CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2023/A/10208 — Evgeni Marinov v. FIFA & Kenan Kurtes

"Marinov" · CAS dismissed Marinov's appeal, confirming his claim against Kurtes was time-barred under Article 22.3 MAR.

What happened in Marinov

Evgeni Marinov, a Bulgarian FIFA Match Agent, organised a friendly match between Cameroon and Turkmenistan national teams scheduled for 9 June 2019 in Madrid. The FFT cancelled on 18 May 2019, citing visa and financial issues. Marinov was subsequently sued by Mr Kamga (Cameroon's agent) before the FIFA PSC, which on 17 August 2021 ordered Marinov to pay EUR 27,000 compensation. On appeal, CAS 2021/A/8368 reduced this to EUR 13,700 on 4 September 2023, also finding that Kurtes lacked standing to be sued as he had not been a party to the FIFA proceedings. Marinov then filed a separate claim against Kurtes before the PSC in September 2023, seeking reimbursement of the amounts he had been ordered to pay, alleging Kurtes had forged an FFT letter that induced the match contract. The PSC declared the claim inadmissible on 3 November 2023 as time-barred. CAS upheld that decision, finding the limitation period under Article 22.3 MAR had expired by 17 August 2023 at the latest, that proceedings in CAS 2021/A/8368 did not interrupt the period because Kurtes was not a party to those proceedings, and that Swiss law on interruption of prescription was inapplicable in the circumstances. The case clarifies that limitation periods are not interrupted by proceedings to which the target respondent was not a party.

Procedural history of CAS 2023/A/10208

On 4 May 2021, Mr Kamga filed a claim before the FIFA PSC against Marinov. On 17 August 2021, the PSC ordered Marinov to pay EUR 27,000 plus interest to Kamga. Marinov appealed to CAS (CAS 2021/A/8368), which on 4 September 2023 reduced the compensation to EUR 13,700 plus interest and found Kurtes had no standing to be sued as he was not a party to the FIFA proceedings. In September 2023, Marinov lodged a fresh claim before FIFA exclusively against Kurtes. On 23 October 2023, FIFA's general secretariat indicated the Football Tribunal lacked jurisdiction due to the two-year limitation period having elapsed. On 26 October 2023, Marinov filed a further claim (the Second PSC Claim). On 3 November 2023, the PSC declared the claim inadmissible. Marinov appealed to CAS on 7 December 2023, requesting annulment of the PSC decision and referral back to FIFA for a decision on the merits.

Key holdings in CAS 2023/A/10208

• Article 22.3 MAR imposes a two-year limitation period running from the objective moment the facts giving rise to the dispute arose, leaving no room for interpretive leniency.
• Proceedings in CAS 2021/A/8368 did not interrupt the limitation period with respect to Kurtes because Kurtes was not a party to those proceedings, consistent with the reasoning in CAS 2020/A/7154.
• Swiss law on interruption of prescription (Articles 135(2) and 138(1) SCO) applies subsidiarily only where there is a gap or lacuna in FIFA Regulations; since Article 22 MAR is silent on interruption, Swiss law is in principle applicable, but cannot assist Marinov because Kurtes was not a party to the prior proceedings.
• The relevant 'event giving rise to the dispute' was at the latest the date of the PSC decision of 17 August 2021, by which time Marinov was aware of the FFT's allegation that the cancellation letter was forged and of Kurtes's potential responsibility.
• A claim filed on 20 September 2023 against Kurtes was inadmissible as the two-year limitation period, which began no later than 17 August 2021, had expired on 17 August 2023.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator addressed two issues: whether Swiss law on interruption of prescription applied, and when the limitation period began. On the first issue, he accepted that Article 22 MAR is silent on interruption, creating a lacuna that permits recourse to Articles 135(2) and 138(1) SCO. However, following CAS 2020/A/7154, he held that proceedings cannot interrupt a limitation period against a party who was not involved in those proceedings. Since Kurtes had no standing to be sued in CAS 2021/A/8368 and was not a party to the first PSC proceedings, the filing of the Statement of Appeal on 1 October 2021 produced no interruption vis-à-vis Kurtes. On the second issue, the Arbitrator rejected Marinov's argument that the limitation period only began when the CAS award of 4 September 2023 quantified the amounts. He found that as early as 18 May 2019 Marinov could objectively foresee liability under Article 4 of the match contract, and that at the latest, when the FFT alleged during the PSC proceedings (prior to 17 August 2021) that the cancellation letter was forged, Marinov was aware of Kurtes's potential responsibility. Marinov's passivity until September 2023 was fatal to his claim.

Why Marinov matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces that the two-year limitation period under Article 22.3 MAR runs from an objective moment in time and cannot be interrupted by CAS or FIFA proceedings to which the intended respondent was not a party. It applies the principle established in CAS 2020/A/7154 to the Match Agent Regulations context, and clarifies that Swiss law on prescription interruption, while subsidiarily applicable where FIFA Regulations are silent, cannot rescue a claimant who failed to join the relevant party in earlier proceedings.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2021/A/8368 CAS 2020/A/7154 CAS 2020/A/6971

Frequently asked questions about Marinov

When did the two-year limitation period start running in the Marinov v Kurtes case?

The Sole Arbitrator held that the limitation period began at the latest on 17 August 2021, the date of the PSC decision, by which time Marinov was aware of the FFT's allegation during the PSC proceedings that the cancellation letter was forged and therefore of Kurtes's potential responsibility. The period accordingly expired on 17 August 2023, before Marinov filed his claim on 20 September 2023.

Did the CAS 2021/A/8368 proceedings interrupt the limitation period against Kurtes under the Marinov case?

No. The Sole Arbitrator held that because Kurtes was not a party to the first PSC proceedings and had no standing to be sued in CAS 2021/A/8368, the filing of the Statement of Appeal on 1 October 2021 did not interrupt the limitation period with respect to Kurtes. This followed the reasoning in CAS 2020/A/7154, which held that a limitation period is not interrupted by proceedings to which the target respondent was not a party.

Does Swiss law on interruption of prescription apply to the two-year limitation period in FIFA Match Agent Regulations disputes?

The Sole Arbitrator found that Article 22 MAR is silent on interruption of the prescriptive period, creating a lacuna that in principle permits recourse to Articles 135(2) and 138(1) of the Swiss Code of Obligations. However, Swiss law only applies subsidiarily and cannot override clear FIFA Regulations; in this case it could not assist Marinov because the prior proceedings had not involved Kurtes as a party.

Could Marinov have waited until the CAS award quantified his losses before filing a claim against Kurtes?

No. The Sole Arbitrator rejected the argument that Marinov had no valid cause of action until the CAS award of 4 September 2023 established the amounts. He found that as early as 18 May 2019, when the FFT sent the cancellation letter and Kamga warned of legal and financial consequences, Marinov could objectively foresee potential liability under Article 4 of the match contract. The requirement under Article 9.1(g) of the FIFA Procedural Rules to state an amount in dispute did not prevent Marinov from filing a claim earlier.

Topics: Transfers, agents, TPO & sell-on clauses at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.