CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10756 — FK "ZETA" Golubovci, Bojan Matanovic & Danilo Raicevic v. Football Association of Montenegro

"FK Zeta v. FAM" · CAS declined jurisdiction over FAM disciplinary sanctions because no FAM statute or specific arbitration agreement expressly conferred CAS appellate authority.

What happened in FK Zeta v. FAM

FK Zeta Golubovci, a Montenegrin third-league club, and two of its amateur players (Bojan Matanovic and Danilo Raicevic) were sanctioned by the FAM Disciplinary Commission on 25 June 2024 for match irregularities in a play-off game against FC Budva on 27 May 2024. The club was relegated and banned from promotion for 2024/2025; the two players received 18-month playing bans. The FAM Appeals Commission upheld those sanctions on 11 July 2024. The Appellants brought the matter to CAS on 23 July 2024, seeking a stay and full relief. The FAM contested CAS jurisdiction from the outset. The Sole Arbitrator bifurcated the proceedings to address jurisdiction first. After written submissions, he ruled that CAS lacked jurisdiction: Article 63 of the FAM Statutes is only a general recognition of CAS and does not expressly grant clubs or players the right to appeal FAM disciplinary decisions to CAS; nor had the parties concluded a specific arbitration agreement. Statements signed under Articles 13 and 24 of the FAM Statutes by club members and disciplinary-body members did not constitute an offer by FAM itself to submit disciplinary disputes to CAS arbitration. The case matters because it confirms that a national federation's general CAS-recognition clause, standing alone, is insufficient to ground CAS appellate jurisdiction over that federation's disciplinary decisions.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10756

On 27 May 2024 FK Zeta played a play-off match against FC Budva, ending 3-3 with Budva winning on penalties 4-2. The FAM Competition Commission filed a complaint on 28 May 2024. The FAM Disciplinary Commission opened proceedings on 30 May 2024 and on 25 June 2024 (decision no. 2388/BD-3) relegated the club, banned it from promotion for 2024/2025, and imposed 18-month playing bans on both players under Article 92 of the FAM Disciplinary Rules. The Appellants appealed to the FAM Appeals Commission on 2 July 2024; that body dismissed the appeal on 11 July 2024 (decision no. 2480), confirming the first-instance decision as final. The Appellants filed a CAS Statement of Appeal on 23 July 2024. The FAM contested jurisdiction and requested bifurcation; the Sole Arbitrator granted bifurcation on 29 October 2024. Written submissions on jurisdiction were exchanged through December 2024, and the Sole Arbitrator decided on the papers without a hearing.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10756

• CAS jurisdiction under Article R47(1) of the Code requires either an express provision in the federation's statutes or regulations granting a right of appeal to CAS, or a specific arbitration agreement between the parties.
• A general recognition clause in national federation statutes acknowledging CAS jurisdiction (Article 63 FAM Statutes) does not, by itself, constitute an express arbitration clause allowing clubs and players to challenge FAM disciplinary decisions before CAS.
• Statements signed by club members under Article 13 and by disciplinary-body members under Article 24 of the FAM Statutes do not amount to an offer by FAM itself to submit disciplinary disputes to CAS arbitration.
• Because neither limb of Article R47(1) of the Code was satisfied, it was unnecessary to consider whether the Appellants had exhausted available domestic remedies.
• The Deputy President's prima facie finding of no CAS jurisdiction in the stay Order of 9 September 2024 was confirmed as correct on the merits by the Sole Arbitrator.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator applied Article R47(1) of the CAS Code, which requires either a statutory/regulatory basis or a specific arbitration agreement. He examined the FAM Statutes in detail. Article 63, relied on by the Appellants, was found to be a general recognition clause that prevents parties from going to state courts but does not expressly create a right to appeal FAM disciplinary decisions to CAS. The Sole Arbitrator distinguished between recognising CAS as an institution and granting it appellate jurisdiction over specific categories of decision. On the specific-arbitration-agreement argument, he was not satisfied that FAM — whether through its statutes, regulations, or any individual acting with authority on its behalf — had made an offer actually intended to submit disciplinary disputes to CAS. Statements by club members (Article 13) and disciplinary-body members (Article 24) were insufficient because those individuals lacked authority to bind FAM to an arbitration agreement, and the separation-of-powers principle within FAM meant disciplinary-body members could not carry out operational acts for the federation. The Appellants' reliance on PILA Article 178 and the doctrine of apparent authority (Anscheinsvollmacht) was rejected. Having found neither limb of R47(1) satisfied, the Sole Arbitrator declined to address exhaustion of remedies.

Why FK Zeta v. FAM matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces the strict reading of Article R47(1) of the CAS Code: a national federation's general clause recognising CAS (without an express appellate pathway for disciplinary decisions) is insufficient to ground CAS jurisdiction. It also clarifies that recognition statements signed by individual club members or disciplinary-body members cannot bind the federation to CAS arbitration, particularly where internal separation-of-powers rules prevent those individuals from acting operationally for the federation.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2011/A/2472

Frequently asked questions about FK Zeta v. FAM

Why did CAS say it had no jurisdiction in the FK Zeta v FAM case?

The Sole Arbitrator found that Article R47(1) of the CAS Code requires either an express statutory/regulatory provision granting a right of appeal to CAS or a specific arbitration agreement. Article 63 of the FAM Statutes was only a general recognition of CAS and did not expressly allow clubs or players to appeal FAM disciplinary decisions to CAS. No specific arbitration agreement had been concluded between the parties either.

Does a national federation's CAS-recognition clause in its statutes automatically give CAS jurisdiction over disciplinary appeals?

No — this case confirms it does not. The Sole Arbitrator held that Article 63 of the FAM Statutes, which recognised CAS and barred recourse to state courts, was a general recognition clause only. It did not directly or expressly provide an arbitration clause allowing clubs and players to challenge FAM disciplinary decisions before CAS, which is what Article R47(1) of the CAS Code requires.

Can statements signed by disciplinary commission members recognising CAS jurisdiction bind the federation in the FK Zeta case?

No. The Sole Arbitrator rejected the argument that statements signed under Article 24 of the FAM Statutes by disciplinary and appeals commission members constituted an offer by FAM to submit disputes to CAS. He found those individuals lacked authority to conclude an arbitration agreement on behalf of FAM, in part because the separation-of-powers principle within FAM prevented disciplinary-body members from carrying out operational activities for the federation.

What sanctions were imposed on FK Zeta and its players before the CAS appeal?

The FAM Disciplinary Commission on 25 June 2024 (decision no. 2388/BD-3) ordered FK Zeta to return to a lower level of competition and banned the club from advancing to a higher level for the 2024/2025 season. Players Danilo Raicevic and Bojan Matanovic each received 18-month playing bans. These sanctions were upheld by the FAM Appeals Commission on 11 July 2024 (decision no. 2480), which declared the decision final.

Topics: Doping, ethics & governance 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.