CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/12024 — Várda Labdarúgó Szolgáltató Korlátolt Felelősségű Társaság v. FIFA and Mario Ilievski

"Várda v. Ilievski" · CAS upheld FIFA DRC's inadmissibility ruling because Várda failed to file a counterclaim during the player's prior DRC proceedings.

What happened in Várda v. Ilievski

Várda FC (Hungary) employed North Macedonian player Mario Ilievski under a contract running to 30 June 2025. The contract contained a relegation clause (Clause XII) allowing termination if the club lost its top-flight status. After Várda was relegated at the end of the 2023/2024 season, Ilievski terminated the contract on 13 June 2024. Várda disputed the termination but did not participate in the player's subsequent FIFA DRC claim (First DRC Proceedings, FPSD-15882), which sought only outstanding salary of EUR 1,841.66 net. The DRC awarded that sum on 8 November 2024 and Várda paid without appeal. On 25 February 2025, Várda filed its own DRC claim (Second DRC Proceedings, FPSD-18366) seeking EUR 131,741.67 in compensation for alleged unjustified termination. The DRC declared the claim inadmissible on 25 September 2025, applying the principle of preclusion under Article 21(3) of the FIFA Procedural Rules and the doctrine of venire contra factum proprium. Várda appealed to CAS. The Sole Arbitrator confirmed the DRC's decision, holding that Várda was notified of the First DRC Proceedings, was required to raise its counterclaim within the same deadline as its defence, and was procedurally barred from bringing a separate later claim. The case matters because it firmly establishes that Article 21(3) of the FIFA Procedural Rules operates as a mandatory preclusion rule, not a mere procedural option.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/12024

On 3 September 2024, Ilievski filed the First DRC Claim (FPSD-15882) seeking EUR 1,841.66 net in outstanding salary and a declaration of just-cause termination. Várda did not respond. On 8 November 2024, the DRC awarded EUR 1,841.66 net plus 5% p.a. interest from 14 June 2024; Várda paid and did not appeal. On 25 February 2025, Várda filed its own DRC claim (FPSD-18366) seeking EUR 131,741.67 in compensation for unjustified termination. The player did not reply within the deadline. On 25 September 2025, the DRC declared Várda's claim inadmissible, citing preclusion under Article 21 of the Procedural Rules and venire contra factum proprium. The Club was notified on 20 November 2025. On 11 December 2025, Várda filed its Statement of Appeal with CAS; its Appeal Brief followed on 18 December 2025. Both Respondents filed Answers on 18 February 2026. No hearing was held. The Sole Arbitrator decided on the written record.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/12024

• Article 21(3) of the FIFA Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal mandates that any new claim related to an existing case in which a party is already a respondent must be joined as a counterclaim within the same deadline as the response to the original claim, failing which the party is precluded from bringing it separately.
• The principle of res judicata did not apply because the First DRC Decision made no determination on the validity of the contract's termination, and the subject matter of the two proceedings differed (overdue salaries versus breach of contract).
• A club's contradictory procedural conduct — simultaneously claiming it consciously chose not to file a counterclaim and claiming it was unaware of the proceedings due to a technical error — cannot be credited, particularly where no supporting evidence is provided.
• Procedural flaws alleged to have occurred before the DRC are in any event cured by CAS proceedings under Article R57 of the Code, which grants the Sole Arbitrator full de novo review power.
• The principle of procedural good faith, enshrined in Article 52 of the Swiss Civil Procedure Code and applicable to international arbitration, requires parties to exercise their rights at the prescribed time; withholding claims for later separate proceedings constitutes an abuse of process.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first rejected Várda's claim of non-notification, finding it unsupported by evidence and internally contradictory: the club simultaneously invoked a deliberate 'choice' not to counterclaim and ignorance of the proceedings. He then turned to admissibility. He agreed with the DRC that res judicata was inapplicable because the First DRC Decision expressly declined to rule on the termination's validity, so there was no identity of subject matter. However, he held that Article 21(3) of the Procedural Rules — whose wording he found clear and unambiguous — required Várda to join its compensation claim as a counterclaim within the response deadline of the First DRC Proceedings. He relied on CAS 2020/A/7455 (para. 122) and CAS 2020/A/7169 (para. 105) as confirming this interpretation under the materially identical prior Article 9(3). He further grounded the ruling in the principle of procedural good faith under Article 52 Swiss CPC and Swiss Federal Tribunal case law, characterising Várda's separate later claim as abusive and contrary to procedural economy. He dismissed the club's argument that the absence of an explicit regulatory warning about counterclaim consequences could excuse non-compliance, noting the clear text of Article 21 left no room for such an inference.

Why Várda v. Ilievski matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award provides authoritative CAS confirmation that Article 21(3) of the FIFA Procedural Rules operates as a hard preclusion rule: a respondent club that fails to file a counterclaim within the response deadline of a player's DRC claim is permanently barred from pursuing a related compensation claim in separate subsequent proceedings. The award also clarifies that the two-year limitation period under Article 23(3) RSTP does not override this procedural bar, and that de novo CAS review under Article R57 cures any DRC-level procedural defects.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2020/A/7455 CAS 2020/A/7169 CAS 2024/A/10325 CAS 2014/A/3546 TAS 2021/A/7958 TAS 2021/A/7824

Frequently asked questions about Várda v. Ilievski

Can a club file a separate FIFA DRC claim for breach of contract after failing to counterclaim in the player's earlier DRC proceedings?

No. Under Article 21(3) of the FIFA Procedural Rules, any new claim related to an existing case in which the club is already a respondent must be joined as a counterclaim within the same deadline as the response to the original claim. In Várda v. Ilievski, CAS confirmed that Várda's failure to counterclaim in FPSD-15882 permanently barred it from bringing its EUR 131,741.67 compensation claim in separate proceedings (FPSD-18366).

Does the two-year FIFA limitation period under Article 23(3) RSTP protect a club's right to file a later separate claim even if it missed the counterclaim deadline?

No. The Sole Arbitrator in CAS 2025/A/12024 held that the principle of preclusion under Article 21(3) of the Procedural Rules operates independently of the statute of limitations. The two-year period governs when a claim may first be brought, but it does not override the procedural bar that arises when a party was already a respondent in related proceedings and failed to counterclaim in time.

What happens if a club claims it never received FIFA's notification of DRC proceedings due to emails going to spam?

The burden of proof lies with the club asserting non-notification. In Várda v. Ilievski, the Sole Arbitrator rejected this argument because it was unsupported by any evidence and was internally contradictory: Várda simultaneously argued it had consciously 'chosen' not to file a counterclaim, which presupposed awareness of the proceedings. The club's subsequent compliance with the First DRC Decision without appeal further undermined the claim.

Does the principle of res judicata prevent a club from relitigating contract termination issues after a player's DRC salary claim?

Not automatically. In CAS 2025/A/12024, the Sole Arbitrator agreed with the DRC that res judicata did not apply because the First DRC Decision expressly declined to rule on whether the termination was with or without just cause — it addressed only overdue salaries. The two proceedings therefore lacked identity of subject matter. The club was barred on preclusion grounds under Article 21(3), not res judicata.

Topics: Art. 17 RSTP & contract termination 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.