Football lawyer and attorney-at-law Ilya Skoropashkin explained the decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport on the succession of Karpaty.
- Karpaty have recognized the decision of the Sports Arbitration Court that they are the legal successor of the previously dissolved Karpaty, and now they have to pay the debt to one of the former players of the Lviv club. Will this set a precedent for other former players who have old debts?
- Yes, of course, this is a precedent for the club's creditors. But there are nuances here. Given that the statute of limitations in football is set at two years, you can only file initial claims against the club for old debts within this period. This applies to both initial claims for debt repayment and claims for enforcement of decisions of football justice authorities that have entered into force.
- Will Kolomoisky, who is rumored to have a $25 million stake in the old Karpaty, be able to claim reimbursement under this scheme?
- In this case, succession is provided only for football debts: to players, coaches, clubs and other football entities, to which the person you mentioned does not belong.
- And Dyminsky and Smaliychuk?
- The situation is the same.
- What does this decision of Lausanne mean for Dnipro-1, Metalist, Metalist 1925? Should they be afraid?
- Everything is individual and everything is within the statute of limitations.
- Can Karpaty get any "perks" for paying off their debts? Payments for pupils - Hutsulyak, Khlan or Sikan, some UEFA coefficients...
- Yes, the successor football club is entitled to solidarity payments for its players and other preferences to which its predecessor was entitled.
- Let's talk more about the two-year limitation period. Do they start from what date?
- For primary claims, the legal successor starts from the date of delay in payment. With regard to the submission for enforcement by the successor of decisions of football justice bodies, from the moment the new structure under the Karpaty brand receives the football certificate.
- Why from the moment they receive the certificate, and not from the decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, when they were recognized as the legal successor? So the players might not have known that there was a ready-made successor...
- Football case law has developed as follows. The primary event in this case is the emergence of an entity that meets the criteria of a legal successor. The logic is as follows. Even if the successor has not openly declared this, but publicly uses the brand, history and other attributes of the predecessor, it is necessary to address it with a demand to fulfill the predecessor's debts.
In our situation, Karpaty was recognized as the successor because one of the players applied to the competent football authorities to enforce a previously issued court decision. What prevented others from doing the same and filing their claims on time?
In other words, the limitation period does not start from the moment the management company is recognized as a football successor, but from the moment it shows signs of being a successor.
- Does this mean that the two-year period for filing claims from the players to the new Karpaty expired a year ago, in June 2023 (they received their certificate to participate in the Second League in June 2021)?
- It turns out that yes. It's also worth noting that nothing prevents Karpaty from voluntarily paying off their old debts, as they declared.
Andriy Shevchenko