The case revolves around a contractual dispute between Slovenian football player E. and the Turkish club Diyarbakirspor, adjudicated by FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) and later appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The conflict arose from the termination of the player's contract, signed in February 2006, which stipulated a total payment of €500,000, including an initial €133,000 due by February 28, 2006. The club failed to meet this obligation, prompting the player to issue reminders and eventually terminate the contract unilaterally on April 30, 2006, citing non-payment as just cause. The player filed a claim with FIFA's DRC for €415,955 in unpaid salaries and bonuses, while the club countered, arguing the contract had automatically terminated due to relegation and sought €100,000 in damages for the player's departure.
The DRC rejected the player's claim, ruling the termination unjustified due to partial payments by the club, and ordered the player to pay €17,167 to the club. The player appealed to CAS, which reviewed the case under FIFA regulations and Swiss law. CAS determined that the player had just cause to terminate the contract, as the club's persistent non-payment of significant amounts (€193,040) breached the agreement. The arbitrator referenced Swiss employment law, which permits termination for substantial breaches, and FIFA regulations, which allow termination without penalties if just cause exists. The CAS also considered the contract's relegation clause, which limited the player's entitlement to €166,666, and calculated the owed amount after deducting payments already made by the club.
The final CAS award, issued on August 29, 2008, partially upheld the player's appeal, annulling the DRC's decision and ordering the club to pay €84,003, divided into €50,337 with 5% interest from March 6, 2006, and €33,666 with 5% interest from April 17, 2006. The ruling emphasized the importance of contractual adherence and the principle of full compensation for breaches under Swiss law. It highlighted the player's right to terminate the contract due to the club's failure to meet financial obligations and clarified the legal consequences of such termination, including the club's liability for damages. The case underscores the role of CAS in resolving sports-related disputes and enforcing contractual obligations fairly.