TAS - CAS 4416 de 2016

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration CAS 2016/A/4416 Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) v. Confederación Sudamericana de Fútbol & Brian Fernández, award of 7 November 2016 (operative part of 8 July 2016) Panel: Prof. Ulrich Haas (Germany), President; Prof. Luigi Fumagalli (Italy); Mr José Juan Pintó (Spain) Football Doping (cocaine) Determination of the standard period of ineligibility for a non-intentional ADRV Impossibility to eliminate the period of ineligibility based on No Fault or Negligence Reduction of the standard sanction based on Non-Significant Fault Assessment of the appropriate period of ineligibility

1. Art. 19 (1) of the FIFA Anti-Doping Regulations (ADR), which provides for a period of ineligibility of four years, is not applicable where the offence is not intentional.

According to the rule, anti-doping rule violation resulting from an Adverse Analytical Finding for a substance which is only prohibited in-competition shall not be considered intentional if the substance is not a specified substance and the player can establish that the prohibited substance was used out-of-competition in a context unrelated to sport performance. Art. 19 (2) ADR (Art. 10 (2) (2) WADC) provides for a (standard) period of ineligibility of two years in case an athlete has acted negligently.

2. Where a player admitted having taken a substance which is not a specified substance and which is only prohibited In-Competition voluntarily, the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility of two years cannot be eliminated on the ground that the player bore No Fault or Negligence.

3. In order to establish whether or not an athlete acted with Non-Significant Fault (NSF), the athlete’s behaviour must be compared to the standard of care that can be expected from a “reasonable person” in the athlete’s situation. CAS jurisprudence has found

that the threshold of NSF is met if the athlete observes the clear and obvious precautions which any human being would take in the specific set of circumstances. Obviously, a reasonable person would never have consumed drugs to begin with, in particular drugs like cocaine the addictive character of which is well known. However, when assessing whether or not an athlete acted with NSF, the athlete’s level of fault must be assessed in relationship to the anti-doping rule violation. In light of the WADC on the basis of which the ADR have been modelled, it can be considered in cases where an athlete establishes that he consumed cocaine in a recreational / social context unrelated to sport performance that the athlete qualifies for NSF.

CAS 2016/A/4416 2

FIFA v. CONMEBOL & Brian Fernández, award of 7 November 2016 (operative part of 8 July 2016)

4. In light of CAS jurisprudence distinguishing between different categories of negligence, i.e. light, normal and significant negligence, only the first two categories allow for a reduction of the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility according to Art. 22 (2) ADR. In case of NSF, the applicable sanction can be reduced down to one half of the otherwise applicable sanction i.e. from 12 – 24 months. In order to determine which category of negligence is applicable in a particular case, it is helpful to consider both the objective and the subjective levels of fault. While the objective element describes what standard of care could have been expected from a reasonable person in the player’s situation, the subjective element describes what could have been expected from that particular player, with regard to his personal capacities.

I. PARTIES

1. The Fédération Internationale de Football Association (“FIFA” or the “Appellant”) is the world governing body of Football, an association according to Swiss private law with its seat in Zurich.

2. The Confederación Sudamericana de Fútbol (“CONMEBOL” or the “First Respondent”) is

the continental football federation of South America, headquartered in Luque, Paraguay.

3. Mr Brian Fernández (the “Player” or “Second Respondent”) is a professional football player currently affiliated with the Argentinian Football Association, member of CONMEBOL.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

4. On 10 May 2015, the Player tested positive to Benzoylecgonine (a metabolite of the Prohibited Substance Cocaine) in the match he played for Racing Club against Club Atlético River Plate, and as a result he was provisionally suspended for three months by the Argentinian Football Association (AFA) as of 5 June 2015.

5. On 28 May 2015, the Player underwent another anti-doping control carried out during the Copa Bridgestone Libertadores at the Estadio Presidente Perón in Buenos Aires. The analysis of the “A-Sample” was carried out by the laboratory of Colombia’s COLDEPORTES national anti-doping control laboratory (“the Laboratory”) on 17 June 2015. The analysis showed the presence of the prohibited substance Cocaine and its metabolites, Methylecgonine and Benzoylecgonine, classified under S6 a (Non-Specified Stimulants) on the WADA 2015

Prohibited List. The substance is prohibited in-competition only. On 26 June 2015 the Laboratory informed CONMEBOL of the adverse analytical finding (“AAF”).

6. The Player was notified of the AAF on 30 June 2015 and granted a 12-hour deadline to request CAS 2016/A/4416 3

FIFA v. CONMEBOL & Brian Fernández, award of 7 November 2016 (operative part of 8 July 2016) the analysis of the “B-Sample” or the re-testing of the “A-Sample”. On 1 July 2015 the Player requested the analysis of the “B-Sample” and was informed that the analysis would be

conducted on 28 July 2015.

7. On 9 July 2015, the Chairman of CONMEBOL’s Disciplinary Unit (“CDU”) issued a provisional suspension of the Player.

8. On 28 July 2015, the “B-Sample” analysis of the sample collected on 28 May 2015 was conducted. The Player and CONMEBOL were informed on 30 July 2015 that the “B-Sample” confirmed the result of the “A-Sample”.

9. On 4 August 2015, the CDU opened disciplinary proceedings against the Player. On 24 August 2015, the Player submitted a written statement, according to which (in summary):

(i) he recognized the ingestion of Cocaine outside the Competition, and admitted his addiction which is currently being treated; (ii) the Argentinian Football Association (AFA) has already suspended him for three months following a positive doping control conducted on 10 May 2015 – the current proceedings are based on the same Cocaine ingestion which would violate the principle of ne bis in idem; (iii) the FIFA Anti-Doping Regulations do not apply to this case because Art. 4 of the Disciplinary Regulations is not fulfilled; (iv) there are regulatory grounds for a reduction of the sanction (form of ingestion and not intended to improve sporting performance).

10. On 16 October 2015, a hearing was held before the CDU, which was attended by the Player, his legal representative and three witnesses called by the Player.

11. On 21 October 2015, the CDU rendered its decision (the “Decision”). The latter reads, inter alia, as follows: “Notwithstanding the above, this Tribunal considers itself to be authorised to sanction the Player for the offence committed in the 2015 edition of the Copa Libertadores without there being a question of a violation of the general principle of ne bis in idem. This is because the present case stems from a different competition from the

one in which the control assessed by the AFA and is governed by a separate set of regulations. (…) Furthermore, in the analysis of the Player’s sample taken in the local tournament, it appears that only the presence of a single metabolite of cocaine was detected (benzoylecgonine), while the analysis of the samples taken from Mr Fernández on 28 May showed the presence of two metabolites of the substance (methylecgonine and benzoylecgonine). Based on all of the above, as well as the confirmation by the Player himself with respect to his addiction to and regular consumption of cocaine, this Tribunal concludes that the new positive control does not constitute the same offence for which the Player was sanctioned by the AFA. (…) CAS 2016/A/4416 4 FIFA v. CONMEBOL & Brian Fernández, award of 7 November 2016 (operative part of 8 July 2016) [the Disciplinary Unit/Disciplinary Tribunal] Has decided that

1. That Mr BRIAN FERNÁNDEZ is guilty of a breach of articles 6 and 7 of the FIFA AntiDoping Regulations.

2. As a result, the tribunal imposes on Mr BRIAN FERNÁNDEZ the sanction of a two-year (2) suspension

3. After the first year of suspension has been served, the second year of the sanction shall be suspended and Mr BRIAN FERNÁNDEZ shall be eligible to play, under the following conditions:

1. Mr BRIAN FERNÁNDEZ shall undertake monthly doping tests under the responsibility of his club for a year, the results of which tests must be punctually notified to CONMEBOL. ii. In the event that the previous condition is not fulfilled, or in the event of a new adverse finding, Mr BRIAN FERNÁNDEZ shall have to serve the full extent of the second year of the imposed suspension, notwithstanding any possible sanctions that may be imposed for a new

offence. iii. After the second year of suspension has been served without Mr BRIAN FERNÁNDEZ breaching any of the previous conditions and in the absence of any new adverse analytical findings, the second year of suspension shall be considered to have been cancelled.

4. The calculation of the imposed sanction shall be made from 9 July 2015, the date on which Mr BRIAN FERNÁNDEZ was provisionally suspended”.

12. On 27 October 2015, the Decision was communicated to the Player.

13. On 17 November 2015, the Player filed an appeal against the Decision with the Appeal Chamber of the CDU (the “Appeal Chamber”), requesting the amendment of Point 4 of the Decision, alleging that this should be the date the sample was taken (28 May 2015) or alternatively 5 June 2015, when the Player was provisionally suspended by the AFA.

14. On 14 December 2015, the Appeal Chamber issued its decision (the “Appealed Decision”), dismissing the Appeal filed by the Player. The relevant parts of the Appealed Decision read as follows: “…the Player lodged an appeal against the Decision, in which he stated, in summary, that: (…) The Player has admitted that the violation that was detected and judged by the AFA does not prevent the DT from ruling on the violation that occurred in the 2015 Copa Libertadores; however, he considers that, as the DT itself admits that to all regulatory purposes the case must be treated as a first violation of the anti-doping regulations, the provisional suspension applied by the AFA as of 5 June 2015 and accepted by the Player must be considered as a period to be deducted from the ultimate period of ineligibility, in accordance with what is established in art. 28.3 a) and b) of the FIFA Anti-Doping Regulations. Therefore, the period of 35 days during which the Player was suspended by the AFA, from 5 June 2015 until the date on which the provisional

suspension was ruled by CONMEBOL, 9 July 2015, must also be considered as a period completed as part of the sanction.

CAS 2016/A/4416 5

FIFA v. CONMEBOL & Brian Fernández, award of 7 November 2016 (operative part of 8 July 2016) (…) Conclusions: 6.1. The Chamber observes that the Appellant’s objective with this appeal is to reduce the sanction imposed on him by the Disciplinary Tribunal by a month. However, this Chamber does not believe there to be any reasons in the present case that justify the amendment of the starting date of the period of ineligibility imposed on the Appellant in the Decision, which is why the appeal is dismissed. (…) Based on the above, the Appeal Chamber, (…) Has decided

1. To dismiss the appeal lodged by Mr BRIAN FERNÁNDEZ against decision D/02/2014.

2. Consequently, to confirm the appealed decision in its entirety.

3. No costs will be charged, although the appeal fee will not be reimbursed”.

15. On 5 January 2016, CONMEBOL provided FIFA with the reasoned decision and full case file.

III. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CAS

16. On 25 January 2016, FIFA filed its Statement of Appeal against the Appealed Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”). FIFA nominated Mr Luigi Fumagalli as Arbitrator and requested an extension of the time limit of five additional days to submit its Appeal Brief.

The Appellant also requested the proceedings to be held in English.

17. On 27 January 2016, the CAS Court Office granted the requested extension and confirmed the payment of the Court Office fee.

18. On 2 February 2016, the Second Respondent sent a communication to the CAS Court Office requesting Spanish to be the language of the arbitration. In case the proceedings were

conducted in English, the Second Respondent submitted that the Appellant should bear the costs associated with translations and interpreters.

19. On the same day, the CAS Court Office asked the Parties whether they agreed to Spanish being the language of the proceedings and invited the Parties to answer by 4 February 2016.

20. On 3 February 2016, the Appellant again requested the proceedings to be held in English. On the same day, the CAS Court Office advised the Parties that according to Art. R29 CAS Code, English would be the language of the arbitral proceedings.

21. On 8 February 2016, the Appellant filed its Appeal Brief. On the same day the Second Respondent nominated Mr José Juan Pintó as Arbitrator.

CAS 2016/A/4416 6

FIFA v. CONMEBOL & Brian Fernández, award of 7 November 2016 (operative part of 8 July 2016)

22. The CAS Court Office invited the First Respondent on 9 February 2016 to inform the Court whether it agrees with the nomination of Mr José Juan Pintó by 15 February 2016, failing which it would be considered that it agreed.

23. On 25 February 2016, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties that Mr Ulrich Haas had accepted the appointment as President of the Panel.

24. On 29 February 2016, the Second Respondent requested an extension of five days to file its answer to the Appellant’s Brief.

25. On 1 March 2016, the CAS Court Office granted the five-day extension for the Second Respondent to file an answer.

26. On 3 March 2016, the First Respondent requested the CAS to grant an extension of five days to present its answer.

27. On 4 March 2016, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties that the extension could not be granted, since the initial deadline to file an answer had already expired on 2 March 2016. The

CAS Court Office therefore rejected the First Respondent’s request (Art. R32 CAS Code). However, the CAS Court Office invited the Parties to advise by 7 March 2016 whether they agreed to the late filing of the First Respondent’s answer.

28. In a letter dated 4 March 2016, the Appellant did not raise any objections to the late filing of the First Respondent’s answer. On the same day, the Second Respondent also agreed to the late filing. The CAS Court Office thus invited the First Respondent to file its statement by 8

March 2016.

29. On 9 March 2016, the CAS Court Office confirmed the appointment of the Panel in the procedure as follows: Mr Ulrich Haas (President), Mr Luigi Fumagalli (Arbitrator), Mr José

Juan Pintó (Arbitrator).

30. In a letter dated 18 March 2016, the Appellant communicated to the CAS Court Office its preference for a hearing to be held.

31. A hearing took place in Lausanne on 20 June 2016. The Appellant was represented by Mr Volker Hesse and Mr Martin Vaso. The representative of the First Respondent, Ms Monserrat Jimenez Granda, did not attend the hearing. The Second Respondent’s counsel, Mr Ariel Reck, and an interpreter, Gabriel Córdoba, were present. The following witnesses were heard on behalf of the Second Respondent: the Player’s brother, Mr Leandro Fernández, the Player’s Agent, Mr Christian Braga, (both via telephone) and on behalf of the Appellant, Prof Martial Saugy, as expert witness.

32. The Parties throughout the hearing did not raise any procedural objections and expressly confirmed at the end of the hearing that their right to be heard and to be treated equally had CAS 2016/A/4416 7

FIFA v. CONMEBOL & Brian Fernández,

award of 7 November 2016 (operative part of 8 July 2016) been respected, as they had been given ample opportunity to present their cases and submit their arguments and answers.

33. At the hearing the Player was (via telephone) examined by his counsel, cross-examined by the Appellant, and questioned by the Panel. The Panel also heard evidence by Prof Saugy with regard to the effects of Cocaine and its metabolites, its excretion in general, and in connection with alcohol consumption and when frequently consumed.

IV. PARTIES’ RESPECTIVE REQUESTS FOR RELIEF AND BASIC POSITIONS

34. This section of the award does not contain an exhaustive list of the Parties’ contentions, its aim being to provide a summary of the substance of the Parties’ main arguments. In considering and deciding upon the Parties’ claims in this award, the Panel has accounted for and carefully considered all of the submissions made and evidence adduced by the Parties, including allegations and arguments not mentioned in this section of the award or in the discussion of the claims below.

A. The Appellant

35. In its Statement of Appeal (25 Janurary 2016) and Appeal Brief (8 February 2016), FIFA filed the following prayers for relief: “1. The appeal of FIFA is admissible;

2. Mr Brian Fernández is sanctioned with a two-year period of ineligibility starting date on which the CAS award enters into force. Any period of ineligibility already served by the Player based on the doping control initiated by CONMEBOL shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility imposed.

3. The costs of the proceedings shall be borne by the Confederación Sudamericana de Fútbol”.

36. The Appellant’s submissions in support of its requests may be summarized as follows: - With regard to the applicable law Art. 66 (2) FIFA Statutes provides that “the provisions of the CAS Code of Sports Related Arbitration shall apply to the proceedings. CAS shall

primarily apply the various regulations of FIFA and, additionally, Swiss law”. Moreover, Art. 80 (3) FIFA Anti-Doping Rules (ADR) provides that FIFA Regulations are also applicable in proceedings in which FIFA appeals to CAS. The application of the FIFA ADR is also established in the jurisprudence of CAS (CAS 2008/A/1625). - Art. R57 CAS Code grants the Panel full power to review the facts and the law. Consequently, the Panel has the authority to review all relevant aspects of the case and is not limited to the subject-matter before the Disciplinary Unit (Appeals Chamber) (in casu the starting date of the ineligibility period).

CAS 2016/A/4416 8

FIFA v. CONMEBOL & Brian Fernández, award of 7 November 2016 (operative part of 8 July 2016) - Due to the presence of Cocaine, “Methylecgonine” and “Bezoylecgonine” in the Player’s “Aand B-Samples”, an anti-doping rule violation according to Art. 6 ADR is established. The Player even admitted having consumed Cocaine in the proceedings before the CDU. Furthermore, two expert statements confirm that the concentration of Cocaine in the Player’s “A-Sample” indicate a consumption of the Prohibited Substance within 24 hours prior to sample collection. - Art. 19 ADR lays down the applicable sanctions in case of an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) within the meaning of Art. 6 ADR. Based on the Player’s explanation regarding the ingestion of Cocaine in a context unrelated to sports, the starting point for determining the period of ineligibility shall not be four years (par. 1), but two years (par. 2) instead. Since the first sample on 10 May 2015 was analysed by a laboratory not accredited by WADA, the ADRV committed on 28 May 2015 cannot be qualified as a

second violation in the sense of Art. 24 ADR. - With regard to the commencement of the ineligibility period the Appellant submits that according to Art. 28 ADR the period of ineligibility shall, in principle, start with the communication of the award in the present arbitral proceedings. Since there were no substantial delays in the proceedings at the level of CONMEBOL, an earlier starting date cannot be justified. - The ban imposed by the AFA (three months as of 5 June 2015) cannot be deducted from the period of ineligibility in this case, since the two sanctions originate from two different organizations and have a different scope as well. - The Player only admitted the ingestion of Cocaine as such. However, the Player did not admit the ADRV in its entirety. This is evidenced by the fact that the Player requested the analysis of the B-Sample after the hearing, before the AAF on 30 June 2015. Consequently, the Player did not admit the ADRV promptly. He did admit so only in the course of the disciplinary proceedings. Art. 28 (2) ADR however requires full and prompt admission. The Player did not fulfil these two criteria. - Partial suspensions of sanctions lead to an unfair treatment of players. The rules must be applied equally to all participants.

B. The First Respondent

37. In its Answer, dated 7 March 2016, the First Respondent requested the CAS: “CONMEBOL respectfully requests CAS to dismiss the appeal lodged by FIFA against Decision D/2/2014; (…) Consequently, CAS is respectfully requested to confirm the appealed decision in its entirety”.

38. CONMEBOL’s submissions may be summarized as follows: - The Player acknowledged having used Cocaine out of competition in a context not related to sports. Personal struggles and his problematic background resulted in an addiction CAS 2016/A/4416 9

FIFA v. CONMEBOL & Brian Fernández, award of 7 November 2016

(operative part of 8 July 2016) to this Prohibited Substance. The Player is now undergoing therapy to overcome his addiction. Based on these circumstances the CDU reduced the period of ineligibility which is in line with Art. 22 (2) ADR (no significant fault or negligence). - Sanctions being subject to suspensive conditions are a common practice and accepted and applied worldwide – e.g. FIFA itself extended a decision containing a suspensive condition that was issued by the Superior Court of Sports Justice in Football (STJD) to have worldwide effect.

C. The Second Respondent

39. In his Answer, dated 8 March 2016, the Second Respondent – inter alia – requested: “1. To reject the appeal against the CONMEBOL decision in the present case.

2. To order FIFA to pay all costs and expenses relating to the CAS arbitration proceedings.

3. To order FIFA to pay a contribution towards the legal fees and other expenses incurred by this party, estimated in CHF 5.000.-”.

40. The Second Respondent – in essence – submits in support of his request as follows: - Since the AAF occurred in a CONMEBOL competition, rules and regulations of CONMEBOL shall be deemed to be applicable, with the rules of FIFA being only complimentary and applicable only, if they are not contrary to CONMEBOL’s regulations. This approach is in line with the CAS jurisprudence (e.g. CAS 2008/A/1588). Changing the applicable rules just because FIFA decided to appeal the matter would result in an unexpected and unforeseeable change of applicable provisions for the Second Respondent. - The Player never accepted a two year period of ineligibility per se. He just accepted the decision of CONMEBOL to impose a conditional second year of suspension, subject to permanent doping controls. - The imposed sanction is in fact in line with FIFA’s ADR and the World Anti Doping Code (WADC). - CONMEBOL considered that there were mitigating factors to reduce the otherwise

applicable sanction to one year, but still decided to impose additional measures in order to supervise and assess the Player’s rehabilitation plan. Therefore, instead of sanctioning the Player for just one year, the CDU imposed additional consequences in relation to the second year. If a panel has the power to reduce a sanction down to one year with no additional condition, it also has the power to impose additional conditions with respect of the “reduced” year. This practice is in line with Art. 31 CONMEBOL Regulations as well as Art. 22 (2) ADR. Furthermore, Art. 23 ADR also stipulates the possibility to suspend, reduce or eliminate the period of ineligibility for reasons other than fault.

CAS 2016/A/4416 10

FIFA v. CONMEBOL & Brian Fernández, award of 7 November 2016 (operative part of 8 July 2016) - CONMEBOL had valid reasons to reduce the sanction based on the Player’s testimony and the witness statements, confirming that the Player consumed Cocaine in a complicated home environment and in a difficult personal situation, which eventually turned into an addiction. Thereby CONMEBOL respected the principles of fairness and proportionality. - CAS jurisprudence (CAS 2013/A/3274) states that first instance panels are in no better position to review an ADRV than the CAS. However, it also follows from CAS jurisprudence that CAS panels shall exercise deference where the first instance tribunal had a particular advantage, such as technical expertise or the opportunity to assess the credibility of witnesses. Morever, there is no constant jurisprudence of the CAS with regard to the deference given to the tribunals of federations. The better arguments speak in favour of reviewing periods of ineligibility only when the assessment of the first instance panel is evidently and grossly disproportionate to the offence. CONMEBOL’s sanction in casu was proportionate, since it carefully considered the Player’s personal

circumstances. As a result, the CAS may not review the appealed sanction. - WADA has not appealed the Appealed Decision, and has therefore reached the same conclusion as the Second Respondent. - The Player did promptly admit the ingestion of the Prohibited Substance. The fact that the Player merely exercised his defense rights (by requesting the analysis of the “BSample”) before admitting the ADRV does not prevent his admission from being qualified as promptly (see CAS 2012/A/2959 by analogy).

V. JURISDICTION OF THE CAS

41. Art. R47 CAS Code reads as follows: An appeal against the decision of a federation, association or sports-related body may be filed with the CAS insofar as the statutes or regulations of the said body so provide or as the parties have concluded a specific arbitration agreement and insofar as the Appellant has exhausted the legal remedies available to him prior to the appeal, in accordance with the statutes or regulations of the said sports-related body.

42. The provision provides for three prerequisites, namely: i. that the parties must have submitted to the competence of the CAS, ii. that there must be a “decision” of a federation, association or another sports-related body, and iii. that the “internal remedies available prior to the appeal” to CAS must have been exhausted, in accordance with the statutes or regulations of the mentioned bodies;

43. The first prerequisite is met. The jurisdiction of the CAS to rule on the present dispute follows inter alia from the Order of Procedure, duly signed by all Parties, as well as from Art. 75 ADR and from the FIFA Statutes (Art. 67). Finally, the Panel notes that its jurisdiction has not been CAS 2016/A/4416 11

FIFA v. CONMEBOL & Brian Fernández, award of 7 November 2016 (operative part of 8 July 2016) contested by any party to these proceedings, but instead has been explicitly recognised by the Parties in their briefs submitted to the CAS. It follows from all of the above that the CAS has

jurisdiction over the present dispute.

44. The Appealed Decision is a “decision of an association” within the meaning of Art. R47 CAS Code. Consequently, this prerequisite is fulfilled, since CONMEBOL is an association or sports-related body within the meaning of Art. R47 CAS Code.

45. The last prerequisite set forth in the provision at issue is also met, since there are no internal remedies available to the Parties for appealing the Appealed Decision. This follows from Art.

70bis CONMEBOL Statutes, which reads as follows:

1. Binding decision related exclusively to breaches of the anti-doping regulations may be appealed by the offender before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) headquartered in Lausanne (Switzerland) in accordance with what is established in the following paragraphs. Furthermore, FIFA’s right to appeal such decisions is recognised.

2. The deadline for lodging an appeal with CAS shall be 21 days from the date on which the appellant receives the decision.

VI. ADMISSIBILITY

46. Art. R49 CAS Code reads as follows: In the absence of a time limit set in the statutes or regulation of the federation, association or sports-related body concerned, or in a previous agreement, the time limit for appeal shall be twenty-one days from the receipt of the decision appealed against.

47. According to the above-reported provision of the CAS Code, a federation may derogate from the 21 day time-limit for the filing of the appeal in its statutes or regulations. In principle the time-limits of Art. 70bis CONMEBOL Statutes correspond to Art. R49 CAS Code. According to Art. 70bis (2) (a) and (b) FIFA’s time-limit to appeal is 21 days from the date on which FIFA receives a copy of the complete case file.

48. The findings of the Appealed Decision were communicated to FIFA on 23 December 2015.

The grounds of the Appealed Decision were communicated to FIFA on 5 January 2016. On

the same day FIFA received the copy of the full case file.

49. On 25 January 2016, FIFA filed its Statement of Appeal against the Appealed Decision with

the CAS Court Office.

50. Consequently, the Appellant complied with the time limits prescribed by Art. 70bis CONMEBOL Statutes and by the CAS Code. The Appeal was therefore filed in time.

CAS 2016/A/4416 12

FIFA v. CONMEBOL & Brian Fernández, award of 7 November 2016 (operative part of 8 July 2016)

VI. APPLICABLE LAW

51. According to Art. R58 CAS Code, the Arbitral Tribunal shall d