The case revolves around a dispute between Aris Football Club (Aris FC) and its former coach, Dusan Bajevic, concerning the termination of his employment contract. The contract, signed on 18 September 2007, stipulated a two-season term with a possible extension and a salary of EUR 400,000 per season. On 1 July 2008, Bajevic announced his resignation during a press conference, prompting the club to terminate the contract the following day. Both parties filed claims with the Hellenic Football Federation's Financial Disputes Resolution Committee (FDRC). The initial FDRC ruling found that the club had just cause for termination but ordered it to pay Bajevic EUR 80,000 plus interest. Both parties appealed, and the second instance FDRC upheld the decision.
Aris FC subsequently appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking EUR 1,000,000 in compensation for material and moral damages, arguing that Bajevic breached the contract without just cause. The club also contested the EUR 80,000 awarded to Bajevic, claiming only EUR 37,518.05 was due. Bajevic, in response, requested the dismissal of the club's claims and reaffirmed his entitlement to the EUR 80,000.
The CAS panel, led by Sole Arbitrator Luc Argand, analyzed the case under Greek law. It found that Aris FC failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the exact amount of damages claimed, as vague and hypothetical arguments could not establish a causal link between the alleged breach and the damages. The panel also noted that a breach of contract does not constitute an "unlawful act" under Greek law, as contractual obligations are governed by specific provisions rather than tort law. Additionally, the club did not substantiate its claim for defamatory statements, as it did not demonstrate how Bajevic's public remarks harmed its future.
The CAS upheld the FDRC's decision, confirming that the club terminated the contract with just cause but was obligated to pay Bajevic the EUR 80,000 as previously determined. The panel rejected Aris FC's claims for additional compensation, emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence to support its demands. The ruling reinforced the principle that claims for damages must be substantiated with precise proof under Greek law.
The case also involved procedural aspects, such as the appointment of arbitrators and the submission of legal opinions. A hearing took place in Lausanne on 2 July 2009, and the arbitrator sought a legal opinion from a Greek lawyer, George Marmaridis, to address issues raised in the case. The expert provided his legal opinion on 24 November 2009, and both parties submitted written comments by the end of December 2009. The jurisdiction of the CAS was confirmed by both parties, and the applicable law was determined to be Greek law.
The merits of the case centered on the termination of the agreement between Aris FC and Bajevic. Under Greek law, a fixed-term contract can be terminated unilaterally with "just cause," leading to immediate dissolution. The expert clarified that Greek law does not enumerate specific just causes but relies on an abstract legal notion. The arbitrator concluded that the validity of the termination hinged on whether just cause existed.
Regarding Bajevic's resignation, the arbitrator found that while the club president's intervention in team selection was inappropriate, it did not constitute just cause for immediate resignation. Bajevic's abrupt departure was deemed a denial of his contractual obligations, making his resignation invalid. Conversely, the club's termination on 2 July 2008 was upheld as valid, as Bajevic's refusal to work rendered the contract intolerable, particularly with the new season approaching.
The club sought EUR 600,000 in compensation for material damage and lost profits, arguing that Bajevic's departure forced them to hire a less successful replacement, leading to financial losses. However, the arbitrator found the claims insufficiently substantiated, as Greek law requires precise proof of damages. The club's arguments, such as the new coach's inferior performance and speculative UEFA Cup losses, did not convincingly support the claimed amount.
The club also sought EUR 400,000 for moral damage, arguing the breach itself constituted an unlawful act. The arbitrator rejected this claim, noting that a breach of contract does not automatically qualify as an unlawful act unless it violates specific