Facts

Parties:

  • Appellant ([A.] ): Professional football coach residing in [U.] .
  • Respondent (FC [B.] ): Football club based in Hungary.

Facts:

  • On October 1, 2019, [A.] entered into a fixed-term employment contract with FC [B.] , which included an arbitration agreement.
  • On November 20, 2019, FC [B.] terminated the contract for just cause.
  • [A.] initiated proceedings before the FIFA Players' Status Committee and requested a determination of the unjustified termination of the contract as well as payment of outstanding wages and damages.
  • The FIFA Committee issued a partially amicable decision, which was later corrected.
  • FC [B.] filed an appeal with the TAS, which upheld the appeal and set aside the decision of the FIFA Committee.
  • [A.] filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court to set aside the arbitral award of the TAS and to refer the case back for fresh consideration.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court examined the admissibility of the complaint and found that the complaint in civil matters is admissible under the conditions of Art. 190-192 PILA. The seat of the arbitral tribunal is in Lausanne, and both parties had their residence CO seat outside Switzerland. The provisions of Chapter 12 of the PILA apply, as the parties have not excluded their applicability.

The Federal Supreme Court reviewed the appellant's objection regarding jurisdiction and found that the interpretation of the arbitration agreement is governed by Swiss law. The TAS interpreted the arbitration agreement in Clause XI.4 of the employment contract restrictively, which is consistent with the case law of the Federal Supreme Court. The TAS correctly concluded that the parties had provided for the jurisdiction of the state…