CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text
CAS 2024/A/11014 — Football Federation of Kosovo v. FC Prishtina SH. P. K.
"FFK v. Prishtina" · CAS annulled a Kosovo sports arbitration body's decision granting Prishtina a UEFA club license, finding that body lacked jurisdiction.
| Award date | 3 June 2026 |
| Panel | President: Mr Mark Andrew Hovell, Solicitor in Manchester, United Kingdom; Arbitrators: Mr Omar Ongaro, Legal Counsel in Dübendorf, Switzerland; Mr Maciej Bałaziński, Attorney-at-law in Kraków, Poland |
| Outcome | FFK's appeal accepted; CAS Ks decision of 29 October 2024 annulled; License Decision No. 539/2 of the Football Federation of Kosovo reinstated. |
| Provisions | Art. R47 CAS Code Art. R48 CAS Code Art. R51 CAS Code Art. R55 CAS Code Art. R56 CAS Code Art. R57 CAS Code Art. R58 CAS Code Art. R41.2 CAS Code Art. R41.3 CAS Code Art. R44.2(3) CAS Code Art. R44.3(1) CAS Code Art. R49 CAS Code Art. 58 FFK Statute Art. 67.1 FFK Statute Art. 7.01–7.06 UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Sustainability Regulations Art. 59.01 UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Sustainability Regulations Art. 1.01 and 1.03 UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Sustainability Regulations Art. 47 SAC Regulations Art. 53 SAC Regulations Art. 4 SAC Regulations Art. 25 (as amended by Art. 11 of Law No. 04/L-075) Law No. 2003/24 on Sport Art. 190(2) Swiss Private International Law Act Art. 59 Swiss Civil Code of Procedure |
What happened in FFK v. Prishtina
FC Prishtina qualified for the UEFA Europa Conference League by winning the Kosovar Cup in 2022/23 but was denied a UEFA club license by the FFK's First Instance Commission (19 May 2023) and Second Instance Commission (26 May 2023) for failing to meet UEFA licensing criteria, including qualified auditor reports, overdue payables to players, and negative equity. Instead of appealing to CAS in Lausanne as directed by the FFK Statute, the UEFA Regulations, and the declaration Prishtina had signed, Prishtina appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport of Kosovo (CAS Ks). On 29 October 2024 — 17 months after the start of the 2023/24 season and after that season had concluded — CAS Ks upheld Prishtina's appeal and annulled both licensing decisions. The FFK appealed to CAS in Lausanne on 18 November 2024. CAS found that Article 58 of the FFK Statute, read as lex specialis over Article 67.1, together with the FFK Statute's definition of 'CAS' as the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, and Prishtina's own signed declaration under Article 59.01 of the UEFA Regulations, all pointed exclusively to CAS Lausanne as the competent third-instance body. CAS Ks therefore lacked jurisdiction, its decision was annulled, and the Second Instance Decision refusing Prishtina a license was reinstated. The case matters because it clarifies the hierarchy between general and specific arbitration clauses in national federation statutes and confirms that UEFA licensing disputes must be channelled to CAS Lausanne.
Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/11014
On 24 February 2023, Prishtina applied to the FFK for a UEFA club competition license. On 19 May 2023, the FFK First Instance Commission refused the license (Decision No. 534-2). On 24 May 2023, Prishtina appealed; on 26 May 2023, the Second Instance Commission rejected the appeal (Decision No. 539-2), noting that any further appeal lay with 'CAS'. On 8 June 2023, Prishtina appealed to CAS Ks rather than CAS Lausanne. The FFK contested CAS Ks' jurisdiction in written submissions of 27 June and 6 July 2023; CAS Ks rejected that challenge on 8 July 2023. On 29 October 2024, CAS Ks upheld Prishtina's appeal and annulled both FFK decisions. On 18 November 2024, the FFK filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS Lausanne under Article R48 of the CAS Code, seeking annulment of the CAS Ks decision and reinstatement of the licensing decisions. A preliminary hearing on legal interest was held on 24 June 2025; a merits hearing was held on 20 January 2026.
Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/11014
- Article 58 of the FFK Statute constitutes lex specialis over Article 67.1, and together with the FFK Statute's definition of 'CAS' as the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, exclusively designates CAS Lausanne as the competent body for appeals against club licensing decisions.
- CAS Ks lacked jurisdiction to hear Prishtina's appeal against the Second Instance Decision; accordingly, the Appealed Decision is annulled and the Second Instance Decision is reinstated.
- The FFK had a legal interest to bring the appeal because Prishtina had filed a damages lawsuit against the FFK before the Commercial Court of Kosovo on 14 February 2025, giving the FFK a specific and tangible financial interest ad casum in having the Appealed Decision annulled.
- The absence of the Kosovo Olympic Committee and the Kosovo Sports Arbitration Council as respondents was not fatal to the FFK's appeal because the underlying dispute is a horizontal eligibility dispute between licensor and licensee, not a vertical dispute requiring the presence of the arbitral institution.
- A respondent's failure to name witnesses in its Answer precludes it from calling those witnesses at a subsequent hearing, regardless of whether the respondent considered a hearing necessary, because the CAS Code treats a hearing as the rule rather than the exception.
How the CAS panel reasoned
The Panel applied a textual and structural analysis of the FFK Statute. It held that Article 58, which specifically addresses club licensing appeals and directs them solely to 'the CAS', is lex specialis relative to the more general Article 67.1, which refers to 'CAS or an independent and duly constituted arbitration tribunal'. The FFK Statute's definitions section expressly equates 'CAS' with the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, Switzerland. The Panel reinforced this reading by reference to: (i) Prishtina's signed declaration of 24 February 2023 under Article 59.01 of the UEFA Regulations acknowledging CAS Lausanne's jurisdiction; (ii) the Second Instance Decision's own legal advice directing appeals to 'CAS'; and (iii) training provided by FFK licensing manager Mr Shala to all clubs, including Prishtina. The Panel rejected the argument that Article 25.2 of Kosovo Law No. 04/L-075 gave CAS Ks residual jurisdiction, finding that a clear route to CAS Lausanne existed. On legal interest, the Panel rejected abstract arguments (bad precedent, reputational harm, 'interest of justice') but accepted the concrete financial interest arising from the Prishtina Lawsuit filed on 14 February 2025. On standing, the Panel drew an analogy to SFT proceedings where CAS itself is not a party, characterising the dispute as horizontal. The Panel declined to review the merits of the Second Instance Decision, finding that request moot once CAS Ks' lack of jurisdiction was established.
Why FFK v. Prishtina matters in CAS jurisprudence
This award establishes that a specific licensing article in a national federation statute (lex specialis) overrides a general arbitration clause when designating the competent appellate body for UEFA club licensing disputes, and that the CAS in Lausanne holds exclusive third-instance jurisdiction in such matters. It also clarifies that a federation has a concrete legal interest to challenge an arbitral body's jurisdictional overreach where a damages lawsuit has been filed against it on the basis of that body's decision, and that the absence of the arbitral institution as a respondent does not render a horizontal eligibility appeal inadmissible.
Decision: FFK's appeal accepted; CAS Ks decision of 29 October 2024 annulled; License Decision No. 539/2 of the Football Federation of Kosovo reinstated.
Cases cited in this award
CAS 2011/O/2574 CAS 2015/A/4151 CAS 2016/A/4924 CAS 2017/A/4943 CAS 2018/A/5888 CAS 2007/A/1329 & 1330
Frequently asked questions about FFK v. Prishtina
Why did CAS annul the CAS Kosovo decision in FFK v. Prishtina?
CAS found that CAS Ks lacked jurisdiction to hear Prishtina's appeal against the Second Instance Decision. Article 58 of the FFK Statute, read as lex specialis, directed all club licensing appeals exclusively to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, and the FFK Statute's definitions section expressly defined 'CAS' as the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, Switzerland. Prishtina had also signed a declaration on 24 February 2023 under Article 59.01 of the UEFA Regulations acknowledging CAS Lausanne's jurisdiction.
Did the Football Federation of Kosovo have standing to appeal the CAS Kosovo decision given the 2023/24 season was already over?
Yes. The Panel initially doubted the FFK's legal interest because the Appealed Decision had no sporting effect after the season concluded, and rejected arguments based on bad precedent, reputational harm, and 'interest of justice' as insufficiently concrete. However, the FFK's legal interest was established by the Prishtina Lawsuit filed on 14 February 2025 before the Commercial Court of Kosovo, in which Prishtina sought damages from the FFK based on the Appealed Decision, giving the FFK a specific and tangible financial interest ad casum.
Was it fatal to the FFK's appeal that it failed to name the Kosovo Olympic Committee and the Kosovo Sports Arbitration Council as respondents?
No. The Panel held that the underlying dispute was a horizontal eligibility dispute between the FFK as licensor and Prishtina as a potential licensee, not a vertical dispute requiring the presence of the arbitral institution. Drawing an analogy to SFT proceedings where CAS itself is not a party, the Panel determined that the intervention of CAS Ks did not transform the dispute into one requiring the Kosovo Olympic Committee or the Kosovo Sports Arbitration Council to be named as respondents.
What happens to the FFK's Second Instance Decision now that the CAS Kosovo award has been annulled?
The Panel held that annulling the Appealed Decision caused the Second Instance Decision (Decision No. 539-2 dated 26 May 2023) to return to life and become binding on the parties. The operative part of the CAS award expressly reinstates License Decision No. 539/2 of the Football Federation of Kosovo, which had refused Prishtina a license to compete in UEFA club competitions for the 2023/24 season.
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 FFK v. Prishtina — freeTopics: 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.