Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

CAS 2013/A/3365 Juventus FC v. Chelsea FC and CAS 2013/A/3366 A.S. Livorno Calcio S.p.A. v. Chelsea FC, Award of 21 January 2015

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration 2015

Abstract

On 21 January 2015, the CAS rendered its award in the latest episode of the Mutu case. The core legal question raised concerned the interpretation of Article 14(3) of the FIFA RSTP, in their 2001 version, and more precisely whether, in the event a player is dismissed by his club for having consumed cocaine, the new club bears the duty to pay the compensation due by the player to his former club. Having won one of the most high profile cases in the history of the CAS, Chelsea FC has been desperately hunting for its money (as far as the US) since the rendering of the award. Thus, the English football club had the idea to turn against Mutu’s first employers after his dismissal in 2005, Juventus and Livorno, with success in front of the FIFA DRC, but, as we will see, not before the CAS. This award is extremely important for lawyers involved in disputes arising out of transfers in football as it provides a robust justification for the need to take into account the EU law context of the adoption of the FIFA RSTP in interpreting their provisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    CJEU, C-415/93, Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football Association and other v. Jean-Marc Bosman and others, ECLI:EU:C:1995:463.

  2. 2.

    Oberlandesgericht München, 15 January 2015, Az. U 1110/14 Kart. See Duval and Van Rompuy 2016b.

  3. 3.

    CAS 2005/A/876, Adrian Mutu v. Chelsea Football Club Limited, Award of 15 December 2005.

  4. 4.

    FIFA DRC decision, 26 October 2006, http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/106176_8523.pdf. Accessed 4 February 2016.

  5. 5.

    CAS 2008/A/1644, Adrian Mutu v. Chelsea Football Club Limited, Award of 31 July 2009.

  6. 6.

    FIFA DRC decision, 7 May 2007. See press release of FIFA, FIFA (2008) DRC reaches decision on Mutu. http://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/news/y=2008/m=8/news=drc-reaches-decision-mutu-850413.html. Accessed 4 February 2016.

  7. 7.

    CAS 2008/A/1644, Mutu v. Chelsea.

  8. 8.

    SFT 4A_458/2009, decision of 10 June 2010. The translation used in the commentary is the one provided by Charles Poncet at http://www.swissarbitrationdecisions.com/sites/default/files/10%20juin%202010%204A%20458%202009.pdf. Accessed 4 February 2016.

  9. 9.

    See von Segesser 2012 and Beffa 2011.

  10. 10.

    SFT 4A_458/2009, para 4.4.3.1.

  11. 11.

    See ECtHR, Request 40575/10, Adrian Mutu v. Switzerland, 13 July 2010. http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-117165. Accessed 4 February 2016.

  12. 12.

    United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, No. 763, Chelsea Football Club Limited v. Adrian Mutu, 13 February 2012.

  13. 13.

    See Chowdhury S, Adrian Mutu: Juventus and Livorno told to pay Chelsea compensation, 18 October 2013. http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/24587804. Accessed 4 February 2016. And John Shea, Initial considerations from the latest Adrian Mutu compensation ruling, 5 November 2013. http://www.lawinsport.com/blog/john-shea/item/initial-considerations-from-the-latest-adrian-mutu-compensation-ruling. Accessed 4 February 2016.

  14. 14.

    CAS 2013/A/3365 & 3366, Juventus FC & A.S. Livorno Calcio S.p.A v. Chelsea FC, Award of 21 January 2015, para 39.

  15. 15.

    Ibid.

  16. 16.

    Ibid.

  17. 17.

    Ibid., para 121.

  18. 18.

    Ibid., para 128.

  19. 19.

    Ibid., para 131.

  20. 20.

    Ibid.

  21. 21.

    Ibid.

  22. 22.

    Ibid., para 136.

  23. 23.

    Ibid., para 137.

  24. 24.

    Ibid., paras 138–139.

  25. 25.

    Ibid., para 139.

  26. 26.

    Ibid.

  27. 27.

    See CAS 2002/O/373, Canadian Olympic Committee (COC) & Beckie Scott v. International Olympic Committee (IOC), Award of 18 December 2003, paras 46–47; CAS 2007/A/1363, TTF Liebherr Ochsenhausen v. ETTU, Award of 5 October 2007, para 12; CAS 2009/A/1810 & 1811, SV Wilhelmshaven v. Club Atlético Excursionistas & Club Atlético River Plate, Award of 5 October 2009, para 45; CAS 2010/A/2071, Irish Football Association (IFA) v. Football Association of Ireland (FAI), Daniel Kearns and Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), Award of 27 September 2010, para 20; CAS 2013/A/3151, Jonathon Millar v. Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI), Award of 7 October 2013, para 71; CAS 2013/A/3047, FC Zenit St. Petersburg v. Russian Football Union (RFU), Award of 7 October 2013, para 71.

  28. 28.

    See Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen, 30 December 2014, Az. 2 U 67/14. For more on this ruling see my commentary in this Yearbook.

  29. 29.

    CAS 2013/A/3365 & 3366, Juventus v. Chelsea, para 143.

  30. 30.

    Ibid., para 144.

  31. 31.

    On lex sportiva see Latty 2007 and Duval 2013.

  32. 32.

    Franck Latty was, to my knowledge, the first to make use of the concept of lex FIFA, see Latty 2011.

  33. 33.

    CAS 2013/A/3365 & 3366, Juventus v. Chelsea, para 148.

  34. 34.

    Ibid., para 149.

  35. 35.

    On the Bosman ruling and its aftermath see Weatherill 2003 and Van den Bogaert 2005.

  36. 36.

    CAS 2013/A/3365 & 3366, Juventus v. Chelsea, para 151.

  37. 37.

    European Commission, Rejection Decision, Case IV/36 583, SETCA & FGTB v. FIFA, 28 May 2002. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/36583/36583_54_3.pdf. Accessed 4 February 2016.

  38. 38.

    CAS 2013/A/3365 & 3366, Juventus v. Chelsea, para 156.

  39. 39.

    Ibid., para 157.

  40. 40.

    Ibid., para 158.

  41. 41.

    Ibid., para 159.

  42. 42.

    Ibid., para 160.

  43. 43.

    Ibid., para 161.

  44. 44.

    Ibid., para 163.

  45. 45.

    Ibid.

  46. 46.

    Ibid., para 166.

  47. 47.

    Ibid., para 165.

  48. 48.

    Ibid., para 168.

  49. 49.

    CJEU, C-176/96, Jyri Lehtonen and Castors Canada Dry Namur-Braine ASBL v. Fédération royale belge des sociétés de basket-ball ASBL, ECLI:EU:C:2000:201.

  50. 50.

    CAS 2013/A/3365 & 3366, Juventus v. Chelsea, para 169.

  51. 51.

    Ibid, para 172.

  52. 52.

    Ibid.

  53. 53.

    Ibid, para 174.

  54. 54.

    Ibid.

  55. 55.

    Ibid.

  56. 56.

    Ibid, para 177.

  57. 57.

    For example: “It must be remembered that the FIFA Regulations have been issued to regulate the legal and economic aspects of the transfer of players in accordance with the principle of free movement of workers as established by the EC treaty and substantiated by the European Court of Justice in its ruling of 15 December 1995 (case C-415/93), thereby taking the specific needs of professional football into account. In this context, any provisions in the FIFA regulations affecting the player’s freedom of movement should be interpreted narrowly.” CAS 2004/A/691, FC Barcelona SAD v. Manchester United FC, Award of 9 February 2005, para 38; “However, the principle behind Article 5 para 5 of the Application Regulations is clear: the free movement of workers within the EU/EEA must not be restricted by the imposition of a requirement for the payment of sums by way of compensation for training and education in respect of a player to whom the training club does not offer a contract. In such a case, the failure to offer a contract is an important factor in the assessment of compensation. The compensation payable should not be of such an amount as would impede the player’s ability to move to a new club.” CAS 2006/A/1125, Hertha BSC Berlin v. Stade Lavallois Mayenne FC, Award of 1 December 2006, para 25; “Finally, because of the potentially high amounts of compensation involved, giving clubs a regulatory right to the market value of players and allowing lost profits to be claimed in such manner would in effect bring the system partially back to the pre-Bosman days when players’ freedom of movement was unduly hindered by transfer fees and their careers and well-being could be seriously affected by them becoming pawns in the hands of their clubs and a vector through which clubs could reap considerable benefits without sharing the profit or taking corresponding risks. In view of the text and the history of Article 17 para 1 of the FIFA Status Regulations, allowing any form of compensation that could have such an effect would clearly be anachronistic and legally unsound.” CAS 2007/A/1298, 1299 & 1300, Wigan Athletic FC & Webster v. Heart of Midlothian, Award of 30 January 2008, para 81.

  58. 58.

    CAS 2009/A/1810 & 1811, SV Wilhelmshaven v. Excursionistas, paras 46–49.

  59. 59.

    See Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Bremen, 30 December 2014, Az. 2 U 67/14 and my commentary in this yearbook.

  60. 60.

    Duval 2015.

  61. 61.

    Schiff Berman 2012.

  62. 62.

    Article 17.1 FIFA RSTP (version 2015) stipulates, in case a contract is terminated without just cause, that “1. [i]n all cases, the party in breach shall pay compensation. Subject to the provisions of Article 20 and Annexe 4 in relation to training compensation, and unless otherwise provided for in the contract, compensation for the breach shall be calculated with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport, and any other objective criteria. These criteria shall include, in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, the fees and expenses paid or incurred by the former club (amortised over the term of the contract) and whether the contractual breach falls within a protected period.”

  63. 63.

    Czarnota 2013.

  64. 64.

    CAS 2007/A/1298, 1299 & 1300, Webster v. Heart, para 86.

  65. 65.

    See FIFA (2008) FIFA Dismayed with CAS Decision. http://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/news/y=2008/m=1/news=fifa-dismayed-with-cas-decision-682195.html. Accessed 4 February 2016.

  66. 66.

    See European Club Association (2009) ECA: FIFA’s Article 17 ‘goes too far’ in removing protection for club. http://www.e-comlaw.com/world-sports-law-report/article_template.asp?Contents=Yes&from=wslr&ID=1097. Accessed 4 February 2016.

  67. 67.

    CAS 2008/A/1519 & 1520, FC Shakhtar Donetsk v. Mr. Matuzalem Francelino da Silva & Real Zaragoza SAD & FIFA, Award of 19 May 2009.

  68. 68.

    See Czarnota 2013 and Zimmerman 2015.

  69. 69.

    CAS 2013/A/3365 & 3366, Juventus v. Chelsea, para 177.

  70. 70.

    See recently Parrish 2015 and Pearson 2015.

  71. 71.

    See Venzke 2013.

  72. 72.

    On the idea of the interpretative fit see Dworkin 1977.

  73. 73.

    In other words: “Chaque interprète, quelle que soit sa position dans la chaîne discursive, est à la fois libre et contraint: libre en raison de la polysémie virtuelle et de la texture ouverte des termes du langage ordinaire, contraint par la structure, discursive et juridique, du champ concerné.” Ost and Van de Kerchove 2002, p. 445.

  74. 74.

    Duval 2016a.

References

  • Beffa L (2011) Challenge of international arbitration awards in Switzerland for lack of independence and/or impartiality of an arbitrator—is it time to change the approach? ASA Bull 29:598–606

    Google Scholar 

  • Czarnota P (2013) FIFA transfer rules and unilateral termination without “Just Cause”. Berkeley J Entertain Sports Law 2:1–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Duval A (2013) Lex Sportiva: a playground for transnational law. Eur Law J 19:822–842

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duval A (2015) The court of arbitration for sport and EU law: chronicle of an encounter. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 22:224–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Duval A (2016a) The FIFA regulations on the status and transfer of players: transnational law-making in the shadow of Bosman. In: Duval A, Van Rompuy B (eds) The legacy of Bosman: revisiting the relationship between EU law and sport, Springer, T.M.C. ASSER Press, The Hague, pp 81–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Duval A, Van Rompuy B (2016b) Protecting athletes’ right to a fair trial through EU competition law: the Pechstein case. In: Paulussen C et al (eds) Fundamental rights in international and European law, Springer, T.M.C. ASSER Press, The Hague, pp 245–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R (1977) Taking rights seriously. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Latty F (2007) La Lex Sportiva: Recherche sur le droit transnational. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Latty F (2011) La Lex FIFA. In: Maisonneuve M (ed) Droit et Coupe du Monde, Economica, Paris, pp 9–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Ost F, Van de Kerchove M (2002) De la pyramide au réseau? Pour une théorie dialectique du droit. Facultés universitaires Saint-Louis, Bruxelles

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrish R (2015) Article 17 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. Compatibility with EU law. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 22:256–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson G (2015) Sporting justifications under EU free movement and competition law: the case of the football ‘transfer system. Eur Law J 21:220–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiff Berman P (2012) Global legal pluralism. A jurisprudence of law beyond borders. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bogaert S (2005) Practical regulation of the mobility of sportsmen in the EU post Bosman. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • von Segesser G (2012) Equality of information and impartiality of arbitrators. In: Wautelet P, Kruger T, Coppens G (eds) The practice of arbitration: essays in honour of Hans van Houtte. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 45–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Venzke I (2013) How interpretation makes international law: on semantic change and normative twists. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Weatherill S (2003) “Fair Play Please!”: recent developments in the application of EC law to sport. Common Market Law Rev 40:51–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman M (2015) Vertragsstabilität im internationalen Fussball. Dike Verlag, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. T.M.C ASSER Institute for European and International Law, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Antoine Duval

Authors
  1. Antoine Duval
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antoine Duval .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. ASSER International Sports Law Centre, T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Antoine Duval

  2. Faculté de droit, Université de Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland

    Antonio Rigozzi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Duval, A. (2016). CAS 2013/A/3365 Juventus FC v. Chelsea FC and CAS 2013/A/3366 A.S. Livorno Calcio S.p.A. v. Chelsea FC, Award of 21 January 2015. In: Duval, A., Rigozzi, A. (eds) Yearbook of International Sports Arbitration 2015. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-129-6_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-129-6_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-128-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-129-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation