Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport

/A/4950 v. Esporte Clube Vitoria da & CBF & STJD & STJD General Prosecutor (decision No. 425/2016) CAS 2017/A/4951 Sport Club Internacional v. Esporte Clube Vitoria da Bahia & CBF & STJD & STJD General Prosecutor (decision No. 71/2016)

ARBITRAL AWARD

delivered by the

COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

sitting in the following composition:

President: Ml' Luigi Fumagalli, Professor and Attorney-at-law in Milan, Italy Arbitrators: Ml' Rui Botica Santos, Attorney-at-law in Lisbon, Portugal Ml' Efraim Barak, Attorney-at law in Tel Aviv, Israel

in the arbitrations between

Sport Club Internacional, , Brazil Represented by Mr Ross Wenzel, Kellerhals-Carrard, Lausanne, Switzerland, and Ml' David Casserly, Barrister, Lausanne, Switzerland Appellant

and

1/ Esporte Clube Vitoria da Bahia, Salvador, Brazil Represented by Messrs Bichara Abidâo Neto, Marcos Motta, Stefano Malvestio and Victor Eleuterio, Bichara e Motta Advogados, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

2/ Confederaçâo Brasileira de Futebol (CBF), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Represented by Ml' Lucas Ferrer and Ms Matilde Costa Dias, Pinto Ruiz & Del Valle, Barcelona, Spain

3/ Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva de Futebol (STJD), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

4/ STJD General Prosecutor, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Respondents

Château de Béthusy Av. de Beaumont 2 CH-1012 Lausanne Tél: +41 21 6135000 Fax: +41 21 6135001 www.tas-cas.org · . CAS 20171N4950 Internacional Y. Vitoria, CBF, STJD & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 425/2016) Tn bunal Arbi tral du SPCliÂs20171N4951 Internacional Y. Vitoria, CBF, STJD & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 7112016) Court of Arbi tration for Sport page 2

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 The Parties

1. Sport Club lnternacional ("lntemacional" or the "Appellant") is a Brazilian football club with seat in Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil, affiliated to the Confederacâo Brasileira de Futebol. ln the season 2016, Intemacional participated in the first division of the Brazilian football championship ("Serie A" or "Brasilierêio") and finished in the 17th position with 43 points: it was therefore relegated to the second division of the Brazilian football championship for the season 2017.

2. Esporte Clube Vitoria da Bahia ("Vit6ria" or the "Second Respondent") is a Brazilian football club affiliated to the Confederacâo Brasileira de Futebol, and has its seat in Salvador, BA, Brazil. ln the season 2016, Vitoria participated in the Brasilierâo and finished with 45 points in the 16th position, i.e. in the lowest position granting the possibility to compete again in the first division of the Brasilierâo in the season 2017.

3. The Confederacâo Brasileira de Futebol ("CBF" or the "Second Respondent") is the Brazilian football association, governing the sport of football in Brazil. CBF has is seat in Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil, and is affiliated to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association ("FIFA"), the governing body of football at worldwide level.

4. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol ("STJD" or the "Third Respondent") is the highest sports comi in Brazilian football and has jurisdiction to rule on disciplinary matters regarding national football competitions in Brazil.

5. The STJD General Prosecutor (the "STJD General Prosecutor" or the "Fourth Respondent") is a pers on (currently Mr Felipe Bevilacqua) in charge inter alia of prosecuting disciplinary violations falling within the competence of the STJD.

6. Vitoria, CBF, STJD and the STJD General Prosecutor are collectively referred to as the Respondents.

1.2 The Dispute between the Parties 7. Below is a summary of the main relevant facts and allegations based on the Parties' written submissions, pleadings and evidence adduced during these proceedings. Additional facts and allegations may be set out, where relevant, in connection with the legal discussion that follows. Although the Panel has considered all the facts, allegations, legal arguments and evidence submitted by the Parties in the present proceedings, he refers in this award only to the submissions and evidence he considers necessary to explain its reasoning.'

8. This matter arises out of the alleged ineligibility of Mr Victor Ramos Ferreira, a professional football player of Brazilian nationality born on 5 May 1989 (the "Player") to participate in three different toumaments, both regional and national. This led to a

The Panel, more specifically, shall make reference to (and quote, where relevant) the English translation of the documents filed in any language other than English. The Panel is aware that some of those translations have been challenged in these proceedings: the point wou Id be underlined ifrelevant. ln any case, the Panel has considered also the original Portuguese or Spanish versions of any such documents. T . . C~ 2017/A/4950 Internacional v. Vit6ria, CBF, STm & STJDGeneral Prosecutor (No. 425/2016) n bunal Arbitral elu SP~AS 2017/A/4951 lnternacional v. Vit6ria, CBF, STm & STm General Prosecutor (No. 71/2016) Court of Arbi tration for Sport page 3

number of local clubs filing several cases before the Brazilian sports justice bodies as detailed in this section of the award. One such case was filed by the Appellant, questioning the Player's eligibility to play for the First Respondent against the Appellant in a Brasilierâo match played on 26 March 2016. The Appellant's case was ultimately dismissed by the STm in its decision No. 425/2016 and decision No. 71/2016, which are the subject matter of this appeal. For a clear picture of the background to these appeal proceedings, the Panel also clarified that STJD case No. 42512016 was filed by the Appellant and STJD case No. 71/2016 by Bahia, with the Appellant intervening as an interested party,

A. The Transfer and the Registration of the Player

9. On 18 November 2013, the Player signed an employment contract with Monterrey Rayados S.A. de C.V. ("Monterrey"), a Mexican club affiliated to the Mexican Football Federation (the Féderacièn Mexicana de Fùtbol Asociacièn: "FMF"). Such employment contract, according to its Article 9, was valid for a term covering the seasons 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017.

10. As a result of such employment contract, the P1ayer was registered with FMF.

11. On 15 January 2015, a loan agreement was entered into between Monterrey and Sociedade Esportiva Palmeiras, a Brazilian club affiliated to the CBF ("Palmeiras"). Under said loan agreement (the "Palmeiras Loan"), the Player would play with Palmeiras for a period starting on 1 February 2015 and ending on 31 December 2015. The Palmeiras Loan provided that, at the end of the loan period on 31 December 2015, and in the absence of a "sale" of the Player ta another club, the Player would be available to Monterrey, "owner of ifs economie and federative rights, and should reintegrate the group of such institution as soon as informed in a proper way" (Article 4).

12. As a result of the Palmeiras Loan, the Player' s registration was transferred from FMF to CBF according to an International Transfer Certificate (ITC) issued on 27 January 2017.

13. On 31 December 2015, the loan of the Player to Palmeiras came to an end, without the "sale" of the Player ta another club.

14. On 1 February 2016, the "transfer window" for FMF closed.

15. On 26 February 2016, a loan agreement was signed by Monterrey and Vitoria (the "Vitoria Loan"), under which the Player would render his services ta Vitoria for a period between 1 February 2016 and 31 December 2016.

16. On 29 February 2016, messages were exchanged between Vitoria and Mr Reynaldo Buzzoni, Director of Registration and Transfers of CBF ("Ml' Buzzoni"). While the exact content of such emails is disputed between the parties.? it is common ground that by such messages Vitoria was seeking instructions on how to proceed to implement the transfer of the Player to Vitoria: Vitoria, in fact, alleges that it had discovered that the

2 An alleged tampering by Intemacional with the printouts of such messages is the object of ongoing proceedings in Brazil: see §§ 71-72 below with regard to STm proceedings No. 06/2017 and 10/2017. · . CAS 201 7/N495 0 lnternacional v. Vit6ria, CBF, STJD & STJO General Prosecutor (No. 425/2016) Tnbunal Arbitral du Spc'\!Âs2017/N4951 Internacional v. Vit6ria, CBP, STJO & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 7112016) Court of Arbitration for Sport page 4

Player' s registration had remained in Brazil with the CBF and had not returned to FMF at the end of the Palmeiras Loan. The final answer of the CBF appears to be that the registration had to return to FMF, in light of the ties of the Player with Monterrey, and then that a new loan (and transfer ofregistration) to Brazil had to be effected.

17. As aresult, on 11 March2016, Vitoria:

1. entered into the Transfer Matching System (the "TMS"), established by FIFA according to the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (the "RSTP"), the instructions for the transfer of the Player's registration to CBF, and ii. sent a letter to FIFA, through CBF, demanding it to grant a special authorization to Monterrey to request the retum of the Player's ITC to FMF (which had closed the transfer window) with the sole purpose of its immediate re-transfer to CBF on the basis of the Vitoria Loan. It is unclear whether this letter was actually forwarded to FIFA. ln any case, no answer was received.

18. On 15 March 2016, Monterrey sent a letter to FMF authorizing the Player, whose registration was still with CBF, to remain in Brazil, on the basis of the loan entered into with Vitoria, "because of the urgency due ta the end of the transfer window tn this South American cauntry, knowing that a special authorization awaits before the competent FIFA bodyfor the player ta be eligible ta play".

19. On 16 March 2016, the time limit for international transfers of players eligible to compete in the 2016 Bahia State Championship or "" expired. The Bahia State Championship is organized by the Federacâo Bahiana de Futebol ("FBF"), a regional football organization affiliated ta the CBF. Vitoria is affiliated ta the FBF and participates in the competitions organized by the FBF.

20. On 16 March 2016, the FBF requested sorne clarifications from the CBF in relation to the registration of the Player with Vitoria for the period between 16 March 2016 and 31 December 2016. More specifically, FBF indicated that, "knowing that the player belongs to CF Monterrey AS - Mexico, we would like ta know if if was made a NATIONAL ar INTERNATIONAL transfer, considering that the FBF is not a party involved in deals that involve TMS".

21. On 18 March 2016, the registration of the Player with Vitoria was published in the Bulletim Diario Informativo of the CBF (the "BDl"). It is undisputed that the registration of the Player was treated as resulting from a national transfer within CBF and that it was not processed through the TMS.

22. On 26 March 2016, the Player was fielded by Vitoria in the return match in the quarter- finals of the 2016 Bahia State Championship, played by Vitoria with Clube Esportivo Flamengo ("Flamengo de "), another club member of FBF. Vitoria won that match and qualified ta the semi-finals, ta be played with the club Sociedade Desportiva Juazeirense ("Juazeirense").3

ln that regard, it is to be noted that, in the context of the STJD proceedings 62/2016 (described below, §§ 31-40), the STJD President, on 7 April 2016, provisionally suspended the semi-finals to be played on 10 and 21 April 2016 between Vitoria and Juazeirense. However, on 8 April 2016, in view of the decision of the TJDB General Prosecutor not to reconsider the decision to close the TJDB proceedings No. 45/2016 · . .. C1S 2017/A/4950 InternacionaI v. Vit6ria, CBF, STJD & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 425/2016) Tnbunal Arbi tral du S PQ!Âs20 17/A/4951 Internacional v. Vit6ria, CBF, STJD & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 7112016) Court of Arbitration for Sport page 5

23. On 27 March 2016, Mr Buzzoni answered by email the request of FBF of 16 March 2016, stating that the transfer of the Player was national, because his ITC was in Brazil. The point was also confirmed in a letter dated 28 March 2016.

24. The Player subsequently participated in the 2016 Brazilian Cup, organized by CBF, and in the Brasilierào and was fielded also in the match of the Brasilierâo played between Internacional and Vit6ria on 5 June 2016, won by Vit6ria 1-0.

B. The Disciplinary Proceedings regarding the Transfer and the Registration of the Player

25. ln connection with the Player's registration with Vit6ria a number of proceedings were conducted, both at Brazilian and internationallevel. i. TJDB proceedings No. 45/2016 26. The first proceedings related to the transfer of the Player were opened in the context of the 2016 Bahia State Championship: they were registered as the TJDB proceedings No. 45/2016.

27. ln fact, on 28 March 2016, after the match of26 March 2016, Flamengo de Guanambi filed an infringement notice ("Noticia de infracâo disciplinar desportiva") with the Prosecutor of the Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva de Futebol da Bahia (the "TJDB") - one of the regional instances of the Brazilian football justice system with jurisdiction over local competitions in the State of Bahia. pursuant to Article 74 of the C6digo Brasileiro de Justiça Desportiva (the "CBJD"). ln such infringement notice, Flamengo de Guanambi indicated that the transfer of the Player to Vit6ria was international, and therefore, since it had been published in the BDI on 18 March 2016, it had taken place after the end of the transfer window. As a result, the participation of the Player in the match of 26 March 2016 was irregular and proceedings for the imposition of sanctions on Vit6ria pursuant to Article 214 of the CBJD had to be opened.

28. On 3 April 2016, the appointed TJDB Prosecutor decided not to proceed with the matter. Such decision was based also on the correspondence sent by Ml' Buzzoni on 27 and 28 March 2016, stating that the transfer of the Player was national.

29. On 6 April 2016, Flamengo de Guanambi requested, pursuant to Article 74 § 2 of the CBJD, that the TJDB General Prosecutor reconsider the matter.

30. On 7 April 2016, the TJDB General Prosecutor dismissed the request.

ii. ST JD proceedings No. 62/2016 31. On 4 April 2016, following the decision not to proceed adopted by the TJDB Prosecutor in TJDB proceedings No. 45/2016, , another club of Salvador ("E.C. Bahia") filed with the STJD a request to obtain a "mandado de garantie" against Ml' Buzzoni, pursuant to Article 88 of the CBJD. ln its petition, E.C. Bahia basically

(below § 30), the TJDB President ordered that the matches be maintained. Such matches were finally played on the scheduled dates: Vitoria won the semi-finals and qualified for the finals, that it played against Esporte Clube Bahia. · . CAS 2017/N4950 Tnternacional v. Vit6ria, CBF, SIJD & STJO General Prosecutor (No. 425/2016) Tnbunal Arbitral du SpCtlAs 2017/N4951 Internacional v. Vit6ria, CBF, SIJD & SIJD General Prosecutor (No. 71/2016) Court of Arbitration for Sport page 6

alleged was that its rights had been infringed by the allegedly wrong factual representation, that the Player's transfer was national, made by Ml' Buzzoni in the context of the TJBD proceedings No. 45/2016.

32. On 7 April 2016, the STJD President, decided to treat the petition for a "mandado de garantie" as a petition for a "medida inominada" in accordance with Article 119 of the CBJD.4

33. On 18 April 2016, the STJD Prosecutor requested the opening of an "inquérito" (investigation) under Article 81 of the CBJD into the facts alleged in the proceedings started by E.C. Bahia and expressed his opinion in favour of a suspension of the STJD proceedings No. 62/2016 and ofmaintaining the decision to close the STJD proceedings No. 6512016 (see below: § 42), while pending the conduct of such investigation. The "inquérito" proceedings were then conducted as STJD proceedings No. 70/2016, and came to an end on 26 June 2016 (see below: § 53). As further explained in paragraphs 42 and 46, both proceedings No. 62/2016 ("E.C. Bahia") and No. 65/2016 (Flamengo de Guanambi) were related since both were "medidas inominadas" claiming the irregular participation of the player.

34. It is important to point out that the Prosecutors' request, addressed in his discretionary powers, was motivated by the intent to clarify the alleged irregularity, This is the reason why the proceedings were suspended while the investigation was in course.

35. On 29 August 2016, following the conclusion of the STm proceedings No. 70/2016 ("inquérito"), the STm President ordered the transfer of the file of the STJD proceedings No. 62/2016 to the prosecutor for his determinations.

36. On 8 December 2016 the STJD President decided that a hearing would be held on 14 December 2016.

37. On 13 December 2016, lntemacional filed a request for intervention in the STJD proceedings No. 62/2016. ln its petition, dated 12 December 2016, lntemacional, inter alia, requested the STJD to forward the file of the case to the STJD Prosecutor, in order to proceed against Vitoria pursuant to Article 214 CBJD, "in light of the facts described which led to the nullity of the registration of the athlete Victor Ramos and his irregular participation in the 2016 Serie A Brazilian Championship, namely for not being eligible".

38. On 14 December 2016, the Tribunal Pleno of the STJD decided to dismiss the petition filed by E.C. Bahia. The intervention of lntemacional was admitted, but rejected in its merits.

39. On 21 December 2016, lntemacional applied for "embargos de declaraçêio" in accordance with Article 152-A of the CBJD, in essence seeking clarifications of the decision of 14 December 2016.

40. On 25 January 2017, such application was dismissed by the STJD.

4 And stayed the staging ofthe semi-finals ofthe 2016 Baiano Championship: see the preceding footnote. . . . CAS 2017/N4950 Internacional v. Vitoria, CBF, STJD & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 425/2016) Tnbunal Arbitral du SpQ!AS 2017/N4951 lnternacional v. Vitoria, CBF, STJD & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 71/2016) Court of Arbitration for Sport page 7

iii. STJD proceedings No. 65/2016 and No. 68/2016

41. These proceedings follow the determination of the TJDB Prosecutor to close the TJDB proceedings No. 45/2016, and concem a "medida inominada" sought by Flamengo de Guanambi pursuant to Article 119 of the CBJD (STJD proceedings No. 6512016). More specifically, Flamengo de Guanambi complained against the procedural stance of the Bahia sports justice institutions and requested the provisional suspension of Vitôria's matches, the "annulment or disregarding of the conclusions of the TJDB General Prosecutor 's opinion, hindering the closure of the infringement notice" and that the STJD found itself to be competent to consider such infringement notice or, altematively, that it ordered the TJDB General Prosecutor to proceed.

42. On 12 April 2016, the STJD President dismissed the request for the "medida inominadd", for lack of competence of the STJD over competitions organized by a regional organization, such as the FBF.

43. On 18 April 2016, the STJD Prosecutor acting in the STJD proceedings No. 62/2016 expressed his opinion in favour of maintaining the decision to close the STJD proceedings No. 65/2016, while pending the investigation conducted as STJD proceedings No. 70/2016.

44. On 15 April 2016, Flamengo de Guanambi lodged an appeal before the Tribunal Pleno of the STJD against the decision of 12 April 2016 (opening STJD proceedings No. 68/2016).

45. On 29 August 2016, the STJD President issued a decision confinning the tennination of the STJD proceedings No. 65/2016.

46. On 14 December 2016, the appeal lodged by Flamengo de Guanambi against the decision of the STJD President (STJD proceedings No. 68/2016) was dismissed by the Tribunal Pleno of the STJD.

iv. STJD proceedings No. 70/2016 47. On 18 April 2016, in the framework of the STJD proceedings No. 62/2016 (§ 33 above), the STJD Prosecutor requested the opening of an investigation ("inquérito") in order to ascertain possible disciplinary violations related to the transfer of the Player.

48. On 6 May 2016, the STJD judge in charge of the investigation requested the CBF to contact FIFA in order to obtain clarifications in connection with the transfer of the Player to Vitoria.

49. On Il May 2016, the CBF contacted FIFA, requesting confirmation that "since the ITC was already in Brazil, the ... loan ta Vitoria did not qualify as an international transfer for registration pur poses".

50. On 24 May 2016, FIFA transmitted its reply, which, in its relevant part, reads as follows:

" ... taking into consideration that the player concerned appears ta have been registered successively for two clubs ajJiliated ta the same association, we would like to inform · . CAS 20l7/N4950 Intemacional Y. Vitoria, CBF, STJD & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 425/2016) Tnbunal Arbitral du SpQ!AS 20 17/N4951 Internacional Y. Vitoria, CBF, STJD & STJD General Prosecutor (No.7l12016) Court of Arbitration for Sport page 8

you that, as a matter of principle, the act of registering players falls under the competence of each association and is governed by the specifie regulations issued by the association concerned, while due attention must be paid to the provisions contained in the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) which are binding at national level (cf art. ] par. 2 and par. 3 a) of the Regulations). Nevertheless, we must point out that following the loan of a player to a first club with an international dimension with respective registration of the player at the new association following the request and delivery of the pertinent 1Te, the purely technical registration of the player at the association of origin for the club of origin via TMS is required even for the purpose of the player then being immediately transferred (on a loan basis) from the club of origin to a second club affiliated to another association. ln this respect, we would like to draw your attention to art. ] par. 5 of annexe 3 of the Regulations, according to which the use of TMS is a mandatory step for all international transfers of professional male players in order to increase transparency of individual transactions and distinguish between different payments made in relation to international transfers of players (cf art.l par. ] and 2 of annexe 3 of the Regulations). However, we understand that the latter course of action was not taken in the matter at hand, and therefore the player 's registration in the sense of art. 5 par. ] of the Regulations seems to have remained with your association afier his initial registration for your ajJiliated club Sociedade Esportiva Palme iras. As a result, it appears to be a matter of fact that, based on the second loan agreement, the pertinent registration was moved at national level only".

51. On 1 June 2016, the STJD judge in charge of the investigation issued a decision finding that the transfer was a national one, and therefore that no infraction had been committed (i) by Ml' Buzzoni regarding the information provided in that regard, (ii) by Vitoria in fielding the Player and (iii) by the TJDB or the TJDB Prosecutor. As a result, he ordered the closure of the investigation in STJD proceedings No. 70/2016, as well as the termination of the petition for a "mandado de garantia" (treated as a petition for "medida inominada") in STJD proceedings No. 62/2016, and of the STJD proceedings No. 65/2016 conceming a "medida inominada", "because with this decision both remedies have lost their object".

52. On 7 June 2016, E.C. Bahia filed a petition challenging the conclusion of the STJD judge in charge of the investigation, which was appreciated as "embargos de declaraçâo" .

53. On 26 June 2016, the STJD judge in charge of the investigation maintained his previous determination to close the "inquérito", but set aside the decision to terminate the STJD proceedings No. 62/2016 and No 65/2016 (which therefore continued as described above: §§ 35-40 and 45).

v. STJD proceedings No. 71/2016 54. On 19 April 2016, E.C. Bahia filed an infringement notice with the STJD Prosecutor pursuant to Article 74 of the CBJD. The proceedings so started were registered as the STJD proceedings No. 71/2016. ln such application, E.C. Bahia requested the STJD Prosecutor to start disciplinary proceedings for an alleged violation by Vitoria of Article 214 of the CBJD relating to the participation of the Player in a Brazilian Cup match · . CAS 2017/A/4950 lntemacional v. Vitoria, CBF, ST.lD & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 425/2016) Tri bunal Arbi tral elu S PC

played by Vitoria on 13 April 2016.

55. On 1 December 2016, Internacional lodged a request for intervention in the STJD proceedings No. 71/2016.

56. On 5 December 2016, the STJD Prosecutor requested from CBF and from Vitoria clarifications as to any disciplinary procedures opened by FIF A.

57. On 7 December 2016, Mr Buzzoni and Vitoria provided the requested information, explaining that proceedings had been opened against Vitoria by the TMS Department of Integrity and Compliance of FIF A (the "TMS Department") on 16 September 2016 and closed on 8 November 2016 (see below, § 77-79).

58. On the same date, 7 December 2016, Internacional filed printouts of an alleged sequence of e-mail messages between CBF and Vitoria,

59. ln a decision ("despacho de arquivamento") of 8 December 2016, the STJD Prosecutor held, pursuant to Article 74 § 1 of the CBJD, that no sufficient elements existed to support the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against Vitoria. Therefore, he decided the closure (the arquivamento) ofproceedings No. 71/2016 without further action.

60. On 12 December 2016, both Internacional and E.C. Bahia filed a request for reconsideration, in accordance with Article 74 § 2 CBJD, of the decision ("despacho de arquivamento") of 8 December 2016.

61. On 16 December 2016, the CBF filed notarized printouts of the sequence of e-mail messages exchanged between CBF and Vitoria, in order to prove the il' true content.

62. On 19 December 2016, the STm General Prosecutor rejected the request to reconsider the "despacho de arquivamento" of 8 December 2016.

63. On 21 December 2016, Internacional filed for "embargos de declaraçâo" seeking the clarification of the decision of 19 December 2016.

64. On 6 February 2017, the petition for "embargos de declaraçâo" was dismissed as inadmissible by the STm General Prosecutor.

vi. STJD proceedings No. 425/2016

65. On 6 December 2016, Internacional filed with the STJD Prosecutor an infringement notice, dated 5 December 2016, pursuant to Article 74 of the CBJD. The proceedings so started were registered as the STJD proeeedings No. 425/2016. ln sueh application, lnternacional requested the STJD Prosecutor to start disciplinary proceedings against Vitoria for an alleged violation of Article 214 of the CBJD relating to the irregular registration and participation of the Player in the Brasilierâo.

66. On 7 December 2016, lnternacional filed also in the STJD proceedings No. 425/2016 printouts of an alleged sequence of e-mail messages between CBF and Vitoria (§ 58 above).

67. ln a decision ("despacho de arquivamento") of9 December 2016, the STJD Prosecutor · . CAS 2017fN4950 lntemacional v. vitoria, CBF, srm & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 42512016) Tribunal Arbitral du SPQiAS 201 7fN495 1 Internacional v. Vit6ria, CBF, srm & srrn General Prosecutor (No. 7112016) Court of Arbitration for Sport page 10

noted that the infringement notice was a "verbatim copy of the one brought and jiled under no. 71/2016", and therefore, "because this is a large proceeding and it does not add any new element ta that which is pending", ordered it "ta be summarily dismissed", without further action.

68. On 14 December 2016 lnternacional filed a request for re-examination and reconsideration, in accordance with Article 74 § 2 of the CBJD, of the decision ("despacho de arquivamento") of 9 December 2016.

69. On 16 December 2016, the CBF filed notarized printouts of the sequence of e-mail messages exchanged between CBF and Vitoria, in order to prove their true content (§ 61 above).

70. On 19 December 2016, the STJD General Prosecutor closed the STJD proceedings No. 425/2016, indicating that the request to reconsider the "despacho de arquivamento" of 9 December 2016 would be examined in the framework of the STJD proceedings No. 71/2016, since both were related as infringement notices regarding the same subject. vii. STJD proceedings No. 06/2017 and No. 12/2017

71. On 1 February 2017, the STJD Prosecutor requested the opening of an "inquérito" into the alleged adulteration concerning the sequence of e-mails filed by Internacional on 7 December 2016 in the STJD proceedings No. 71/2016 and No. 425/2016. Such proceedings were registered as No. 06/2017 and No. 12/2017.

72. On 2 February 2017, the STJD President accepted the opening ofthe investigation. viii. STJD proceedings No. 01012017 73. On 3 February 2017, the STJD proceedings No. 10/2017 were started as a result of an infringement notice filed by Internacional against Ml' Buzzoni, for alleged contradictions in the information he had provided with regard to the transfer and registration of the Player.

74. On 14 February 2017, the STm Prosecutor decided not to open further proceedings.

75. On 20 February 2017, Internacional filed a request for reconsideration of such decision.

76. On 2 March 2017, this request was rejected by the STJD General Prosecutor.

ix. FIF A proceedings 77. The dispute regarding the transfer and registration of the Player was also submitted to FIFA by E.C. Bahia and Flamengo de Guanambi, which requested the imposition of sanctions against, inter alia, Vitoria and the CBF for alleged violations of the provisions regarding international transfers of players. ln fact: a. Flamengo de Guanambi, on 4 April 2016, wrote to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee, reporting an "alleged fraud ta the TNS system" involved in the Player's transfer and requesting an investigation and sanctions; b. B.C. Bahia, on 10 May 2016, wrote to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee r-; • • CAS 20 17/N4950 Intemacional Y. Vitoria, CBF, STJD & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 42512016) Tribunal Arbitral du SPCUÂs201 7/N495 1 Internacional Y. Vitoria, CBF, STJD & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 7 I12016) Court of Arbitration for Sport page II

requesting the imposition of sanctions on Monterrey, Vitoria, CBF and FMF and the declaration that the Player was ineligible to participate in any professional competitions for Vitoria. Additionalletters were apparently sent to FIFA by E.C. Bahia to FIFA on 25 November 2016 and 1 December 2016.

78. On 16 September 2016, the TMS Department requested Vitoria to provide clarifications in connection with the status of the TMS instructions entered on 11 March 2016, and mentioned a possible infringement of Articles 4.1 and 8 of Annex 3 of the RSTP.

79. On 8 December 2016, the TMS Department, noting the documents and information provided by Vitoria, advised that it was "happy ta confirm that this case is naw closed".

2. THE ARBITRAL PROCEEDINGS 2.1 The CAS Proceedings 80. On 9 January 2017, the Appellant filed with the Court of Arbitration for Sport ("CAS"), pursuant to Article R47 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (the "Code"), separate statements of appeal, naming Vitoria, CBF, STID and the STJD General Prosecutor as respondents, to challenge:

1. the decision of the STJD General Prosecutor of 19 December 2016 to deny the reconsideration of the "despacho de arquivamento" in the STJD proceedings No. 425/2016; and

11. the decision of the STJD General Prosecutor of 19 December 2016 to deny the reconsideration of the "despacho de arquivamento" in the STJD proceedings No. 71/2016. 81. The proceedings started by Internacional were registered by CAS respectively under reference CAS 2017/A/4950 and CAS 2017/A/4951. 82. ln the statements of appeal, the Appellant appointed Mr Rui Botica Santos as arbitrator and requested that the appeals against the two decisions of the STJD General Prosecutor of 19 December 2016 be consolidated in a single CAS arbitration. 83. On 19 January 2017, the Appellant lodged with CAS a joint appeal brief in CAS 2017/A/4950 and CAS 2017/A/4951.

84. On 31 January 2017, Vitoria and CBF expressed, in separate letters, their agreement that the proceedings CAS 2017/A/4950 and CAS 2017/A/4951 be submitted to the same Panel, but treated separately. 85. On 2 January 2017, Vitoria and CBF appointed, by separate letters, Mr Efraim Barak as arbitrator in both CAS proceedings. 86. On 8 February 2017, the President of the STJD indicated, in a letter to the CAS Court Office, that the STJD could not, and would not, act as a respondent in the CAS arbitration, and therefore dec1ined to submit its position on any procedural matter, including the consolidation of the proceedings and the appointment of the arbitrators. At the same time, however, the President of the STJD declared that the STJD did not oppose the appointment of the arbitrators designated by the Appellant, Vitoria and CBF. · . CAS 20 17/N4950 lnternacional v. Vitoria, CBF, STJO & STJO General Prosecutor (No. 42512016) Tri bunal Arbi tral du SpCtlÂs2017/N4951 lnternacional v. Vitoria, CBF, STJD & STJO General Prosecutor (No- 7112016) Court of Arbitration for Sport page 12

87. On the same 8 February 2017, the STJD General Prosecutor declined to participate in the CAS proceedings, noting that he was not subject to the CAS jurisdiction. As a result, the STm General Prosecutor stressed that he had no interest in expressing any opinion with regard to the appointment of the Panel or the consolidation of the proceedings, but clarified that there were no objections to the parties' position in that respect.

88. On 9 February 2017, in light of the foregoing, the CAS Court Office advised the parties that the same Panel would hear both appeals.

89. On 9 February 2017, the First Respondent's counsel transmitted the power of attorney received to represent Vit6ria in the CAS arbitration. At the same time, the First Respondent noted that such step did not constitute an acceptance of the CAS jurisdiction, of the admissibility of the appeals and/or of the Appellant's standing to sue.

90. On 9 February 2017, the Second Respondent's counsel transmitted the power of attorney received to represent CBF in the CAS arbitration. At the same time, the Second Respondent raised objections concerning the "lack ofjurisdiction of the CAS for the lack of an arbitration agreement", the "lack of an appealable decision in the sense of art. R47 of the CAS Code", the "lack of jurisdiction of the CAS for the lack of an arbitration agreement between the parties, since Internacional is not a party under the CBJD", or altematively, the lack of jurisdiction on sorne of the requests for relief submitted, the lack of the Appellant's standing to sue, and, with respect to the appeal under CAS 2017/A/4951, the lack of the CAS jurisdiction for the Appellant's failure to join E.C. Bahia in the arbitration. CBF, therefore, requested the Panel to issue a preliminary award on jurisdiction.

91. On 10 February 2017, the Appellant transmitted copy of the decision rendered by the STJD General Prosecutor on 6 February 2017, whereby the petition for "embargos de declaraçâo" filed in the STJD proceedings No. 71/2016 was dismissed (§ 64 above). The Appellant therefore confirmed that all internaI remedies had been exhausted before appealing to the CAS.

92. ln a letter of 13 February 2017, the AppeIlant confirmed its availability to withdraw the appeals filed against the Second Respondent and the Third Respondent, but reserved its position until after the review of the answers of the First Respondent and of the Second Respondent.

93. On 15 February 2017, the Third Respondent indicated that a bifurcation of the proceedings would be beneficial to aIl the parties. The same position was taken by the STJD General Prosecutor in a letter of even date.

94. On 17 February 2017, the First Respondent indicated, in a letter to the CAS Court Office, that it fully agreed and adhered to the Second Respondent' s request that the proceedings be bifurcated, and raised objections as to the CAS jurisdiction to hear the appeals. At the same time, it requested that the CAS proceedings be suspended pending resolution of the STJD proceedings No. 06/2017/ and 12/2017.

95. ln a letter of 17 February 2017, the AppeIlant requested that the requests for bifurcation be denied, in light of the urgency ofthe matter, and a hearing be set at an early date. , . . CAS 2017/A/4950 Internacional Y. Vit6ria, CBF, STlO & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 425/2016) Tribunal Arbi tral du SPQ!AS 2017/A/4951 InternacionaI Y. Vit6ria, CBF, STlO & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 71/2016) Court of Arbitration for Sport page 13

96. On 20 February 2017, the CAS Court Office informed the parties that the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division had decided to refer the issue of the bifurcation to the Panel.

97. On 27 February 2017, pursuant to Article R54 of the Code, the CAS Court Office, on behalf of the President of the Appeals Arbitration Division, informed the parties that the Panel appointed to hear the dispute between the parties was constituted as follows: Professor Luigi Fumagalli, President; Mr Rui Botica Santos and Mr Efraim Barak, Arbitrators.

98. On 6 March 2017, the parties were infonned by the CAS Court Office that the Panel had decided that the proceedings would not be bifurcated, that a hearing would be held and that at the hearing the parties would make preliminary submissions on jurisdiction and the Panel would decide whether to render a preliminary decision in this respect or to proceed with the merits of the case.

99. On 20 March 2017, the date of the hearing was eventually set for 4 April 2016.

100. On 27 March 2017, the First Respondent and the Second Respondent filed their respective answers to the appeals, pursuant to Article R55 of the Code. ln their answers, inter alia:

1. the First Respondent requested the Panel and/or its President: • to exclude from the file of the arbitration Exhibit A-28, containing the notarized printouts of the sequence of e-mail messages exchanged between CBF and Vit6ria, filed by CBF in the STJD proceedings No. 71/2016 and No. 425/2016 in order to prove their true content, contrary to the printouts previously filed by Intemacional in those proceedings; • to order the production by the STJD of the entire files of the STm proceedings No. 71/2016 and No. 42512016; ta hear the deposition at the hearing of Professor Wladimyr Vinycius de Moraes Camargos, as an expert on Brazilian sports law;

11. the Second Respondent requested the Panel: to order the Appellant to explain in detail how it had gained access to the confidential information contained in the printouts of the sequence of e-mail messages exchanged between CBF and Vit6ria it filed in the STJD proceedings No. 71/2016 and No. 42512016; • to exclude from the file of the arbitration the notarized printouts of such sequence of e-mails, as well the printouts previously filed by Intemacional in the STJD proceedings No. 71/2016 and No. 42512016.

101. On 28 March 2017, the CAS Court Office issued on behalf of the President of the Panel an order of procedure (the "Order of Procedure"), which was accepted and signed by Intemacional, Vitoria and CBF without substantive modifications.

102. On 29 March 2017, the Appellant noted, inter alia, the "hundreds, ifnat thousands, of pages" filed by Vitoria and CBF, the vast majority of which was in Portuguese, and submitted that it was "difficult ta avoid the inference that this was a deliberate and . . CAS 2017/N4950 lnternacional v. Vitoria, CBF, STJD & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 42512016) Tnbunal Arbitral du SpCtlAS 20 17/N4951 lntemacional v. Vitoria, CBF, STJD & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 71/2016) Court of Arbitration for Sport page 14

concerted effort to flood the Appellant with documentation at the very last moment, leaving if with no time to consider it and prepare for the hearing". It therefore requested the Panel to exclude from the record any document, and related submissions, in a language other than English.

103. On 30 March 2017, the Appellant requested that CBF be ordered to make Mr Buzzoni available to be heard at the hearing,

104. On 30 March 2017, Vitoria and CBF filed the translation of the untranslated documents attached to their answers to the appeals.

105. On31 March2017:

1. the Appellant indicated Mr Bemardo Morais Palmeiro as an expert to testify at the hearing with respect to the categorizations of loan transfers (as national or intemational) under the RSTP; ii. the First Respondent made reference to the ongoing investigation conducted as the STJD proceedings No. 12/2017, and to the finding of some experts as to the falsification of the printouts of a thread of email filed by the Appellant in the STJD proceedings No. 71/2016 and No. 425/2016, as mentioned in a press release of the STJD. As a result, it insisted that Exhibit A-28 to the appeal brief be excluded from the file of the arbitration.

106. On 3 April 2017, the CAS Court Office advised the parties, on behalf of the Panel, as follows: "1. The request to exclude A-28 ... R-29 will be discussed at the hearing, and the Panel reserves any evaluation with respect to the admissibility and relevance of such documents. 2. The Second Respondent's request that the Panel orders the Appellant to explain how if had access to confidential information will be discussed at the hearing. 3. The CBF is invited to make Mr Buzzoni available ta answeI' a phone call (ar to appear in a Skype/video) in the Brazilian morning of Tuesday in the event the Panel decides ta hear his declarations. The matter will befurther discussed at the hearing. 4. The First Respondent's request that the Panel orders STJD to produce the entire file of proceedings 71 and 425 is denied. 5. The status of Mr Palmeiro will befurther explained at the hearing".

107. On 3 April 2017, the Appellant submitted to CAS sorne documents relevant in the context of its submissions on jurisdiction.

108. On the same 3 April 2017, the Second Respondent infonned the Panel that Mr Buzzoni was not available to render declarations at the hearing, due to personal and professional impediments.

109. On 3 April 2017, the parties provided the CAS with an agreed proposed hearing schedule.

110. On 4 April 2017, a hearing was held in Lausanne. The Panel was assisted by Ml' . l' CAS 2017/A/4950 Internacional v. Vit6ria, CBF, STJD & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 425/2016) Tribuna Arbitral du Sp~AS 201 7/A/495 1 Internacional v. Vit6ria, CBF, STJD & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 71/2016) Court of Arbitration for Sport page 15

William Sternheimer, the Deputy Secretary General of CAS. The following persons attended the hearing for the parties:

1. for the Appellant: Mr Gustavo Juchem, Vice-President, Mr Ross Wenzel, Mr David Casserly, Mr Nicolas Zbinden and Mr Rogério Pastl, counsel, and Mr Diego Eidelvein do Canto, interpreter; Il. for the First Respondent: Mr Augusto Vasconcelos, Director of Legal Affairs, Ml' Bichara Abidâo Neto, Mr Stefano Malvestio and Mr Victor Eleuterio, counsel; iii. for the Second Respondent: Mr Lucas Ferrer, Ms Matilde Costa Dias, and Ml' Marc Cavaliero, counseL iv. nobody for the Third Respondent and/or for the Fourth Respondent.

111. At the opening of the hearing, both parties confinned that they had no objections to the appointment of the Panel. The Panel, then, addressed sorne procedural matters, deciding to admit into the file of the proceedings the documents lodged by the Appellant on 3 April 2017 and not to exclude the documents containing the printouts of the sequence of e-mail messages exchanged between CBF and Vitoria, filed by lnternacional and the CBF in the STJD proceedings No. 71/2016 and No. 425/2016.

112. After opening statements by counsel, the Panel heard declarations from Professor Camargos rendered on cross-examination by the Appellant. The parties, then, made submissions on the issues of jurisdiction and res judicata.

113. After a break, the Panel announced that it would consider in a specifie award, to be published shortly in its operative part, the issue of CAS jurisdiction and that, in the event this was found, specifie directions would be given for the continuation of the arbitration and the decision on all other matters. The hearing was therefore adjourned. The parties expressly stated that their right to be heard and to be treated equally in the proceedings had been fully respected.

114. On 6 April 2017, the operative part ofthis award was issued.

2.2 The Position of the Parties

115. The following outline of the parties' positions is illustrative only and is limited to the issue of the CAS jurisdiction: reference to the parties' position on any other matter, including the merits of the dispute, is made only in general terms. ln any case, the Panel has carefully considered all the submissions made by the parties, whether or not there is specifie reference to them in the following summary, to the extent they are relevant to the issue decided in this award.

a. The Position of the Appellant 116. ln its appeal briefthe Appellant requested the CAS to rule that: "1. The Appeal is admissible. . . CAS 20 17/A/4950 Intemacional v. Vit6ria, CBF, STJO & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 425/2016) Tri bunal Arbitral du Sp(:t!AS 2017/A/4951 lnternacional v. Vit6ria, CBF, STJD & STJO General Prosecutor (No. 71/2016) Court of Arbitration for Sport page 16

2. The decisions of the STJD General Prosecutor on 19December 2016 in respect of Infringement Notice No. 71/2016 and Infringement Notice No. 425/2016 be set aside. 3. EC Vitoria breached article 214 CBJD by including Victor Ramos in ifs team (or causing him ta be included on the match report or equivalent document) in matches in inter alia the 2016 Brazilian Serie A Championship. 4. For each match of the 2016 Serie A Brazilian Championship in which Victor Ramas was included in the EC Vitôria team (or match report or equivalent document), three points and any points actually earned by EC Vit6ria in the match in question shal! be deducted from ifs total number of points for the 2016 Brazilian Serie A Championship (i.e. 45). 5. SC Internacional is declared ta finish in 16/h position and above EC Vit6ria in the final standings for the 2016 Serie A Brazilian Championship. 6. CBF is ordered ta ensure the participation of sc Internacional in the Serie A Brazilian Championship and ta take al! measures which may be necessary ta that end.

7. ln the alternative to the relief requested at paragraphs 3 and 6 ab ove, the STJD General Prosecutor (or the office thereoj) and/or the STJD and/or the CBF be ordered ta take al! sucn actions as may be necessary tn order for the violation of art. 214 CBJD alleged in procedures No. 071/2016 and No. 425/2016 to be referred to, and adjudicated by, a Disciplinary Commission of the STJD. Within this context, SC Internacional also requests the CAS to direct that (i) the violation of art. 214 CBJD alleged in procedures No. 071/2016 and No. 425/2016 shal! be referred ta, and adjudicated by, a Disciplinary Commission of the ST JD, (ii) the relevant Disciplinary Commission shall be determined by draw by the President of the STJD (in accordance with article 78-A CBJD), (iii) the entire proceedings (including any subsequent decision of the Plenary Board of the STJD further to a decision of the Disciplinary Commission) must be completed within a maximum of sixty days (in accordance with article 217, para. 2 of the Brazilian Federal Constitution) and (iv) SC Internacional is admitted as a party to the proceedings (in accordance with article 55 CBJD). 8. Al! arbitration costs be borne by the Respondents. 9. The Respondents are ordered to paya significant contribution to the legal and other costs incurred by the Appel!ant in connection witb these CAS proceedings",

117. ln essence, the Appellant' s case is that the transfer of the Player pursuant to the Vit6ria Loan was international under the RTSP, since it was perfonned between clubs belonging to different associations. Consequently, such transfer had to be effected through the TMS: in fact, the use of TMS is mandatory for all international transfers and any registration of a player without the use of TMS is deemed invalid. As a result, Vit6ria, by fielding the Player in various competitions, including the Brasilierâo, breached Article 214 of the CBJD, and is therefore to be sanctioned with point deductions: Internacional, consequently, would not be relegated to the second division of the Brazilian national championship.

118. ln the Appellant's opinion, CAS has jurisdiction to hear its claims on the basis of · . CAS 20 17/AJ495 0 Internacional v. Vitoria, CBF, STJD & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 425/2016) Tri bunal Arbitral du SPQfÂs 2017/AJ4951 Internacional v. Vitoria, CBF, STlD & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 71/2016) Court of Arbitration for Sport page 17

Article 58.1 of the FIF A Statutes, "which forms an integral part of the CBF regulations and provides a right of appeal against final decisions passed by the CBF/ST JD". More specifically, the Appellant notes that CAS has already held (in the award rendered in CAS 2014/A/3474) that the FIFA Statutes form an integral part of the applicable national regulations in Brazil and therefore that Article 58.1 of the FIFA Statutes is directly applicable in Brazilian domestic disputes. Article 1.2 of the CBF Statutes, indeed, goes further than merely recognizing CAS in accordance with Article 59.1 of the FIF A Statutes, but requires all members of the CBF to comply with the Statutes and regulations of FIF A. Article 58.1 of the FIFA Statutes, therefore, provides for a clear arbitration clause in favour of CAS, applicable within the CBF system, in respect of final decisions.

119. On such basis, in the Appellant' s opinion, the basic questions to be asked in order to determine the existence of jurisdiction (whether there is an appealable "decision", whether the internal remedies have been exhausted, whether an arbitration agreement exists, whether it is included in the applicable regulations and whether it covers the dispute between the parties) have to be answered in the positive. The AppeUant in fact submits that:

1. it is undisputed that the decisions rendered by the STJD General Prosecutor on 19 December 2016 not to further proceed in the STJD proceedings No. 71/2016 and No. 425/2016 are not subject to any appeai within the Brazilian sporting system;

11. such decisions fall within the notion of an appealable "de cision" for the purposes of Article R47 of the Code as defined in CAS precedents, since they contain rulings that affect third parties, and because such notion includes decisions not to proceed;

111. an arbitration agreement exists and is included in the applicable and overriding regulations of FIF A, relevant aiso within the CBF context: the CBF rules not only make reference to the PIF A regulations, but do not exclude otherwise appeals to CAS;

IV. the decision of the STJD and/or of its General Prosecutor is a decision of the CBF; v. Article 316 of the CBJD is not inconsistent with the finding of a possibility to appeai to CAS, since it covers only decisions of "adjudicating bodies".

b. Tite Position of the Respondents

b.1 The Position ofthe First Respondent

120. ln its answer to the appeals, the Respondent requested the Panel to rule as follows:

"a) Dismiss al! the al!egations put f01111ard by Sport Club Internacional; b) Dismiss the present appeal and confirm in totum the despachos de arquivamento issued by the STJD General Prosecutor on 19 December 2016 in proceedings nr. 71/2016 and 425/2016; c) Subsidiarily, in the unlikely event the present appeals are accepted, refer the case back ta the STJD General Prosecutor, pursuant to article R57 of the CAS Cade; , . . CAS 201 7/A/495 0 Internacional v. Vit6ria, CBF, STJD & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 425/2016) 1nbunal Arbitral du SpCttÂs2017/A/4951 Internacional v. Vit6ria, CBF, STJD & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 7112016) Court of Arbitration for Sport page 18

d) ln any event, order Spart Club Internacional ta bear any and al! CAS administrative and procedural casts, which have already been incurred or may eventually be incurred in connectian with the present arbitration proceedings; and e) ln any event, grant Esparte Clube Vitoria a contribution towards ifs legal fees and other expenses incurred in connection with these praceedings, pursuant ta Article R64.5 of the CAS Code, in an amaunt ta be fixed by the Panel but in no event lower that CHF 35, 000 (thirty-five thousand Swiss Francs) pel' arbitration proceedings".

121. ln essence, the First Respondent submits that the appeals filed by Intemacional are without merits, both from a procedural and a substantive point of view. ln the First Respondent's opinion, CAS has no jurisdiction to hear the Appellant's claims, because there is no arbitration agreement between the parties, and the "despachos de arquivamento" are not actual "decisions" of the STJD, appealable under Article R47 of the Code. ln addition, the Appellant's c1aims are not admissible, because (a) the Appellant lacks standing ta sue, (b) the right of the STJD General Prosecutor to prosecute the alleged infringement is time-barred by prescription, (c) they are barred by l'esjudicata, and (d) specifie reasons pertaining to most of the individual c1aims make them inadmissible. Finally, the First Respondent submits that the appeals are unfounded on the merits, because the transfer contested by the Appellant is of a national dimension and therefore the Player was eligible ta play.

122. With regard to jurisdiction, more specifically, according ta the First Respondent essential requirements for the CAS jurisdiction ta exist are not satisfied:

i. there is no arbitration agreement binding the parties: the general obligation under Article 1.2 of the CBF Statutes to respect the statutes and regulations of FIF A does not ground the existence of an arbitration agreement for appeals against decisions of the STJD General Prosecutor. The award in CAS 2014/AJ3474 bears significant differences in comparison to the present case and is therefore of little relevance. ln CAS 2014/AJ3474, in fact, the CAS allowed an appeal against an effective decision taken by the decision-making body of STill (the Tribunal Pleno) and not against decisions not to proceed, which are expressions of STJD General Prosecutor's discretion not to accept the arguments put forward in an infringement notice and to refuse the filing of an indictment against the denounced party. ln addition, in CAS 2014/AJ3474 relevance was given to Article 136 § 1 of the CBJD: as a result, the exceptional possibility to appeal before CAS would exist only with respect ta the decisions of the Tribunal Pleno, considered in that provision of the CJBD to be subject to appeals in accordance with the Code or intemational regulations. No similar provision applies with respect to decisions rendered by STill General Prosecutor not to proceed on the basis of an infringement notice brought by a third party. Therefore, there is no arbitration agreement covering them; ii. the "despachos de arquivamento" cannot be considered appealable decisions under Article 47 of the Code. The decision of a prosecutor to proceed or not following an infringement notice brought by a third party under Article 74 of the CBJD is an exclusive prerogative to be exercised on the basis of the prosecutor's personal conviction. A party reporting an infringement has no right or standing to · . CAS 20 17/A/4950 lnternacional v. Vitoria, CBF, STJO & STJO General Prosecutor (No. 425/2016) Tribunal Arbi tral du SpQ!Âs2017/A/4951 lnternacional v. Vitoria, CBF, STJO & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 7112016) Court of Arbitration for Sport page 19

force the prosecutor to indict a person and CAS cannot substitute the personal determinations of the STJD General Prosecutor in putting together all elements to bring a case and prove it. Article 74 of the CBJD leaves no room for a revision of decisions of the STJD General Prosecutor. The pointis also confirmed by the fact that the subject filing the notice of infringement is not a party to the ensuing disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, the "despachos" me not appealable decisions and CAS has no jurisdiction.

b.2 The Position of the Second Respondent 123. ln its answer to the appeals, the Second Respondent requested the Panel to:

"1. Reject the appealfiled by the Spart Club Internacional; 2. Subsidiary, and only in the unlikely event that the Panel accepts the appeal filed by Spart Club Internacional, refer the case back to the ST JD General Prosecutor; 3. Order S. C. Internacional ta explain in detail how if gained access to the confidential documents referred ta in Section III-A; 4. Fix a minimum sum of 75,000 CHF ta be paid by the Appellant as a contribution to the Second Respondent's legal fees and costs. 5. Condemn the Appellant ta pay the entire amount of CAS administration and the Arbitrator fees".

124. ln other words, the Second Respondent primarily requests the dismissal of the appeals filed against the "despachos de arquivamento". ln support of such conclusion, the Second Respondent contends that there is no CAS jurisdiction to hear them, and in any case that they are not admissible for a number of reasons. ln addition, the are devoid of any merits.

125. The Second Respondent denies the CAS jurisdiction under several points ofview:

1. CAS lacks jurisdiction because there is no arbitration agreement between the parties covering the disputed matter, as required by the consensual basis of arbitration and by Article R47 of the Code: there is no arbitration agreement in favour of CAS to appeal against a "despacho de arquivamento" of the STJD General Prosecutor and a "despacha de arquivamento" is not an appealable decision under Article R47 of the Code. The award in CAS 2014/AJ3474 is irrelevant in the context of the present proceedings: the provision that was relevant in that case to ground the CAS jurisdiction (Article 136 of the CJBD) regards only decisions of the Tribunal Pleno and not resolutions of the STm General Prosecutor not ta proceed. The legal framework in connection with "despachos de arquivamento" is completely different and the rules do not provide for an appeal against those decisions. ln fact, the STJD General Prosecutor is not an adjudicating body and his/her decisions are excluded from appeals in accordance with Article 136 of the CBJD. ln addition, it is to be noted that whether or not to pursue an alleged disciplinary violation following a notice of infringement brought by a third party (under Article 74 of the CJBD) is a prerogative of the prosecutor, exercised according to hislher best judgment and discretion: unlike the ancient system, the CUITentversion of the CJBD does not require that all determinations of the prosecutor not to proceed need a · . CAS 20 17/A/4950 Internacional v. Vitoria, CBF, SIm & STJO General Prosecutor (No. 425/2016) Tribunal Arbitral du SPQfAs2017/A/4951 Internacional v. Vitoria, CBF, STJO & srrn General Prosecutor (No. 7112016) Court of Arbitration for Sport page 20

confirmation by a judge. This requirement is now contemplated by Article 78 of the CJBD only for infringements reported by a match referee or report - and Article 78 does not apply in the framework of Article 74 of the CJBD, as specifically confirmed by this rule; ii. CAS lacks jurisdiction because there is not an appealable decision pursuant ta Article R47 of the Code. ln fact, "despachas de arquivamento" represent an act of exercise of a power which intimately belongs ta the office of the prosecutor. The assessment of the prosecutor is discretionary and deference has ta be granted ta the exercise of such discretion, which takes place in a "pre-litigation" phase, where a "third party" reports certain facts to the attention of the prosecutor, but does not hold a right to enforce any claim that the infringement notice leads ta the opening of disciplinary proceedings or that a decision by an adjudicating body is rendered on the notice of infringement;

111. CAS lacks jurisdiction because there is no arbitration agreement between the parties, since the Appellant was not a party ta the proceedings which led ta the "despachas de arquivamento". Even assuming that "despachos de arquivamento" are appealable decisions pursuant ta Article R47 of the Code, the Appellant would not hold any right ta appeal because under the CBJD only the prosecutor and the indicted entity or individual are a party ta disciplinary proceedings. Actually, as noted in CAS 2014/A/3474, a "third party" in a case involving points deduction ta be imposed on a different club is not bound by the arbitration agreement relating ta the dispute regarding the disciplinary measure;

IV. CAS lacks jurisdiction ta rule on sorne of the reliefs requested by the Appellant, and more specifically on points 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 second part of the petition, since they go beyond the scope of the "des pachas de arquivamento" and were neither filed nor considered by the STJD General Prosecutor.

b.3 The Position of the Third Respondent 126. The Third Respondent did not file any answer ta the appeal pursuant ta Article R55 of the Code. ln a letter of 8 February 2017, however, the President of the STJD made reference ta CAS precedents (and chiefly ta CAS 2007/A/1370&1376) ta indicate that CAS has no jurisdiction ratione personae in respect of the STJD.

b.4 The Position of the Fourth Respondent 127. The Fourth Respondent did not lodge any answer ta the appeal pursuant ta Article R55 of the Code. On 8 February 2017, however, the STJD General Prosecutor noted that he (or his office) is "neither subject ta CASjurisdictian nor consented ta arbitrate",

3. LEGAL ANAL YSIS 3.1 Jurisdiction 128. The jurisdiction of the CAS invoked by the Appellant is disputed. On one hand, the Appellant alleges that the CBF and FIFA Statutes offer a sufficient basis for this Panel ta have jurisdiction ta hear the appeals lodged against the decisions ("des pachas de arquivamento") rendered by the STJD General Prosecutor on 19 December 2016; on the · . C1Js 201 7/A/495 0 Internacional v. Vitoria, CBF, STm & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 42512016) Tn bunal A rbi tral elL1 S PC{!As 2017/A/4951 Internacional v. Vitoria, CBF, STm & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 71/2016) Court of Arbitration for Sport page 21

other hand, the Respondents maintain that this Panel does not have jurisdiction to hear the claims brought by the Appellant.

129. It is undisputed that these arbitration proceedings have their seat in Lausanne, Switzerland (Article R28 of the Code), and involve non-Swiss (Brazilian) entities. ln the present case, therefore, the provisions of Chapter 12 of the Swiss Private International Law Act (hereinafter referred to as the "PIL") apply, pursuant to its Article 176 para. 1, as "the seat of the arbitral tribunal is in Switzerland and if at least one of the parties at the time the arbitration agreement was eoncluded was neither domieiled nor habitually resident in Switzerland",

130. ln accordance with Article 186 of the PIL, this Panel has the power to decide upon its own jurisdiction according to the rules that define it.

131. Article R27 of the Code provides in relevant part as follows: "These Procedural Rules apply whenever the parties have agreed ta refer a sports- related dispute ta CAS. Such referenee may arise out of an arbitration clause eontained in a eontraet or regulations or by reason of a later arbitration agreement (ordinary arbitration proceedings) or may involve an appeal against a deeision rendered by a federatian ... where the statutes or regulations of sueh bodies ... provide for an appeal ta CAS (appeal arbitratian proceedings)",

132. Under Article R47 of the Code, then: "An appeal against the decision of afederation, association or sports-related body may be filed with CAS if the statutes or regulatians of the said body sa provide or if the parties have cancluded a specifie arbitration agreement and if the Appellant has exhausted the legal remedies available ta it prior ta the appeal, in accordance with the statutes or regulations of that body".

133. As made clear by a consistent jurisprudence of CAS (inter alia CAS 2008/A/1513; CAS 2009/A/1919; CAS 2011/A/2436; CAS 2014/A/3775), based on the wording of Articles R27 and R47 of the Code, three conditions are necessary for the jurisdiction to exist: Ci) the parties must have agreed ta the jurisdiction of CAS, (ii) there must be a decision of a federation, association or another sports-related body, and (iii) the internal remedies available to the appellant must have been exhausted prior to an appeai ta the CAS.

134. As ta the first point, indeed, Articles R27 and R47 of the Code refer ta a basic aspect of arbitration: there can be no arbitration without consent, expressed in an arbitration agreement. As a result, in order ta start an arbitration at CAS, under the CAS rules, an arbitration agreement must provide for the CAS jurisdiction. Then, with specifie reference to disputes regarding decisions rendered by a sports-related body, Article R47 of the Code provides that there is consent to arbitrate if the parties have concluded a specifie arbitration agreement or if the statutes or regulations of that body contemplate a right of appeal to CAS (see aiso CAS 2008/A/1602; CAS 2009/1910; and CAS 2013/A/3199).

135. ln this case, it is undisputed that no specifie arbitration agreement has been concluded between the parties, granting the CAS the jurisdiction to settle the dispute regarding the decisions ("despachas de arquivamenta") rendered by the STJD General Prosecutor on · . CAS 2017/A/4950 Internacional v. Vit6ria, CBF, srm & STJO General Prosecutor (No. 425/2016) Tnbunal Arbitral du SPQfAs2017/A/4951 lnternacional v. Vitoria, CBF, srro & srro General Prosecutor (No. 7112016) Court of Arbitration for Sport page 22

19 December 2016. ln fact, the Appellant's submissions, developed in order to find a jurisdictional basis for this CAS Panel, within the meaning of Article R47 of the Code, to hear the appeals it filed, are based on provisions set in the Statutes of CBF and FIFA.

136. More specifically, the Appellant invokes Articles 57 to 59 of the FIFA Statutes (in the text in force as of 27 April 2016) and Article 1 § 2 of the CBF Statutes in support of a finding of CAS jurisdiction. Those provisions read as follows: AItic1e 57 of the FIFA Statutes "1. FIFA recognises the independent Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) with headquarters in Lausanne (Switzerland) to resolve disputes between FIF A, member associations, confederations, leagues, clubs, players, officials, intermediaries and licensed match agents. 2. The provisions of the CAS Code of Sports-Related Arbitration shall apply ta the proceedings. CAS shall primarily apply the varia us regulations of FIF A and, additionally, Swiss law". Article 58 of the FIFA Statutes "1. Appeals against final decisions passed by FIFA 's legal bodies and against decisions passed by confederations, member associations or leagues shall be lodged with CAS within 21 days of notification of the decision in question. 2. Recourse may only be made to CAS after all other internaI channels have been exhausted. 3. CAS, however, does not deal with appeals arisingfrom: (a) violations of the Laws of the Game; (b) suspensions of up ta four matches or up to three months (with the exception of doping decisions); (c) decisions against which an appeal to an independent and duly constituted arbitration tribunal recognised under the ru les of an Association or Confederation may be made. 4. The appeal shall not have a suspensive effect. The appropriate FIF A body or, alternative/y, CAS may order the appeal to have a suspensive effect. 5. FIF A is entitled ta appeal to CAS against any internally final and binding doping- related decision passed in particular by the confederations, member associations or leagues in accordance with the provisions set out in the FIF A Anti-Doping Regulations. 6. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is entitled to appeal to CAS against any internally final and binding doping-related decision passed in particular by FIFA, the confederations, member associations or leagues in accordance witn the provisions set out in the FIFA Anti-Doping Regulations". Article 59 of the FIFA Statutes "1. The confederations, member associations and leagues shall agree to recognise CAS as an independent judicial authority and to ensure that their members, affiliated players and officiaIs compl y witn the decisions passed by CAS. The same obligation shall apply to intermediaries and licensed match agents. .· b l A .bi . 1 d S Cf..S 20 17/A/495 0 Intemacional v. Vitoria, CBF, STJD & STJD General Prosecutor (No, 425/2016) TIl una 1 1tr a U PQ3As 20 17/A/495 1 Intemacional v. Vitoria, CBF, STJD & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 71/2016) Court of Arbitration for Sport page 23

2. Recourse to ordinary courts of law is prohibited unless specifical!y provided for in the FIF A regulations. Recourse to ordinary courts of law for al! types of provisional measures is also prohibited. 3. The associations shall insert a clause in their statutes or regulations, stipulating that if is prohibited to take disputes in the association or disputes affecting leagues, members of leagues, clubs, members of clubs, players, officials and other association officials to ordinary courts of law, unless the FIF A regulations or binding legal provisions specifically provide for or stipulate recourse to ordinary courts of law. Instead of recourse to ordinary courts of law, provision shall be made for arbitration. Such disputes shall be taken to an independent and duly constituted arbitration tribunal recognised under the ru/es of the Association or Confederation or to CAS. The associations shall also ensure that this stipulation is implemented in the association, if necessary by imposing a binding obligation on ifs members. The associations shall impose sanctions on any party that fails to respect this obligation and ensure that any appeal against such sanctions shall likewise be strictly submitted to arbitration, and not to ordinary courts of law". Article 1 § 2 of the CBF Statutesr' "AlI members, organs and parties of the CBp, as well as clubs, athletes, referees, coaches, doctors and other leaders belonging ta clubs or leagues of the affiliated federations shall eomply and enforee in Brazil the statu tes, regulations, directives, decisions and the Code of Ethics of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association - FIFA and of the South Ameriean Football Confederation- CONMEBOL".

137. As a result, in order to find CAS jurisdiction in this case, a main question needs to be answered in a positive way: whether an arbitration clause referring to CAS disputes between the parties regarding the decisions ("despachos de arquivamento") rendered by the STJD General Prosecutor on 19 December 2016 can be read in the mentioned rules of the CBF and FIFA Statutes.

138. Preliminarily, the Panel notes that the CAS jurisdiction is disputed ratio ne personae by the Third Respondent and the Fourth Respondent.

139. With respect to the STJD, this Panel coneurs with the findings of the CAS Panel that rendered the award in CAS 2007/Al1370&1376, and notes that the STJD is a justice body which is an integral part of the organisational structure of the CBF, with no legal personality of its own: its independence and autonomy in adjudicating the disputes brought before it does not entail that the STJD is a body which could legally stand alone if the CBF did not exist. The same reasoning applies, in this Panel's opinion, to the STJD General Prosecutor: his office is an integral part of the organisational structure of the CBF, with no independent legal personality. Accordingly, this Panel is of the view that the "despachos de arquivamento", although independently adopted by the STJD

The translation in the text has been submitted by the Appellant and has remained undisputed, Such provision reads in its original text as follows: "Todos os membros, ôrgàos e integrantes da CBF, assim coma clubes, atletas, arbitras, treinadores, médicos e outras dirigentes pertencentes a clubes ou ligas das federaçôes flliadas devem observar e fazer cumprir no Brasil os Estatutos, regulamentos, diretrizes, decisôes e 0 Côdigo de Ética da Fédération Internationale de Football Association - FIFA e da Confederaciôn Sudamericana de Futbol= CONMEBOL". · . . CAS 2017/A/4950 Internacional Y. Vit6ria, CBF, STJD & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 42512016) Tnbunal Arbitral du SPQ!Âs2017/A/4951 Internacional Y. Vit6ria, CBF, STJD & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 71/2016) Court of Arbitration for Sport page 24

General Prosecutor, must be imputed to the CBF.

140. On such basis, the Panel finds that the STJD and the STJD General Prosecutor cannot be considered as respondents on their own in a CAS appeal arbitration conceming their rulings: the procedural position of the STJD and of the STJD General Prosecutor before the CAS must be encompassed within that of the CBF. Therefore, the Panel holds that the CAS does not have jurisdiction ratianae persanae on the STJD and/or the STJD General Prosecutor.

141. As a result, the mentioned question is whether there is an arbitration clause binding Intemacional, Vitoria and CBF (to which the decisions of the STJD and of the STJD General Prosecutor must be imputed), applicable to the decisions ("despachas de arquivamento") rendered by the STJD General Prosecutor on 19 December 2016.

142. The perspective offered by the Appellant refers to the combined effects of the CBF and FIFA rules and takes the form of a SOli of syllogism: the rules of CBF impose on its members the obligation to comply with, and enforce, the rules of FIFA; the rules of FIFA provide for appeals to CAS against decisions passed by its member associations (and CBF is one ofthem); ergo the rules of CBF provide for appeals to CAS against its own decisions. ln other words, the "arbitration clause" mentioned in Article R47 of the Code would be found in the FIFA Statutes and would bind CBF (and its affiliates) as a result of the reference ta the FIFA rules contained in the CBF Statutes, which incorporated the FIFA rules in the domestic system.

143. The Panel notes that the possibility to find the CAS jurisdiction on the basis of the existence in the rules of a national football federation of an overall reference to the PIFA rules, which in tum recognize the CAS as a body of appeal, has been widely discussed in the CAS case law, and considered also by the Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT).

144. ln such context a key distinction has been drawn between appeals ta CAS in doping- related matters and appeals in any other matter.

145. With respect to non doping-related matters, a landmark decision has been rendered by a CAS Panel in CAS 2005/A/952. ln such award, the Panel held that the FIFA Statutes do not contain any mandatory provision that obliges a national federation or a league ta allow a right of appeal from its decisions: the pertinent articles of the FIFA Statutes cannat be interpreted as providing for such a mandatory right of appeal. Moreover, the Panel remarked that the CAS jurisprudence suggests that if the FIFA Statutes did compel the national federation or the league to provide for a right of appeal from its decisions, no right of appeal to the CAS would exist until the national federation or the league had made provision for this right in its statutes or regulations. ln this respect, indeed, another CAS Panel (in CAS 2004/A/676) held that the FIFA rules do not constitute pel' se a basis for arbitration: instead, they constitute an instruction to introduce a regulation providing for CAS arbitration. Such principle is well settled in the CAS jurisprudence: see CAS 2010/A/2170 & 2171; CAS 2011/A/2483.

146. With respect to doping-related matters, on the other hand, it was noted that the FIFA Statutes expressly grant a right to FIFA (and WADA) (Article 58 para. 5 and 6) ta file an appeal with CAS against decisions rendered, inter alia, by national federations. As a · .. CAS 2017/N4950 lnternacional v. Vitoria, CBF, STJD & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 425/2016) Tnbunal Arbitral du Sp~AS 2017/N495! Internacional v. Vitoria, CBF, STJD & STJD General Prosecutor (No.7l/2016) Court of Arbitration for Sport page 25

result, the SFT held, in its decision of 9 January 2009, 4A_460/2008, confirming the award in CAS 2007/A/1370 & 1376, that "a general reference ta FIFA rules and thus ta the appeal rights of FIFA and WADA contained in the FIFA Statutes is sufficient ta establish jurisdiction of CAS pursuant ta R47 the CAS Code" in a case concerning an appeal brought by PIFA and WADA against a decision rendered by a national federation against a player bound by the FIFA rules through his membership of the national federation.

147. This line of reasoning was followed in the CAS case law: for instance, in CAS 2009/A/1910, the Panel on one hand underlined that, "in accordance with consistent CAS jurisprudence on this issue, tn the Panel 's view Article 63 [now Article 58] para. 1 of the current FIF A Statutes does not by itself grant jurisdiction to CAS with respect to decisions passed by confederations, members or leagues (see e.g., CAS 2008/A/1656, CAS 2005/A/952, CAS 2004/A/676, CAS 2002/0/422). Indeed, the mere provision that FIFA 'recognises' the CAS is not sufficient in itself for a CAS panel ta claim jurisdiction over decisions issued by organizations other than FIF A (such as, in particular, national federations)"; and at the same time confirmed, that "in contrast, the clear provisions ofparas. 5 and 6 of Article 63 [now Article 58] of the FIFA Statutes, stating that FIFA and WADA, respectively, are 'entitled ta appeal ta CAS against any internally final and binding doping-related decision passed by the Confederations, Members or Leagues ' allow a CAS Panel to claim jurisdiction with respect to a national federation 's decision on a doping matter through the express reference made bya national federation's statutes to FIFA Statutes (see CAS 2007/A/1370 & 1376 FIFA & WADA v/ Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva do Futebol & Confederaçâo Brasileira de FuteboZ & Mr Ricarda Lucas Dodô, and the Swiss Federal Court's judgment of 9 January 2009, 4A _460/2008, confirming the jurisdiction of CAS in such a case)".

148. As a result, in a case such as the present one, which does not relate to doping issues, a right of appeal to the CAS exists only if the national federation makes provisions for this right in its statutes or regulations: the rules set by the FIFA Statutes are not, by themselves, sufficient to ground the CAS jurisdiction to hear appeals brought against decisions passed by national federations. The focus of the analysis, therefore, is on the domestic, not on the international, rules, ln other words, an appeal to CAS against the "despachos de arquivamento" rendered by the STJD General Prosecutor on 19 December 2016 is possible only to the extent it is allowed by the CBF rules,

149. The Panel acknowledges the reasoning in CAS 2014/A/3474, which noted that, with Article 1 § 2 of the CBF Statutes, the CBF went further than merely recognizing CAS in accordance with Article 68.1 (now Article 59.1) of the FIFA Statutes, but required aIl members of the CBF to comply with the statutes and regulations of FIFA. It therefore concluded that the FIFA Statutes, including Article 67.1 (now Article 58.1), forrn an integral part of the regulations of the CBF. As a result, according to the Panel in CAS 2014/A/3474, the direct implementation of the FIFA Statutes into the applicable regulations of the CBF would create a legal basis for an appellant to rely on Article 67.1 (now Article 58.1) of the FIFA Statutes to challenge before CAS decisions rendered by the CBF.

150. The Panel expresses no view on whether the principles stated in CAS 2014/A/3474 are to be confirmed in the present case. The Panel, in fact, notes that an important elernent T .ib 1 .bitr Cf\S 201 7/N495 0 Internacional v. Vitoria, CBF, STJD & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 425/2016) Il una Al itr al du SpQ!AS 20 17/N4951 Intemacional v. Vitoria, CBF, STJD & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 71/2016) Court of Arbitration for Sport page 26

marks a decisive distinction between the case heard in CAS 2014/AJ3474 and the CUITentone, Such element is linked to the role played by Article 136 § 1 of the CBJD in the implementation within the CBF system of the FIF A rules on appeals to CAS, On its basis, the Panel notes that the CBF did not provide for appeals to CAS against al! its own decisions,

151. Article 136 of the CBJD so provides:

"From the decisions of the adjudicating bodies an appeal may be lodged in the hypothesis provided for in this Code. § 1 The decisions of the STJD's Pleno are not appealable, unless otherwise provided in this Code or in the specifie international regulations of the modality".

152. By such provision, the CBJD allowed appeals against decisions rendered by the STJD Pleno, if provided by the intemational regulations. And in CAS 2014/AJ3474 it was understood that such intemational regulations are the FIF A rules, made applicable in the CBF system through Article 1.2 of the CBF Statutes. ln other words, according to the CBF rules, only decisions of the STJD Pleno would fall within the scope of the arbitration clause inserted in the CBF system by reference to the FIF A Statutes. Since Article 136 § 1 of the CBJD do es not pro vide for appeals according to the intemational regulations against the decisions taken by the STJD General Prosecutor pursuant to Article 74 of the CBJD, no appeal to CAS can be lodged against them. Therefore, the principle stated in CAS 2014/A/3474, even if confirmed and followed in the present proceedings, would be of no assistance to the Appellant. With respect to the "despachos de arquivamento", even if the rules of CBF impose on its members the obligation to comply with, and enforce, the rules of FIF A, and the rules of FIF A provide for appeals to CAS against decisions passed by its member associations (including CBF), it is not possible to conclude, along the mentioned syllogism, that the rules of CBF provide for appeals to CAS also against "despachos de arquivamento", because Article 136 § 1 contemplates appeals only against decisions of the STJD Pleno.

153. The Panel in that regard notes that:

1. Article 136 § 1 provides for an exception to the exclusion of appeals only with respect to the decisions of the STJD Pleno and not with respect to the decisions of other bodies;

11. an appeal may be lodged under the CBJD (if the case according to the specifie intemational regulations) only against decisions rendered by "adjudicating bodies". As made clear by Article 3 of the CBJD, judicial body under the CBJD are only the STJD, the regional TJD and the disciplinary committees established by them, not the STJD General Prosecutor (or his/her office);

lll. appeals against decisions rendered by the STJD General Prosecutor with respect to infringement notices brought by any interested party pursuant to Article 74 of the CBJD are not contemplated by any other provisions of the CBJD, which, on the contrary, exclude them from any review before intemal judicial bodies;

IV. in CAS 2014/AJ3629, a CAS Panel confirmed that until an arbitration clause is inserted in the statutes of the national federation, there is no CAS jurisdiction, and found it decisive that the intemal rules defined the intemal decision to settle the dispute "definitely", i.e., without any further appeal. . . CAS 20171N4950 Internacional v. Vit6ria, CBF, STJD & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 425/2016) Tnbunal Arbitral du SpCUAS 20171N4951 Internacional v. Vit6ria, CBF, STJO & STJO General Prosecutor (No. 7112016) Court of Arbitration for Sport page 27

v. according to jurisprudence based on the award in CAS 2005/A/952 (§ 145 above), that this Panel endorses, it is not possible to directly ground on the FIFA mies the CAS jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the "despachos de arquivamento", in the absence of provisions made by the national federation for this right in its statutes or regulations.

154. ln summary, even assuming that the CBF rules allow for an appeal to CAS, as stated in CAS 2014/A/3474, this possibility is restricted by the same CBF rules to the decisions of the STJD Pleno, and does not extend to decisions, such as the "despachos de arquivamento", rendered by the STJD General Prosecutor pursuant to Article 74 of the CBJD.

155. As a result, the Panel finds that no arbitration clause referring to CAS binds the parties with respect to the decisions taken by the STJD General Prosecutor in accordance with Article 74 of the CJBD. ln the absence of a provision in the statutes or regulations of the Second Respondent contemplating a right of appeal to CAS or of a specifie arbitration agreement concluded to that effect by the Parties, the CAS has no jurisdiction on the claims brought by the Appellant against the Respondents in these proceedings.

3.2 Conclusion

156. Based on the foregoing, the Panel finds that there is no CAS jurisdiction on the claims brought in these arbitrations by the Appellant against the Respondents. As a result, the appeal has to be dismissed.

4. COSTS

157. Article R64.4 of the Code provides:

"At the end of the proceedings, the CAS Court Office shall determine the final amount of the cost of arbitration, which shall include: the CAS Court Office fee, the administrative costs of the CAS calculated in accordance with the CAS scale, the costs andfees of the arbitrators, the fees of the ad hoc clerk, if any, calculated in accordance with the CAS fee scale, a contribution towards the expenses of the CAS, and the costs of witnesses, experts and interpreters. The final account of the arbitration costs may either be included in the award or communicated separately to the parties".

158. Article R64.5 of the Code provides:

"ln the arbitral award, the Panel shall determine which party shall bear the arbitration costs or in which proportion the parties shall share them. As a general rule, the Panel has discretion to grant the prevailing party a contribution towards ils legal fees and expenses incurred ln connection with the proceedings and, in particular, the costs of · . CAS 2017/ A/4950 Internacional Y. Vitoria, CBF, STJD & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 425/2016) Tnbunal Arbitral du SpCtlAs 201 7/A/495 1 Intemacional Y. Vitoria, CBF, STJD & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 71/2016) Court of Arbitration for Sport page 28

witnesses and interpreters. When granting such contribution, the Panel shaZ!take into account the outcome of the proceedings, as well as the conduct and the financial resources of the parties".

159. ln light of the foregoing, the Panel is of the view, having taken into account the outcome of the arbitration and in the light of all the circumstances and of the financial resources of the Parties, that the Appellant shall bear the costs of the arbitration, as determined by the CAS Court Office at the end of the proceedings. At the same time, taking into consideration the complexity of the martel', the expeditious manner in which these proceedings were held, the lengthy submissions and the fact that the Parties convened in Lausanne for a hearing, the Panel holds that the Appellant shall pay an amount of CHF 12,000 (twelve thousand Swiss Francs) to the First Respondent and an amount of CHF 8,000 (eight thousand Swiss Francs) to the Second Respondent as a contribution towards the costs, for legal fees and other expenses, that they have incurred with respect to these arbitration proceedings. · . CAS 20 17/N4950 Internacional v. Vitoria, CBF, STJD & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 425/20[6) Tribunal Arbitral du SpQ3As2017/N4951 Internacional v. Vitoria, CBF, STJD & STJD General Prosecutor (No. 7 lI201 6) Court of Arbitration for Sport page 29

ON THESE GROUNDS

The Court of Arbitration for Sport rules that:

1. CAS has no jurisdiction ta hear the appeals from Sport Club Internacional against the "despacho de arquivamento" No. 425/2016 and the "despacho de arquivamento" No. 7112016 both issued on 19 December 2016 by the STJD General Prosecutor.

2. The costs of the arbitrations, to be determined and served to the parties by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by Sport Club Internacional.

3. Sport Club Internacional shall pay to Esporte C1ube Vitoria da Bahia an amount of CHF 12'000 and to Confederaçâo Brasileira de Futebol (CBF) an amount of CHF 8'000 towards their respective legal costs and expenses incurred in connection with the present proceedings.

4. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça Desportiva de Futebol (STJD) and the STJD General Prosecutor shaIl bear their own legal costs and expenses incurred in connection with the present proceedings.

Seat of arbitration: Lausanne, Switzerland Date: 5 May 20172017 Operative part issued on 6 April 2017

THE COURT OF ARBITRA TI ON FOR SPORT

Luigi Fumagalli President of the Panel