(CAS) Bulletin - Tribunal Arbitral du Sport / TAS

violation of any jurisdictional provisions.
The Arbitral tribunal held that it was proved
that the Appellant as trainer of football club
Y.________ was registered with the CFA and
in the framework of that registration had agreed
to comply with the Statutes and regulations
(including the Anti-Doping provisions) of the
CFA. It is true that the award under appeal
does not go into the details of that registration.
However the Arbitral tribunal had no reason
to clarify these circumstances any further as
the Appellant did not factually dispute in the
arbitral proceedings that there was a formally
valid declaration of intent to be bound but
merely – and wrongly as was shown – took
the view that the reference contained in the
pertinent CFA rules to the FIFA Statues was
not suffi cient but that it was necessary for the
CFA statutes to contain an explicit right to
appeal the decision of the Judicial Committee
to the CAS. In view of this lack of contestation
the Arbitral tribunal did not violate Art. 178 (1)
PILA when it found that the registration met
the necessary requirement of written form.
To the extent that the Appellant would want
to deny in his argument ever to have made a
written statement that can be proved by its text
in which he submitted to the CFA statutes,
this would be a new argument raised for the
fi rst time in front of the Federal Tribunal and
therefore inadmissible (Art. 99 (1) BGG).
The same applies to the argument that the
Arbitral tribunal would not have found that
the Appellant would have had the FIFA
Statutes at hand or that their contents would
have been known to him at the point in
time when he submitted to the CFA statutes.
The Appellant’s argument that the formal
requirement of Art. 178 (1) PILA would not
be met appears accordingly unfounded to the
extent that his arguments are admissible at all.
4.
The appeal proves to be unfounded and is to be rejected
to the extent that the matter is capable of appeal.
In view of the outcome of the proceedings the
Appellant must pay costs and compensate the other
Parties (Art. 66 (1) and Art. 68 (2) BGG).
Therefore the Federal Tribunal pronounces:
1.
The appeal is rejected to the extent that matter is
capable of appeal.
2.
The Court costs of CHF 5’000 shall be paid by the
Appellant.
3.
The Appellant shall pay CHF 6’000 to each of the
Respondents for the federal proceedings.
4.
This judgment shall be notifi ed in writing to the
Parties and to the Court of Arbitration for Sport
(CAS).
Lausanne 18 April 2011
In the name of the First Civil law Court of the Swiss
Federal Tribunal.
The Presiding Judge: The Clerk:
Klett Leeman
Jugements du Tribunal Fédéral / Judgment of the Federal Tribunal
-
213