CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10619 — Jovan Miladinović v. FC Crvena Zvezda

"Miladinović" · CAS rejected a Serbian youth goalkeeper's claim that his club wrongfully terminated his employment contract by denying him competition registration.

What happened in Miladinović

Jovan Miladinović, a Serbian professional goalkeeper born around 2006, signed an employment contract with FC Crvena Zvezda (Red Star Belgrade) on 18 April 2022, valid until 30 June 2025. He made his first-team debut on 22 January 2023 at age 16. The Player alleged the Club breached the contract by failing to license him for official FAS competitions (Serbian Super Liga, Cadet League, Youth League) during parts of the 2023/24 and 2024/25 seasons, pressuring him to change agents, and causing his removal from the Serbian U17 national team squad. He sought contract termination due to the Club's fault and a declaration that the Club had no right to training compensation or solidarity contribution. The Club denied all allegations and raised admissibility objections including lack of valid power of attorney, indefinite relief requests, and res judicata. The NDRC had rejected both the Player's claim and the Club's EUR 300,000 contractual penalty counterclaim on 18 October 2024. On appeal, CAS Sole Arbitrator Frans de Weger dismissed all admissibility objections, conducted a full de novo review, and rejected the appeal on the merits. The case matters because it clarifies that a club's failure to register a player for specific competitions does not breach fundamental rights if the player remains eligible to compete in any official competition.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10619

On 27 October 2023, the Player filed a claim before the Football Association of Serbia's Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC, reference VRS-68/2023) seeking contract termination due to the Club's fault. The NDRC proceedings were disrupted when multiple arbitrators resigned in late 2023 and early 2024, blocking the panel. New NDRC rules were adopted on 27 May 2024 and new members elected on 8 July 2024. On 10 September 2024, the Club filed a counterclaim (VRS-15/2024) for a EUR 300,000 contractual penalty. The NDRC consolidated both cases and held a hearing on 18 October 2024, which the Player's counsel boycotted. On 18 October 2024, the NDRC rejected both the Player's claim and the Club's counterclaim. The Player filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS on 19 November 2024 (within the 21-day deadline under Article 31 of the NDRC Rules) and an Appeal Brief on 22 November 2024. A videoconference hearing was held on 22 April 2025. A related CAS case, CAS 2024/A/10559, concerning alleged denial of justice, was not consolidated and was subsequently withdrawn by the Player.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10619

• A power of attorney need not be attached to the Statement of Appeal to comply with the filing deadline; subsequent confirmation of representation under Article R30 of the CAS Code is sufficient to cure any deficiency.
• The absence of a formally worded request to annul or amend the appealed decision does not render an appeal inadmissible where the intent to challenge the decision is sufficiently clear from the totality of the submissions and oral pleadings.
• The Club was not contractually obliged to register the Player with a specific team or for a specific competition, as the Employment Contract contained no such obligation and Article 5.4 required the Player to participate in all competitions and training sessions of the Club.
• A player's fundamental right to compete is not violated where he is excluded from certain competitions but remains eligible to participate in another official competition, here the Serbian League Belgrade.
• Any procedural defects or due process violations before the NDRC are cured by a full de novo appeal before CAS under Article R57 of the CAS Code.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator applied a de novo standard of review under Article R57 of the CAS Code. On admissibility, he held that Article R48 does not prescribe the precise formulation of relief sought, and that implicit requests for annulment are cognisable under CAS jurisprudence. On the merits, he first examined the Employment Contract and found Articles 5.4 and 9.3 imposed no obligation to register the Player for any specific team or league. He rejected the Player's argument that Article 5.4 was merely a standard clause, noting the Player had experienced agents and his father had read the contract multiple times. On the registration issue, the Sole Arbitrator applied the comfortable satisfaction standard and found the Player was not completely and unconditionally barred from competition because he remained eligible for and actually played in the Serbian League Belgrade. The Player failed to provide sufficient objective evidence that this league lacked the regulatory structure to qualify as an official competition. On discrimination, the Sole Arbitrator found the record consisted solely of conflicting witness testimony with no supporting documentary evidence of alleged agent-switching pressure, financial inducements, or national team interference. He also noted the Club's failure to take any formal disciplinary action against the Player undermined its own counter-allegations. The question of training compensation and solidarity contribution was rendered moot by the rejection of the termination claim.

Why Miladinović matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award clarifies that a club's failure to register a young player for specific competitions (Super Liga, Cadet League, Youth League) does not breach his fundamental rights as a professional footballer if he remains eligible to compete in any official competition. It also confirms that implicit requests for relief are cognisable at CAS, that a power of attorney need not accompany the Statement of Appeal, and that full de novo CAS proceedings cure any prior due process violations — reinforcing the curative function of CAS appeals arbitration for players from national dispute resolution bodies.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2015/A/3959 CAS 2020/A/6950 CAS 2016/A/4384 CAS 2021/A/7955 CAS 2021/A/8375 CAS 2016/A/4704 CAS 2020/A/7567 CAS 2023/A/9809 CAS 98/211 CAS 2020/A/7370 CAS 2020/A/7503 CAS 2018/A/6075 CAS 2024/A/10559

Frequently asked questions about Miladinović

Did Miladinović win his case against Red Star Belgrade at CAS?

No. CAS Sole Arbitrator Frans de Weger rejected Miladinović's appeal in the award dated 27 June 2025. The NDRC decision of 18 October 2024, which had rejected both the Player's claim for contract termination and the Club's EUR 300,000 penalty counterclaim, was confirmed.

Can a CAS appeal be dismissed because the player's father signed the power of attorney instead of the player himself?

No, according to this award. The Sole Arbitrator held that neither Article R30 nor Article R48 of the CAS Code requires a power of attorney to be submitted at the time of filing the Statement of Appeal. Miladinović cured the deficiency by submitting a power of attorney signed by himself on 24 April 2025, and the appeal was deemed admissible.

Does a club breach a player's fundamental rights by failing to register him for the Super Liga or Cadet League if he can still play in a lower regional league?

Not necessarily, according to this award. The Sole Arbitrator found that Miladinović was not completely and unconditionally barred from competition because he remained eligible to play in the Serbian League Belgrade, which he actually did. The Player failed to provide sufficient objective evidence that this league lacked the regulatory structure to qualify as an official competition, so no breach of fundamental rights was established.

Can procedural irregularities before a national dispute resolution chamber (NDRC) justify annulling the NDRC's decision at CAS?

No, under the approach taken in this award. The Sole Arbitrator held that any procedural defects or violations of the right to be heard before the NDRC are cured by a full de novo appeal before CAS under Article R57 of the CAS Code, citing CAS 2016/A/4704, CAS 2020/A/7567, and CAS 2023/A/9809. Because Miladinović had a full hearing at CAS with all fundamental rights respected, the NDRC irregularities did not require further examination.

Topics: Training compensation & solidarity 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.