The case involves a dispute between football player Leonid Kovel, FC Karpaty, and FIFA, centered around the validity of a second employment contract and the alleged forgery of Kovel's signature. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued its award on 15 October 2009, addressing key legal principles and the specific facts of the case. The panel ruled on the applicability of Swiss law, the burden of proof, and the legality of unilateral options in loan agreements, clarifying that Swiss law applies only where FIFA regulations leave gaps. The burden of proof follows general civil rules, requiring parties to substantiate their claims with evidence.
Kovel, initially registered with FC Dynamo Minsk, was loaned to FC Karpaty under a 2007 agreement that included a buyout option. FC Karpaty exercised this option in November 2007, paying $430,000 to Dynamo Minsk, and claimed to have signed a second employment contract with Kovel effective from January 2008. Kovel denied signing this contract, alleging forgery, and instead joined FC Saturn in January 2008. FC Karpaty filed a claim with FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which ruled in their favor, citing a Ukrainian forensic report confirming Kovel's signature and noting his failure to challenge the report or provide evidence of forgery.
Kovel appealed to the CAS, which upheld the DRC's decision. The CAS found no evidence to support Kovel's forgery claim and concluded that his conduct—signing with FC Saturn while under an existing agreement with FC Karpaty—constituted unlawful termination of the latter contract. The CAS affirmed the validity of the buyout option and the subsequent employment contract, reinforcing the principle that players cannot unilaterally disregard valid agreements. The Panel also addressed the legality of unilateral options in loan agreements, concluding they are permissible if the player consents to the subsequent employment contract.
During the proceedings, Kovel raised several preliminary issues, including a request to withdraw his appeal against FIFA and a demand for disclosure of original contract documents. The CAS Panel rejected these requests, stating Kovel had ample opportunity to commission an expert report earlier. Kovel later attempted to introduce a new expert report days before the hearing, arguing he signed the contract unknowingly, but the Panel dismissed this request due to procedural rules prohibiting late evidence submissions.
The CAS ruled that Kovel’s appeal against the DRC decision was partially upheld, affirming the validity of the initial contract with FC Karpaty and declaring its unlawful termination by Kovel. However, the Panel deferred the determination of the consequences of this termination to the FIFA DRC in a subsequent proceeding, as the parties did not provide sufficient information for the Panel to rule on this aspect. The case underscores the importance of contractual obligations in football and the need for players and clubs to adhere to agreed terms, as well as the CAS's role in resolving disputes based on evidence and established legal principles. The ruling serves as a precedent for similar cases involving loan agreements, transfer options, and allegations of contract forgery.