CAS 2014/A/3474, Clube de Regatas do Flamengo v. Confederaçao Brasileira de Futebol (CBF) & Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva (STJD), Award of 5 October 2015

Abstract

The jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport is established in Article R47 of the CAS Code. The early jurisprudence established that Article R47 required that federative statutes explicitly recognize CAS jurisdiction to retain competence as an appeal court over their decisions. Here the CAS has consistently applied the doctrine of direct jurisdiction. Since the development of that jurisprudence, the doctrine of indirect jurisdiction has developed, namely in the Pizarro and Flamengo cases. Indirect jurisdiction is established in the CAS where national federation rules refer to or incorporate applicable international federation rules that explicitly recognize the jurisdiction of the CAS where the subsidiary regulations do not. The doctrine of indirect jurisdiction, however, does have some outer limits where it has not been recognized as applicable to appeals of the decisions regarding Financial Fair Play licensing decisions nor to decisions of the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile. This article seeks to review the jurisprudence of the CAS with respect to its jurisdiction, demonstrate that the traditionally rigid interpretation of its jurisdiction has evolved in order to recognize the principle of indirect jurisdiction, and that in some cases CAS jurisdiction is recognized where a complex set of regulations requires a sophisticated analysis such as in the Flamengo case.