Swiss Federal Supreme Court (SFT) Judgment of 25 November 2025
Motion to set aside CAS Award TAS 2020/A/7609 of 30 April 2025
The case concerned a (domestic) employment dispute between a Venezuelan professional football player (the Player) and a national club (the Club) and arose out of salary claims under successive employment contracts concluded between 2018 and 2020. After a settlement agreement was signed in June 2020, disagreements persisted as to whether that agreement validly extinguished all outstanding claims. The Player first brought his claims before the Venezuelan FA’s dispute resolution chamber, which dismissed them, and then filed an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which partially upheld the appeal and ordered the Club to pay approximately USD 99,000.
The Club challenged the CAS award before the SFT on the ground of violation of the right to be heard under Article 190 (2)(d) Private International Law Act (PILA). Invoking the famous “effet de surprise”, it supported that the Sole Arbitrator had relied on provisions of the Venezuelan FA’s regulations and, by reference, on mandatory Venezuelan labour law, without offering the Club the possibility to comment on their applicability. This was a “surprising” legal basis that led the Sole Arbitrator to invalidate the settlement agreement for non-compliance with Venezuelan statutory formal requirements, whereas Swiss law – which the club considered applicable – would not have imposed such limitations.
The SFT dismissed the challenge, holding that parties do not have a constitutional right to be heard on the legal characterisation of facts already introduced into the proceedings. Importantly, given the purely domestic nature of the employment relationship between a Venezuelan club and a Venezuelan player, the Parties would not consider the application of mandatory Venezuelan labour law as “unexpected”. Even when there is a choice of foreign law, mandatory domestic provisions may still apply (cf also BGE 130 III 35 at 6.2). Overall, the judgment confirms, once again, the SFT’s restrictive approach to challenges based on the “effet de surprise” in international arbitration under Article 190(2)(d) PILA.
