Skip to main content
International Arbitration Forum

Qingdao Hainu FC v. Uros Deric, Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)

Case summary

At a glance

Parties
Qingdao Hainiu FC (China) v. Uros Deric (Serbia) and Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)
Case no.
CAS 2023/A/9943
Forum and rules
Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeal procedure under the CAS Code (2023 edition)
Tribunal
Ken Lalo (Sole Arbitrator)
Sector
Football; player employment and registration ban
Outcome
Order of 6 May 2024: the Club's request to provisionally lift the FIFA registration ban was rejected. Costs were reserved for the final award.
Amount
Underlying FIFA DRC Decision: USD 280,000 net plus 5% interest p.a. from 5 April 2023

The dispute

The Serbian footballer Uros Deric alleged that Qingdao Hainiu FC signed a Letter of Intention with him on 19 February 2022, and later an employment contract, and then refused to employ him. The Club denied that the offer was authentic. On 1 June 2023 the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) of the FIFA Football Tribunal ordered the Club, which had not taken part, to pay USD 280,000 net plus interest. When the Club did not pay, FIFA imposed a registration ban on 3 August 2023. The Club appealed both decisions to CAS. It argued that FIFA's correspondence had gone to the e-mail address of a former employee, so it never knew of the proceedings, and that the Player had been employed by another club from July to December 2022. On 18 January 2024 the Club asked CAS to lift the registration ban provisionally so that it could register players for the 2024 Chinese Super League season.

Key holdings

  1. Prima facie jurisdiction. CAS has jurisdiction under Article R47 of the CAS Code and Article 57(1) of the FIFA Statutes. FIFA accepted CAS jurisdiction and the Player did not contest it. ¶¶ 43–49
  2. Admissibility, in principle. The appeal against the Registration Ban Decision was filed within the 21-day time limit. FIFA objected that the appeal against the DRC Decision was late, since that decision was notified on 5 June 2023 and the appeal was filed on 22 August 2023. The Sole Arbitrator left that question for the final award. ¶¶ 50–55
  3. Under Article R37 of the CAS Code, provisional measures require three things: irreparable harm, a likelihood of success on the merits, and a balance of interests in the applicant's favour. The three conditions are cumulative, and the appellant must prove all of them. ¶¶ 60–63
  4. The Club did not substantiate irreparable harm. It neither specifically alleged nor proved what concrete harm it would suffer if it could not register players in the 2024 registration window. A bare allegation that a club is barred from recruiting is not enough. ¶¶ 64–66
  5. Because the irreparable harm test failed, the Sole Arbitrator did not examine the other two conditions and rejected the application. Costs are reserved for the final award. ¶¶ 67–69; operative part

Procedural history

  1. 5 April 2023The Player files a claim before the FIFA DRC.
  2. 1 June 2023DRC Decision FPSD-9854 accepts the claim and orders the Club to pay USD 280,000 net plus interest. It is notified on 5 June 2023.
  3. 3 August 2023FIFA issues Registration Ban Decision FDD-15519 against the Club.
  4. 22 August 2023The Club files its Statement of Appeal with CAS against both decisions. Its Appeal Brief follows on 13 September 2023.
  5. 12 December 2023CAS informs the parties that the Sole Arbitrator has been constituted.
  6. 18 January 2024The Club asks for the registration ban to be lifted provisionally. The Respondents object on 26 January 2024.
  7. 6 May 2024Order rejecting the request for provisional measures. The database lists the order as 28 February 2024; the order itself is dated 6 May 2024. The published documents do not show the final award.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by
  • Ken Lalo Sole arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport

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 2023/A/9943-O
Claimant
Qingdao Hainu FC
Respondent
Uros Deric, Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA)
Documents

Procedure: Appeal
Sport: Football
Matter: Disciplinary (except doping)
Outcome: Dismissed
Panel: Ken Lalo
Source: Court of Arbitration for Sport case database.