The case revolves around a contractual dispute between the Lithuanian football club Association Kauno futbolo ir beisbolo klubas (FBK Kaunas) and Moldovan professional football player Iurii Priganiuk. The parties signed a three-year employment contract in December 2005, stipulating a monthly salary of EUR 15,000. However, the Player never trained or played for the club, alleging that the Appellant failed to provide necessary documentation for his legal entry into Lithuania, including a formal invitation for a visa. The club countered that no such invitation was required for Moldovan nationals and accused the Player of breaching the contract by not reporting for duty and signing contracts with other clubs.
The Player sought compensation of EUR 540,000 from FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), representing unpaid salaries for the contract’s duration. The DRC ruled in favor of the Player but awarded a reduced amount of EUR 200,000. The club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the compensation assessment was flawed. The CAS panel examined the case under Swiss law, which governed the employment contract, and FIFA regulations. Key legal principles included the employer’s obligation to secure work permits or visas, the limited grounds for terminating fixed-term contracts, and the principle of ne iudex eat ultra petita, which limits the panel’s authority to the relief requested by the parties.
The CAS found that the club’s failure to facilitate the Player’s entry into Lithuania constituted a breach of contract, entitling the Player to compensation. The panel noted discrepancies in the club’s arguments, including conflicting information about visa requirements and its prior issuance of an invitation letter for another Moldovan player. The club’s lack of effort to resolve the issue or maintain communication further weakened its case. The Player, meanwhile, demonstrated proactive efforts to resolve the matter, including traveling to meet with the club. The panel concluded that the club’s conduct indicated it never intended to honor the contract, justifying the Player’s consideration of the contract as terminated.
The panel upheld the DRC’s decision to award EUR 200,000, though it questioned the arbitrary reduction from the full contractual value. The Player did not seek a higher amount in the CAS proceedings, limiting the panel’s ability to adjust the award. The club was ordered to pay the compensation with 5% interest starting from May 2009, as no contractual clause specified otherwise. The CAS dismissed the club’s appeal, affirming the DRC’s decision and underscoring the employer’s responsibility to comply with immigration requirements and contractual obligations. The case highlights the complexities of football employment disputes, particularly regarding unilateral termination and compensation under FIFA regulations and Swiss law.