CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11887 — KSC Lokeren Temse v. FIFA

"Lokeren Temse" · CAS upheld FIFA's two-registration-period ban on Lokeren Temse for breaching a player-registration ban by relying on an incompetent national court order.

What happened in Lokeren Temse

KSC Lokeren Temse, a Belgian club, was found by the FIFA DRC on 3 June 2021 to be the sporting successor of KSC Lokeren Oost-VL and ordered to pay EUR 72,600.77 to player Francisco Navarro Aliaga. After the club's CAS appeal was terminated on 28 September 2021 due to its failure to nominate an arbitrator, FIFA imposed a three-period registration ban on 27 October 2021. Rather than comply, the club obtained a provisional order from the Brussels Business Court on 4 January 2022 and proceeded to register 12 players during the ban. FIFA opened disciplinary proceedings in April 2022, then formally charged the club in May 2025 under Article 21 FDC. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee on 17 July 2025 imposed a further two-registration-period ban. On appeal, CAS Sole Arbitrator Lars Hilliger dismissed all of Lokeren Temse's arguments: the settlement with the player in January 2025 was irrelevant because the charge concerned a non-financial sanction; procedural delays were cured by the de novo CAS review; and the provisional national court order did not constitute valid justification for breaching the FIFA ban. The award matters because it firmly rejects the use of national provisional court orders to circumvent FIFA registration bans and confirms that the risk of relying on an incompetent national court lies entirely with the party seeking such protection.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11887

On 3 June 2021, the FIFA DRC ordered Lokeren Temse to pay EUR 72,600.77 as sporting successor of KSC Lokeren Oost-VL. The club appealed to CAS but the appeal was terminated on 28 September 2021 for failure to nominate an arbitrator. On 27 October 2021, FIFA imposed a three-period registration ban. On 4 January 2022, the Brussels Business Court provisionally ordered the RBFA to register the club's players; the club registered 12 players during the ban. FIFA opened an investigation on 21 April 2022. On 4 October 2024, the Brussels Court of First Instance dismissed the club's merits claim for lack of jurisdiction. On 9 January 2025, the club settled with the player for EUR 70,000. FIFA formally opened disciplinary proceedings on 29 May 2025, granting six days to respond. The FIFA Disciplinary Committee issued decision FDD-11691 on 17 July 2025, imposing a two-registration-period ban. Lokeren Temse filed its Statement of Appeal on 29 October 2025 and its Appeal Brief on 5 December 2025. A hearing was held by videoconference on 5 May 2026.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11887

• A club that registers players in reliance on a provisional national court order issued by a court lacking jurisdiction does not thereby escape liability for breaching a FIFA registration ban under Article 21 FDC.
• Disciplinary proceedings for failure to comply with a non-financial decision (a registration ban) do not require a request from a creditor and may be initiated by FIFA on its own motion.
• A post-breach settlement between the club and the player is irrelevant to disciplinary proceedings concerning the club's failure to comply with the registration ban, which is a non-financial sanction of a vertical nature between FIFA and the club.
• Procedural deficiencies in first-instance FIFA disciplinary proceedings, including an allegedly unreasonable delay and a six-day response deadline, are cured by the de novo character of CAS appeal proceedings.
• The risk of relying on provisional measures from an incompetent national court lies entirely with the party seeking such protection, and a club that does so to register players gains an unfair sporting advantage.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator applied a comfortable satisfaction standard under Article 39 FDC. He found the factual breach undisputed: 12 players were registered during the active First Registration Ban. He rejected the club's procedural objections (three-year delay, six-day deadline) by invoking the well-established CAS principle that de novo appeal proceedings cure first-instance procedural defects, noting the club itself never requested an extension or update from FIFA. On the national court order defence, the Arbitrator held that the club failed to discharge its burden of proving exceptional circumstances justifying recourse to national courts in a manner binding on FIFA. He noted the Brussels Court of First Instance ultimately declined jurisdiction, confirming CAS exclusivity. He briefly addressed the CJEU Seraing judgment (Case C-600/23) but found the club had not substantiated any EU public policy argument, having raised it only in closing statements. On the settlement, he distinguished the financial obligation (paying the player) from the non-financial sanction (the registration ban), holding the former irrelevant to the latter. On sanction review, he declined to interfere, finding the club had not even argued disproportionality with supporting submissions, and the two-period ban was not disproportionate under any applicable CAS standard.

Why Lokeren Temse matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces that FIFA registration bans cannot be circumvented through provisional orders from national courts that lack jurisdiction over FIFA disputes. It confirms that the entire risk of seeking such protection falls on the club, and that any sporting advantage gained through unlawful registrations will be treated as an aggravating factor. The award also applies the post-Seraing framework, clarifying that EU public policy arguments must be properly substantiated and timely raised to engage that exception. It further cements the principle that de novo CAS proceedings cure first-instance procedural defects, limiting the practical utility of procedural challenges to FIFA disciplinary timelines.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2024/A/10529 CAS 2024/A/10878 CAS 2017/A/5042 CAS 2024/A/10701 CAS 2011/A/2646 CJEU Case C-600/23 RFC Seraing v FIFA, UEFA and URBSFA

Frequently asked questions about Lokeren Temse

Did Lokeren Temse's settlement with the player cancel the FIFA disciplinary ban?

No. The Sole Arbitrator held that the January 2025 settlement of EUR 70,000 was irrelevant because the disciplinary proceedings concerned the club's failure to comply with the non-financial registration ban, not the underlying financial debt to the player. The settlement could only have been relevant if it had been concluded and presented to FIFA while the First Registration Ban was still active, which never happened.

Can a Belgian court provisional order justify breaching a FIFA registration ban?

No. The Sole Arbitrator found that Lokeren Temse failed to prove exceptional circumstances that would make the Brussels Business Court's provisional order legally binding on FIFA. The Brussels Court of First Instance subsequently confirmed it lacked jurisdiction, and the Arbitrator held that the risk of relying on an incompetent national court lies entirely with the party seeking such protection. The club was found to have gained an unfair sporting advantage by registering players in reliance on that order.

Was the three-year delay by FIFA in opening formal disciplinary proceedings a due process violation?

No. The Sole Arbitrator acknowledged the period from April 2022 to May 2025 appeared particularly long but noted the club never contacted FIFA to request an update or confirm the investigation was closed. FIFA explained it awaited the outcome of the Belgian national proceedings, which the Arbitrator accepted as a plausible justification. In any event, the Arbitrator held that any procedural deficiency was cured by the de novo nature of the CAS appeal proceedings.

What sanction did the FIFA Disciplinary Committee impose on Lokeren Temse and did CAS reduce it?

The FIFA Disciplinary Committee imposed a ban on registering new players, either nationally or internationally, for two entire and consecutive registration periods following notification of decision FDD-11691 of 17 July 2025. CAS declined to reduce the sanction, finding that the club had requested a reduction in its alternative relief but submitted no supporting arguments, and that the Sole Arbitrator was not satisfied the ban was even disproportionate under any applicable CAS standard.

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.