CAS 2017 A 5361
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 26 Jun 2020
Why it matters
This case clarifies the procedural requirement that an appellant must have a continuing legal interest to pursue an appeal. It demonstrates that when a subsequent decision replaces the challenged one, the appeal becomes moot unless the appellant also challenges the later decision. The ruling underscores the importance of timely appealing all relevant decisions in multi-tiered sports disputes.
Summary
Jonathan Matijas, a French professional footballer, signed a contract with Algerian club SSPA DIFAA Riadhi Tadjenanet from July 2016 to May 2018. After the club stopped paying his salary and ordered him to train with the reserve team, Matijas filed a claim with the Algerian FA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC). The Algerian DRC issued decisions in February and March 2017, partially awarding him salary and damages but rejecting his claim for future wages. Matijas appealed to the Algerian sports tribunal, which declared itself incompetent. He then filed a claim with FIFA's DRC in July 2017. FIFA initially responded by letter on 14 September 2017, stating it could not intervene because the matter had already been decided by the national body (res judicata). Matijas appealed this letter to the CAS on 5 October 2017. During the CAS proceedings, at FIFA's suggestion, the parties agreed to suspend the appeal while FIFA's DRC issued a formal decision. On 4 October 2018, FIFA's DRC declared Matijas' claim inadmissible. The reasoned decision was notified to Matijas in March 2019. Despite being informed by CAS that he could file a new appeal against the FIFA DRC decision, Matijas chose to maintain his original appeal against the September 2017 letter. The CAS panel bifurcated the proceedings to first address jurisdiction and admissibility. The panel found it had jurisdiction over claims against FIFA and the club, but not against the Algerian FA. However, it held that Matijas lacked a legal interest to pursue the appeal because the FIFA DRC decision had become final and binding, and the appeal against the earlier letter could no longer affect his legal position. The panel noted that Matijas had accepted the suspension and failed to appeal the later decision. Consequently, the appeal was declared inadmissible. The CAS ordered Matijas to bear the arbitration costs and declined to award costs to the other parties.
The detail
Parties: Jonathan Matijas v. FIFA & FAF & Club SSPA DIFAA Riadhi Tadjenanet
Case number: CAS 2017 A 5361
Outcome: Appeal declared inadmissible for lack of standing; CAS partially competent but appeal against FIFA's letter moot after FIFA DRC decision became final.
Applicable law: FIFA Statutes, FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration
Issues in play: The case involved the principle of res judicata and the requirement of a legal interest to appeal. The key collision was between the player's right to challenge FIFA's initial refusal to hear his claim and the subsequent final decision by FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber, which the player failed to appeal.
Read the full decision at Court of Arbitration for Sport (football, via FIFA) ↗
Locus Standi links to the source decision and publishes its own plain-language summary. It does not reproduce the text of the award.