The case involves a dispute between Slovakian football player Juraj Czinege and Turkish football club Elazigspor Kulubu, which was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The conflict stemmed from an employment contract signed in January 2004, valid until May 2005. The club accused Czinege of leaving without permission in May 2005, causing them to lose a match, and sought EUR 50,000 in compensation. Czinege countered that the club had failed to meet payment obligations under a prior settlement agreement from February 2005, which stipulated four installments totaling EUR 37,500, with a late payment interest rate of 0.01% per day. He claimed only the first installment was paid, justifying his departure. The club admitted a delay in the second installment but asserted it had paid the remaining amounts, presenting receipts as evidence. Czinege disputed these, citing discrepancies in currency and amounts.
FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) found the club had paid EUR 19,000 and Turkish Lira 1,000 (approximately EUR 390 less than agreed). The DRC ruled both parties shared responsibility for the contractual breakdown: the club for failing to adhere to the payment schedule and Czinege for leaving without proven permission. The DRC dismissed both the club’s compensation claim, due to insufficient evidence linking Czinege’s absence to the match loss, and Czinege’s counterclaim.
CAS upheld the DRC’s decision, emphasizing the club’s obligation to fulfill payment terms unless Czinege was in material breach. The contractual default interest rate was deemed valid, and the tribunal found no grounds to overturn the DRC’s ruling. Czinege later appealed to CAS, seeking annulment of the DRC’s rejection of his counterclaim and demanding EUR 30,000 plus interest and legal fees. The club failed to submit a formal response, and its position was inferred from a letter claiming Czinege had received EUR 20,000 and forfeited the final installment by leaving.
The CAS Sole Arbitrator found the appeal admissible and proceeded based on written submissions. Jurisdiction was established under FIFA’s statutes and the CAS Code, with applicable law being FIFA’s rules supplemented by Swiss law. The dispute centered on the February 2005 agreement, under which Czinege was entitled to EUR 37,500 in installments. While the first installment was paid, the fourth remained unpaid, and the parties disputed whether the second and third installments had been paid. The Sole Arbitrator found insufficient evidence to support the club’s claim that Czinege breached the agreement or that it had lapsed. The club was ordered to pay the outstanding EUR 10,000, as its notarized statements were deemed inadequate proof of payment.
Regarding the second and third installments (EUR 20,000), Czinege claimed non-payment, while the club argued partial payment was made in EUR 19,000 and Turkish Lira 1,000. The Sole Arbitrator found the club’s receipts unreliable due to lack of translation and discrepancies in signatures, ruling the club had not proven payment. Consequently, the club was ordered to pay the full EUR 30,000 (outstanding installments) plus the agreed 0.01% daily interest from respective due dates. The CAS annulled part of the DRC’s decision, fully rejecting the club’s counterclaim and ordering payment within 30 days. The case highlights the importance of contractual adherence and clear evidence in resolving football employment disputes.