The case involves a dispute between professional football player Arunas Klimavicius and FC Dynamo Moscow over unpaid bonuses as stipulated in their contract. Klimavicius signed a fixed-term labor contract with the club on 15 February 2007, effective until 31 December 2008, which included a monthly wage and a Team Bonus Schedule dated 14 March 2008. This schedule outlined bonuses based on match results and the club's final ranking in the 2008 Russian Championship. The club finished third, entitling Klimavicius to a positional bonus equivalent to 100% of his total season bonuses, amounting to 4,718,000 rubles. However, the club refused to pay this bonus after Klimavicius declined to extend his contract in November 2008.
Klimavicius filed a claim with the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Russian Football Union (Russian DRC) in January 2009, but his claim was dismissed on 16 February 2009. He then appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 3 June 2009, arguing that the Russian DRC's decision was unjust and biased due to conflicts of interest, including the involvement of a club employee in the arbitration panel. He maintained that the club's refusal to pay was solely due to his decision not to renew his contract, violating the terms of the Team Bonus Schedule.
FC Dynamo Moscow contested the appeal, asserting that the CAS lacked jurisdiction because Klimavicius had not exhausted all prior appeal avenues, including the RFU Players’ Status Committee and FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber. The club also argued that its general director had discretionary rights to determine bonus payments under the contract, though Klimavicius countered that such discretion could not be applied arbitrarily, especially when he had met all performance criteria.
The CAS panel ruled in Klimavicius's favor, determining that a player signing a bonus agreement in good faith should reasonably expect payment upon fulfilling contractual targets, unless explicitly stated otherwise. The panel found that the club's refusal to pay based on the player's contract non-renewal was unjustified and that the general director's discretionary powers could only reduce bonuses in cases of misconduct, not arbitrary denial. Consequently, the CAS ordered FC Dynamo Moscow to pay Klimavicius the outstanding bonus of 4,718,000 rubles.
The Panel also recommended procedural improvements for the Russian DRC to ensure fairness, such as avoiding conflicts of interest, balancing representation in hearings, and providing more detailed decisions. The final ruling affirmed the player's entitlement to the bonus, reinforcing the principle that contractual bonuses should not be arbitrarily withheld without clear justification. The decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness and transparency in dispute resolution processes within sports governance.