The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on November 23, 2010, in the dispute between PAS Giannina 1966 Football Club and player Derek Décamps. The case centered on the unilateral termination of an employment contract and its validity. The panel, composed of Mr. Bard Racin M eltvedt, Mr. Rui Botica-Santos, and Mr. Jean-Jacques Bertrand, addressed key legal principles, including the admissibility of appeals and the principle of pacta sunt servanda, which emphasizes that contracts must be honored unless a party acts in bad faith. The panel ruled that early termination is only justified under strict conditions, such as a substantial breach of a main obligation like unpaid salaries, and only if the employee issues a prior warning to the employer. The case involved two contracts: an initial agreement for the 2006-2007 season and a second, unregistered "private agreement" in January 2007, which extended the contract until 2010 and increased the player's salary. The club began paying the higher salary but later faced financial difficulties, leading to delayed payments. The player terminated the contract, citing unpaid salaries and seeking compensation. The CAS examined the circumstances, including the club's financial struggles and the lack of significant harm to the player, ultimately rejecting the compensation claim as unfounded.
The dispute also involved allegations of unprofessional behavior by the player, which the club cited as grounds for his exclusion from the squad. The player denied these claims, arguing he was not formally informed of his exclusion and had always acted professionally. He highlighted unpaid dues, including a €10,000 bonus, unpaid wages for May and June 2007, and travel expenses, totaling €16,302.38. The club responded by suspending his contract and imposing a fine. The player later discovered the second contract was unregistered with the Hellenic Football Federation (HFF), leading him to declare himself free from contractual obligations. The case raised broader issues of contractual transparency and player rights. The player accused the club of unethical behavior, while the club justified its actions based on the player's alleged misconduct.
The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) initially ruled in favor of the player, awarding him €119,802.38, but the club appealed to CAS, arguing the second contract was invalid. The player filed a counterclaim, seeking additional compensation. The CAS panel confirmed its jurisdiction and applied Swiss law and FIFA regulations, while also considering Greek football federation rules. The panel rejected the player's argument that the club's lack of participation in FIFA DRC proceedings should bar the appeal, emphasizing no such rule exists in the CAS Code. The panel found the second contract valid, as the club had acted as if it were binding by paying the higher salary and fielding the player. The club's later attempt to declare the contract void was deemed an artificial maneuver to avoid obligations, violating the principle of good faith.
The panel then assessed whether the player had just cause to terminate the contract. It identified unpaid amounts totaling €16,302.38, including partial salaries, travel expenses, and a participation bonus. While Swiss law and FIFA regulations allow termination for persistent non-payment, the panel concluded the delays in this case were not severe enough to justify termination, as they did not exceed two months. The player also failed to allow the club sufficient time to rectify the breach, terminating the contract prematurely. The panel dismissed the player's claim that non-registration of the contract justified termination, noting he suffered no harm by the termination date. It also found insufficient evidence to support his allegation of exclusion from the team.
Ultimately, the panel ruled the player did not have just cause to terminate the contract and rejected his counterclaim. However, it ordered the club to pay €19,219.04 for outstanding salaries, bonuses, and travel expenses, plus interest. The club's claim for compensation was denied due to exceptional circumstances, including its prior breaches and failure to register the contract. The decision underscored the importance of contractual stability and proper procedures in football disputes, balancing the player's grievances with the club's rights while emphasizing the unique facts of the case. The ruling was issued by a majority vote, with no precedential value for future disputes.