What is Locus Standi?

Locus Standi is a platform for the dispute-resolution world. It brings together arbitration, mediation and adjudication events, jobs and internships, and landmark arbitral awards explained in plain English, alongside the qualifications and pathways into the field. It was established in London at LIDW26 by the alumni of Queen Mary University of London.

Can Locus Standi help me understand a dispute?

Yes. Locus Standi offers free dispute help: paste your contract's dispute-resolution clause and a short note on what happened, and it works out the type of dispute, the governing law, your options, the right forum to file in, and drafts a basic document to start from, all in plain English.

What is the agentic AI case officer?

Locus Standi's workspace includes an AI case officer that helps practitioners run their matters: tracking stages and deadlines, raising alerts, organising to-dos and documents, and drafting. It is built for arbitrators, mediators and the institutions that administer disputes.

Where can I find arbitration events and internships?

Locus Standi keeps a live calendar of arbitration, mediation and adjudication events with one-tap calendar export, and a board of arbitration jobs and internships from institutions including the PCA, ICC, LCIA, SCC, SIAC and AIAC.

CAS 2023 A 9829 (CAS)

Why it matters

This case highlights the strict limits of CAS's appellate jurisdiction, particularly when reviewing decisions by sports federations like FIFA. It clarifies that CAS's de novo review power is generally confined to the scope of the dispute before the original body. The decision underscores that if an original award (like FIFA DRC or CAS 2016) does not explicitly include default interest, a subsequent appeal to CAS against a FIFA disciplinary decision (like lifting a ban) cannot be used to retroactively claim such interest or compensation from FIFA for not enforcing it. It reinforces the importance of appealing original decisions within their prescribed time limits to ensure all claims, including interest, are addressed.

Summary

Ianos-Jozsef Szekely, a former Romanian professional football player, appealed a decision by FIFA to permanently lift a registration ban on FC Pari Nizhny Novgorod. Szekely had previously secured awards from FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) in 2015 and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in 2016 against the Russian club for unpaid remuneration and breach of contract. While the Club eventually paid the principal amounts in July 2023, Szekely contended that significant default interest (USD 522,853.86 and CHF 351.23) and legal expenses remained unpaid. FIFA had initially imposed a registration ban on the Club for non-compliance but lifted it after the Club claimed full payment. Szekely argued that without the interest, the Club had not "fully settled its financial obligation" under the FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC), and therefore the ban should be reinstated, and FIFA should be liable for compensation for prematurely lifting it. The CAS Panel's jurisdiction and the merits of the dispute were governed primarily by the CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration (Articles R47, R49, R57, R58), FIFA Statutes (Article 57), and the FIFA Disciplinary Code (Article 21). Subsidiarily, the Swiss Code of Obligations (Articles 41, 42, 43, 102, 104, 105(3)) was applicable, particularly concerning default interest and compensation. The CAS Panel dismissed Szekely's appeal, confirming FIFA's decision to permanently lift the registration ban. The Panel clarified that its "de novo" review power under Article R57 of the CAS Code is limited by the object of the dispute before the previous instance. It found that the original FIFA DRC Decision and CAS 2016 Award did not explicitly include default interest on the compensation for breach of contract or legal expenses. Since Szekely had not appealed these original decisions regarding the absence of interest within the prescribed time limits, the Panel deemed it outside its scope to now order the Club to pay such interest. Consequently, FIFA's decision to lift the ban, based on the Club having paid the amounts explicitly stated in the binding decisions, was deemed correct. The Panel also ruled that Szekely's conditional claim for compensation from FIFA was outside the scope of the current appeal, as it had not been addressed in the proceedings before FIFA DC. The CAS award confirmed that the Club's registration ban remained lifted, and the player's claims for additional interest and compensation from FIFA were rejected, effectively ending this specific line of appeal regarding the enforcement of interest not explicitly awarded in prior decisions.

The detail

Parties: Ianos-Jozsef Szekely v. FC Pari Nizhny Novgorod & FIFA

Case number: CAS 2023 A 9829

Outcome: The Court of Arbitration for Sport dismissed the player's appeal, upholding FIFA's decision to permanently lift the registration ban on FC Pari Nizhny Novgorod, and declined to order the Club to pay outstanding interest or FIFA to pay compensation.

Applicable law: FIFA Regulations (FIFA Disciplinary Code, FIFA Statutes), Swiss Code of Obligations, CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration

Issues in play: The core legal issue revolved around the interpretation and application of FIFA's Disciplinary Code regarding the lifting of a registration ban on a club that had previously failed to pay a player. Specifically, it questioned whether "fully settled its financial obligation" under FDC Article 21.3(a) included default interest not explicitly awarded in the original FIFA DRC Decision or CAS Award, and whether CAS had the jurisdiction to order such interest or compensation from FIFA.

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.

Back to the awards board