CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10673 — Torres Srl v. FIFA & Club Atletico Independiente & Asociacion Atletica Argentinos Juniors

"Torres Srl" · CAS Division President ruled English as the procedural language because the appealed FIFA decision was drafted in English.

What happened in Torres Srl

Torres Srl, an Italian entity, filed an appeal on 21 June 2024 against a FIFA General Secretariat decision concerning Electronic Player Passport 32649, relating to the training rights of Argentine player Patricio Alexis Goglino. The appeal and the underlying FIFA decision were both in English. On 3 July 2024, the Third Respondent, Asociacion Atletica Argentinos Juniors, objected to English and requested Spanish, arguing that both Argentine respondents and the player were Argentine nationals and Spanish is the predominant language in Argentina. The Appellant opposed this request; FIFA and Club Atletico Independiente did not comment. The CAS Court Office referred the dispute to the President of the Appeals Arbitration Division. Applying Article R29 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration, the Division President determined that English would be the language of the proceedings, giving decisive weight to the fact that the appealed decision itself was drafted in English. This procedural order matters because it illustrates how CAS resolves language disputes under Article R29 when parties disagree: the language of the underlying decision is treated as a strong, if not determinative, factor favouring the appellant's preferred language.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10673

On 21 June 2024, Torres Srl filed an appeal with CAS against FIFA, Club Atletico Independiente, and Asociacion Atletica Argentinos Juniors concerning the FIFA General Secretariat decision on Electronic Player Passport 32649. The statement of appeal was filed in English, mirroring the language of the appealed decision. On 25 June 2024, the CAS Court Office opened proceedings under reference CAS 2024/A/10673 and gave respondents five days to object to English as the procedural language. On 3 July 2024, the Third Respondent objected and requested Spanish. The CAS Court Office invited comments from the other parties; the First and Second Respondents did not respond, while the Appellant opposed the request. On 10 July 2024, the matter was referred to the President of the Appeals Arbitration Division, who issued this order on 11 July 2024.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10673

• Where parties disagree on the language of arbitration, Article R29 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration empowers the President of the relevant Division to select the language at the outset of the procedure.
• The fact that the appealed decision is drafted in English is a relevant circumstance that prevails over a respondent's request to conduct proceedings in Spanish.
• English is designated as the exclusive language of the arbitral procedure CAS 2024/A/10673.
• Costs of the language order shall be determined in the final award or any final disposition of the arbitration.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Division President applied Article R29 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration, which provides that in the absence of party agreement the Division President shall select one of the three CAS working languages (French, English, Spanish) taking into account all relevant circumstances. The Third Respondent argued that the Argentine nationality of two respondents and the player, and the predominance of Spanish in Argentina, justified Spanish as the procedural language. The Appellant opposed this. FIFA and Club Atletico Independiente were silent. The President gave decisive weight to the fact that the appealed FIFA decision was itself drafted in English and that the Appellant had filed its statement of appeal in English. The President found that the Appellant's position in favour of English prevailed over the Third Respondent's position in favour of Spanish, without elaborating further on the nationality or linguistic arguments advanced by the Third Respondent. No other factors were expressly weighed in the order.

Why Torres Srl matters in CAS jurisprudence

This order illustrates CAS practice under Article R29 when parties disagree on language: the language of the underlying decision is treated as a prevailing circumstance in favour of the appellant's preferred language, even where multiple respondents are nationals of a country whose language they request. It provides a concise precedent for practitioners advising parties on language objections in CAS appeals proceedings.

Frequently asked questions about Torres Srl

Why did CAS choose English over Spanish in Torres Srl v. FIFA despite two Argentine respondents requesting Spanish?

The Division President applied Article R29 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration and found that the Appellant's position in favour of English prevailed because the underlying FIFA General Secretariat decision on Electronic Player Passport 32649 was itself drafted in English. The Argentine nationality of the respondents and the player Patricio Alexis Goglino, and the predominance of Spanish in Argentina, were not sufficient to override this factor.

What is the legal basis for the CAS Division President to decide the language of proceedings in CAS 2024/A/10673?

Article R29 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration expressly provides that, in the absence of agreement between the parties, the President of the Panel or, if not yet appointed, the President of the relevant Division, shall select one of the three CAS working languages (French, English, Spanish) taking into account all relevant circumstances. In this case the President of the Appeals Arbitration Division exercised that power on 11 July 2024.

What was the dispute about in Torres Srl v. FIFA & Club Atletico Independiente & Asociacion Atletica Argentinos Juniors?

The underlying appeal concerns a FIFA General Secretariat decision on Electronic Player Passport 32649, which relates to the training rights of Argentine player Patricio Alexis Goglino. Torres Srl, an Italian entity, filed the appeal on 21 June 2024; the language order of 11 July 2024 is a procedural step and does not resolve the merits.

When must costs of a CAS language order be paid?

According to the order in CAS 2024/A/10673, the costs of the language order shall be determined in the final award or in any final disposition of the arbitration, meaning they are not assessed separately at the procedural stage.

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.