought a new claim before the FIFA DRC for part of his June 2021 salary and for amounts under the IRA, including the 2022 option year at the doubled rate that applied after the Club's promotion to the Chinese Super League. On 7 July 2023 the DRC Chairperson declared that claim inadmissible as res judicata. The Club argued on appeal that both claims were barred by res judicata and that, in any event, nothing more was owed.

Key holdings

1. The Sole Arbitrator left open whether res judicata is a question of jurisdiction or of admissibility. The distinction matters only in a challenge under Article 190 PILA. He treated the plea as one of admissibility. ¶¶ 94–98
2. Res judicata applies when the same parties bring the same claim on the same facts (the "triple identity" test), judged by substance rather than wording. It must be applied with caution so that no party is denied access to justice. ¶¶ 104–108
3. The claim for the June 2021 salary is not barred. The earlier decisions awarded only compensation for breach of contract, based on the "residual value" of the contract. Salary that fell due before termination is a separate claim and was raised for the first time in the second DRC proceedings, which did not decide it. ¶¶ 118–126
4. The claim under the IRA is not barred either. The First CAS Award decided only that the CAS had no jurisdiction under the IRA or under Article 8(2) of the contract. It never decided, and was never asked to decide, whether FIFA had jurisdiction under the FIFA RSTP. The triple identity test was therefore not met, and the Chairperson erred in declaring the claim inadmissible. ¶¶ 132–141
5. Under the FIFA RSTP, the lack of a valid CAS arbitration clause in a contract does not prevent the CAS from having jurisdiction as an appeal body. Most disputes within the DRC's jurisdiction involve no specific arbitration clause. ¶ 138
6. The CAS's de novo powers would have allowed it to decide FIFA's jurisdiction and the merits. Even so, the Sole Arbitrator referred the whole dispute back to the FIFA DRC to decide de novo, including whether FIFA has jurisdiction over claims based on the IRA when the Player is not a formal party to it. ¶¶ 147–149; operative part

Procedural history

1. 23 January 2020Employment contract signed between the Player and the Club; image rights agreement signed between Supervision Management and the Club.
2. 20 July 2021The Club files a claim against the Player before the FIFA DRC. The Player files a counterclaim on 16 August 2021.
3. 22 January 2022First FIFA DRC Decision notified: the Club terminated the contract without just cause and must pay EUR 496,525.47 plus interest.
4. 30 December 2022Award in CAS 2022/A/8621: compensation increased; no CAS jurisdiction over the claims under the IRA.
5. 20 June 2023The Player files a new claim before the FIFA DRC.
6. 7 July 2023The FIFA DRC Chairperson declares the claim inadmissible as res judicata.
7. 27 July 2023The Player files his Statement of Appeal with the CAS.
8. 31 October 2023Sole Arbitrator constituted.
9. 5 March 2024Hearing held by video-conference.
10. 23 September 2024Award: appeal upheld and matter referred back to the FIFA DRC.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Lars Hilliger Sole arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport — appointed by the institution

For the claimant

Filip Blagojevic

For the respondent

Lijun Cao · Jiaying Yan · Jingjing Li · Xiaohan Ren

Experts

Marko Jovanovic (claimant) · Shixi Huang (respondent)

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• res judicata
• triple identity test
• jurisdiction vs admissibility
• Article 190 PILA
• image rights agreement
• FIFA DRC jurisdiction
• FIFA RSTP
• referral back to FIFA
• termination without just cause
• outstanding salary
• Chinese Super League
• option year
• Supervision Management
• football
• de novo review
• group of contracts

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