CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10680 — Diosgyör Futball Club Kft. v. Sergey Kuznetsov & Fédération Internationale de Football Association

"Diosgyör" · CAS declared inadmissible a club's appeal against a FIFA PSC decision because the club failed to request grounds within the 10-day deadline, rendering the decision final and binding.

Award date	8 September 2025
Panel	Sole Arbitrator: Mr Lars Hilliger, Attorney-at-Law, Copenhagen, Denmark
Outcome	Appeal dismissed as inadmissible; the Appealed Decision (FPSD-13855) awarding coach Kuznetsov HUF 125,570,872 plus 5% p.a. interest from 31 January 2024 stands final and binding.
Provisions	Art. 15(5) FIFA Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal Art. 10 FIFA Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal Art. 11 FIFA Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal Art. 22(2)(c) FIFA RSTP Art. 25 FIFA RSTP Art. 8 Annexe 2 FIFA RSTP Art. 56(1) FIFA Statutes (March 2022 edition) Art. 56(2) FIFA Statutes Art. 57(1) FIFA Statutes Art. R47 CAS Code Art. R48 CAS Code Art. R49 CAS Code Art. R51 CAS Code Art. R55 CAS Code Art. R56 CAS Code Art. R58 CAS Code Art. 186 PILA Art. 75 Swiss Civil Code Arts. 60 et seq. Swiss Civil Code

What happened in Diosgyör

Diosgyör Futball Club Kft., a Hungarian professional club, unilaterally terminated its employment contract with coach Sergey Kuznetsov on 31 January 2024. The coach filed a claim before FIFA on 28 February 2024 seeking HUF 125,570,872 gross plus 5% p.a. interest. FIFA notified the club via the Legal Portal and the email address info@dvtk.eu — the address the club itself had registered in TMS — but the club never responded. On 29 March 2024, the Single Judge of the FIFA PSC awarded the coach the full amount claimed. The findings were notified on 12 April 2024, with a clear 10-day window to request grounds. The club failed to do so. After learning of the decision through the Hungarian FA on 30 May 2024, the club paid HUF 128,521,585 on 17 July 2024 and filed a CAS appeal on 18 June 2024, arguing the decision was null and void because FIFA lacked jurisdiction (the coach also held Hungarian citizenship, allegedly negating the 'international dimension'). The Sole Arbitrator held the appeal inadmissible: FIFA's notifications were valid, emails landing in the club's spam folder entered its 'sphere of control,' and by missing the 10-day deadline under Article 15(5) of the FIFA Procedural Rules the club waived its right to appeal. The nullity argument could not bypass that procedural bar because the club's own negligence prevented CAS from ever examining the jurisdictional question.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10680

On 28 February 2024, coach Kuznetsov filed a claim before FIFA via the Legal Portal seeking HUF 125,570,872 gross plus 5% p.a. interest for breach of contract. FIFA notified the club through the Legal Portal and via info@dvtk.eu on 1 March 2024; no reply was received. On 25 March 2024 FIFA sent a closing letter. On 29 March 2024 the Single Judge of the FIFA PSC rendered the Appealed Decision (FPSD-13855) fully upholding the coach's claim. Findings were notified on 12 April 2024 with a 10-day window to request grounds; neither party did so. On 28 May 2024 the coach requested enforcement; FIFA imposed a transfer ban (FDD-18520). The club learned of the decision from the Hungarian FA on 30 May 2024. On 13 June 2024 the club belatedly requested grounds; FIFA refused. On 18 June 2024 the club filed its Statement of Appeal with CAS against the Appealed Decision. On 17 July 2024 the club paid HUF 128,521,585 and the transfer ban was lifted. CAS was asked to declare the Appealed Decision null and void or, alternatively, to annul and set it aside.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10680

CAS has jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to Article 56(1) of the FIFA Statutes and Article R47 of the CAS Code; the failure to request grounds in time is an admissibility issue, not a jurisdictional one.
FIFA's notification of the Appealed Decision via the Legal Portal and to the email address info@dvtk.eu on 12 April 2024 was valid and sufficient to start the 10-day deadline under Article 15(5) of the FIFA Procedural Rules.
Emails from FIFA that landed in the club's spam folder entered the club's 'sphere of control,' and the club's failure to check that folder regularly does not excuse non-receipt.
By failing to request the grounds of the Appealed Decision within the 10-day deadline, the club waived its right to appeal and the decision became final and binding under Article 15(5) of the FIFA Procedural Rules.
A nullity argument cannot override the procedural bar created by the club's own negligence in missing the deadline, because without the grounds CAS cannot examine the jurisdictional basis on which FIFA acted.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first narrowed the scope of the appeal to the Appealed Decision only, finding the DC Letter (FDD-18520) was never validly appealed in the Statement of Appeal. On admissibility, he applied Article 10 and Article 11 of the FIFA Procedural Rules, noting that the club itself had entered info@dvtk.eu in TMS, making that address binding. Relying on CAS 2022/A/8598 (paras 121-123) and CAS 2016/A/4651 (para. 48), he held that emails reaching a spam folder enter the recipient's sphere of control; the club's failure to monitor that folder was its own negligence. He agreed with CAS 2023/A/9780 that the 10-day deadline issue belongs to admissibility, not jurisdiction. He then rejected the club's central argument that a nullity claim is exempt from all deadlines. He reasoned that the nullity argument would only be relevant if FIFA truly lacked jurisdiction — but by not requesting grounds in time, the club deprived CAS of the very document needed to assess that jurisdictional question. The club could only blame its own negligence. The Sole Arbitrator therefore found the appeal inadmissible without reaching the merits of FIFA's competence or the international-dimension question.

Why Diosgyör matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces that FIFA's two-step notification system — Legal Portal plus TMS email — constitutes valid service even when automated emails land in a club's spam folder, as such emails enter the club's 'sphere of control.' It also firmly closes the door on using a nullity/lack-of-jurisdiction argument to circumvent the 10-day deadline for requesting grounds under Article 15(5) of the FIFA Procedural Rules: a party that misses that deadline through its own negligence cannot later invoke nullity to revive an otherwise time-barred appeal.

Decision: Appeal dismissed as inadmissible; the Appealed Decision (FPSD-13855) awarding coach Kuznetsov HUF 125,570,872 plus 5% p.a. interest from 31 January 2024 stands final and binding.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2021/A/7775 CAS 2021/A/7694 CAS 2023/A/9780 CAS 2022/A/8598 CAS 2016/A/4651 CAS 2020/A/7252

Frequently asked questions about Diosgyör

Why was Diosgyör's CAS appeal against the FIFA PSC decision declared inadmissible?

The club failed to request the grounds of the Appealed Decision within the 10-day deadline set by Article 15(5) of the FIFA Procedural Rules after the findings were notified on 12 April 2024. Under that provision, missing the deadline means the decision becomes final and binding and the party is deemed to have waived its right to appeal. The club only requested grounds on 13 June 2024 and filed its CAS appeal on 18 June 2024 — well outside the window.

Does a FIFA email going to a club's spam folder count as valid notification in CAS proceedings?

Yes, according to this award. The Sole Arbitrator, relying on CAS 2022/A/8598 (paras 121-123) and CAS 2016/A/4651 (para. 48), held that once an email enters a club's spam folder it has entered the club's 'sphere of control.' The club's failure to check its spam folder regularly was treated as its own negligence and did not excuse non-receipt of FIFA's communications sent to info@dvtk.eu, the address the club itself had registered in TMS.

Can a club argue that a FIFA decision is null and void due to lack of jurisdiction to bypass CAS appeal deadlines?

No, at least not in the circumstances of this case. The Sole Arbitrator held that the nullity argument would only be relevant if FIFA truly lacked jurisdiction, but by failing to request the grounds of the decision in time the club deprived CAS of the document needed to examine that jurisdictional question. The club could only blame its own negligence, and the procedural bar created by Article 15(5) of the FIFA Procedural Rules could not be bypassed through a nullity claim.

What email address must FIFA use to notify a club, and what happens if the club has different addresses in TMS?

Under Article 10(3) of the FIFA Procedural Rules, the contact details a party enters in TMS are binding on that party. In this case, the club had entered info@dvtk.eu as its TMS email address, so FIFA's notifications to that address were valid even though the club also had other addresses (molnar.akos@dvtk.eu and petran.bettina@dvtk.eu) listed elsewhere in TMS. The Sole Arbitrator found that FIFA correctly used the TMS-registered address and that the club bore responsibility for any procedural disadvantage arising from its failure to monitor it.

Go deeper than the digest

Ask LexXi how this award has been applied since, compare it with related jurisprudence across 14,200+ indexed FIFA & CAS documents, and get answers with verified citations.

Ask LexXi about Diosgyör — free

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.