CAS 2024/A/10867 Vladimir Milenkovic v. Bytomski Sport Polonia Bytom Sp. Z.o.o & FIFA
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 25 Jul 2025
Why it matters
This case clarifies the strict requirements for reopening final FIFA disciplinary decisions under Article 71 FDC, emphasizing that a legal opinion analyzing pre-existing facts does not constitute new evidence. It also illustrates the high bar for establishing sporting succession, though the tribunal did not reach that issue due to procedural bars.
Summary
Vladimir Milenkovic, a former Serbian professional footballer, had obtained a 2015 FIFA DRC decision ordering his former club, KS Polonia Bytom (Original Bytom), to pay him outstanding remuneration and compensation. Original Bytom failed to pay and was eventually disaffiliated. In 2022, Milenkovic claimed that a new club, Bytomski Sport Polonia Bytom (the Club), was the sporting successor of Original Bytom and should be held liable for the debt. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee investigated and, in April 2023, decided to close the proceedings, finding that while the Club was the sporting successor, Milenkovic had not been diligent in pursuing his claim against Original Bytom (e.g., not registering his claim in insolvency proceedings) and therefore the Club was not liable. Milenkovic appealed to CAS but his appeal was dismissed as late. He then requested FIFA to re-open the proceedings under Article 71 FDC, arguing new evidence (a legal opinion on Polish law). FIFA dismissed that request, and Milenkovic appealed to CAS. The CAS Sole Arbitrator dismissed the appeal, holding that the legal opinion did not constitute new facts or evidence that could have changed the outcome, and that the request was also time-barred under the one-year limitation period in Article 71 FDC. The decision underscores that Article 71 review is not a means to circumvent missed appeal deadlines.
The detail
Parties: CAS 2024/A/10867 Vladimir Milenkovic v. Bytomski Sport Polonia Bytom Sp. Z.o.o & FIFA
Outcome: The CAS dismissed the player's request to re-open disciplinary proceedings and upheld the FIFA Disciplinary Committee's decision to close the case. The player bears the arbitration costs.
Applicable law: FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC) 2023 edition, particularly Articles 21 (sporting succession) and 71 (review of final decisions); CAS procedural rules.
Issues in play: The case involved the principle of sporting succession under FIFA rules versus the strict procedural requirements for reopening final decisions. The player argued the new club was the sporting successor of the old club and liable for debts, but the tribunal focused on whether the player met the criteria for review under Article 71 FDC.
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.