Société Doyen Sports Investments Limited, ASBL Royal Football Club Seraing United and others v. URBSFA, FIFA, UEFA and FIFPro

At a glance

Parties

Doyen Sports Investments Limited (Malta), ASBL Royal Football Club Seraing United (Belgium) and eleven individuals living in the Netherlands (appellants) v. URBSFA, FIFA, UEFA and FIFPro (respondents)

Case no.

Cour d'appel de Bruxelles, No. 2016/AR/2048

Court

Court of Appeal of Brussels (Belgium), civil chamber; interlocutory judgment of 29 August 2018

Forum and rules

Belgian Judicial Code (Articles 1681–1682); New York Convention Article II; Lugano Convention 2007

Treaty

None. The arbitration clause relied on is in the FIFA, UEFA and URBSFA statutes and provides for CAS arbitration.

Tribunal

M. Salmon (acting President), H. Reghif, C. Verbruggen

Sector

Professional football; third-party ownership (TPO) of players

Outcome

The Court rejected the objection based on arbitration and FIFA and UEFA's objection to Belgian international jurisdiction. It held the request for provisional measures inadmissible and reserved the rest of the case.

Amount

Doyen Sports claimed EUR 5,000,000 as provisional damages. Nothing was awarded at this stage.

The dispute

Doyen Sports, a Maltese investment company, had made two third-party ownership (TPO) agreements with the Belgian club RFC Seraing United. It challenged FIFA's ban on TPO (Articles 18bis and 18ter of FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players) as contrary to EU law. Doyen sued FIFA, UEFA and the Belgian federation URBSFA for damages and asked for questions to be referred to the Court of Justice of the EU. RFC Seraing United, a group of individuals presented as FC Twente supporters, and FIFPro also took part in the proceedings. FIFA, UEFA and URBSFA objected that RFC Seraing United's claims were subject to CAS arbitration under the federations' statutes. FIFA and UEFA, both seated in Switzerland, also denied that the Belgian courts had international jurisdiction under the Lugano Convention. The appellants asked for provisional measures under Article 19(3) of the Judicial Code. FIFA had separately sanctioned RFC Seraing United over the TPO agreements, and CAS and the Swiss Federal Tribunal had upheld those sanctions.

Key holdings

1. The objection based on arbitration was rejected. The clause, built from the statutes of FIFA (Articles 59 and 66), UEFA (Article 61) and URBSFA and from RFC Seraing United's own statutes, submits every dispute between the named football bodies to CAS and bars recourse to state courts. It does not refer to any 'defined legal relationship'. It is therefore not an arbitration agreement under Articles 1681 and 1682(1) of the Judicial Code, a requirement that matches Article II of the New York Convention. ¶¶ 13–16
2. The respondents' arguments did not create a defined legal relationship. The Court rejected each of them: the limits set by FIFA's corporate purpose, the implied restriction to 'sports disputes' (CAS is a third party free to change its rules), the reference to compliance with federation statutes, and the fact that the clause binds only certain persons. Favor arbitrandum is not a general principle of law that can override the specificity requirement. The analogy with arbitration clauses in company statutes also failed. ¶¶ 14–15
3. The requirement of a defined legal relationship is linked to the right of access to a court (Article 6(1) ECHR and Article 47 of the EU Charter). It also respects the parties' consent and prevents the economically stronger party from imposing a general forum. ¶ 13
4. The Belgian courts have international jurisdiction over FIFA and UEFA under Article 6(1) of the Lugano Convention, because the claims are closely connected with the claim against URBSFA. URBSFA's joinder was not artificial: it shares regulatory and enforcement power with FIFA, and FIFA Circular 1464 asked it to adopt the TPO ban. Jurisdiction is limited to the effects of the measures on Belgian territory. The Court did not need to decide on Article 5(3). ¶¶ 24–35
5. The request for provisional measures under Article 19(3) of the Judicial Code is inadmissible. The Court's summary-proceedings judgment of 10 March 2016 has the authority of a decided matter, and no new or changed circumstances were shown. The CAS award of 9 March 2017, a scholarly article, a Swiss Federal Tribunal decision of 13 December 2016, a European Commission communication and a Charleroi commercial court judgment did not qualify. ¶¶ 37–40
6. The parts of RFC Seraing United's post-reopening submissions that went beyond the limited scope of the reopened debate (pages 7–12 and 25–67) were struck out under Article 775 of the Judicial Code. Its new exhibits were kept on file. ¶¶ 5–7

Procedural history

1. 10 March 2016The Court of Appeal of Brussels gives judgment in the summary proceedings (RG 2015/KR/54).
2. 9 March 2017CAS award on RFC Seraing United's appeal against FIFA's disciplinary sanctions finds the EU-law objections to the TPO ban unfounded.
3. 27 June 2017The President of the Court of First Instance of Liège rejects RFC Seraing United's request to suspend the CAS sanction, for lack of urgency.
4. 24 August 2017The President of the French-speaking Court of First Instance of Brussels rejects a related request by players and parents of players against URBSFA.
5. 11 January 2018The Court of Appeal gives an interlocutory judgment and reopens the debate on whether the general arbitration clause is valid under Belgian law.
6. 2 March 2018The Swiss Federal Tribunal rejects RFC Seraing United's appeal against the CAS award.
7. 24 May 2018Hearing before the Court of Appeal.
8. 29 August 2018Interlocutory judgment: the arbitration and jurisdiction objections are rejected and the provisional measures request is held inadmissible. The case is set for a hearing on 4 October 2018.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• M. Salmon President, Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (acting President (président ff.))
• H. Reghif Judge, Cour d'appel de Bruxelles
• C. Verbruggen Judge, Cour d'appel de Bruxelles

For the claimant

Martin Hissel · Jean-Louis Dupont · François Dembour

For the respondent

Audry Stevenart · André Tulcinsky · Ami Barav · Damien Reymond · Denis Waelbroek · G. Ernes · Pieter Paepe

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• third-party ownership
• TPO ban
• Doyen Sports
• RFC Seraing
• FIFA
• UEFA
• Court of Arbitration for Sport
• defined legal relationship
• validity of arbitration agreement
• New York Convention Article II
• Belgian Judicial Code Article 1681
• favor arbitrandum
• access to justice
• Lugano Convention Article 6(1)
• international jurisdiction
• provisional measures
• res judicata
• EU law

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