The case revolves around a contractual dispute between AEP Olympias Patras, a Greek basketball club, and Ante Grgurevic, a Croatian professional basketball player, concerning the termination and fulfillment of their employment agreement signed on July 27, 2007. The contract guaranteed Grgurevic a net salary of €130,000 for the 2007/2008 season, along with additional benefits such as housing, transportation, and medical care. It included strict penalties for late payments, allowing the player to terminate the contract and claim full salary if payments were delayed beyond 15 days. The agreement also specified arbitration through the FIBA Arbitral Tribunal (FAT) in Geneva, with appeals to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), governed by Swiss law and decided ex aequo et bono (based on fairness).
The dispute arose when the club failed to make timely payments, prompting Grgurevic to claim breach of contract. The player arrived in Greece on September 4, 2007, but no medical examination was conducted within the stipulated two-day period. Shortly after, he experienced knee issues, sought treatment abroad, and eventually left Greece without fulfilling his contractual obligations. The club withheld all payments, arguing that Grgurevic had departed voluntarily and never participated in any games. Meanwhile, Grgurevic’s agents demanded full payment of €140,000, asserting that the club’s non-payment accelerated the entire contract amount. The club rejected this, leading to further legal action.
The case was initially brought before the FAT, which ruled in Grgurevic’s favor in June 2009. The club appealed to the CAS, challenging the FAT’s jurisdiction, factual accuracy, and procedural adherence. The CAS panel, composed of Stuart McInnnes, Guido Valori, and Petros Mavroidis, confirmed its jurisdiction under FAT and CAS rules, dismissing the club’s claim that prior negotiations were a prerequisite for arbitration. The panel also rejected the club’s argument that it had not participated in FAT proceedings, finding no justification for its absence. The applicable law remained Swiss law, as per the contract.
The CAS panel reviewed the case anew, focusing on whether the FAT award should stand. It emphasized that the contract terms were clear and unambiguous, with any modifications requiring written agreement from both parties—no evidence of such changes existed. The panel also noted that the club’s counterclaim was inadmissible since the appellant had already paid the full advance of costs, as per Article R64.2 of the CAS Code. Ultimately, the panel found no grounds to overturn the FAT award and dismissed the club’s appeal. The final ruling, issued on February 8, 2010 (CAS 2009/A/1901), upheld the FAT’s decision, rejecting all relief requests from the club.
The case underscores the complexities of international sports contracts, the binding nature of arbitration clauses, and the importance of adhering to contractual obligations. It also highlights the role of arbitration in resolving disputes fairly, particularly when one party fails to meet its financial or procedural commitments. The outcome reinforces the enforceability of contractual terms and the consequences of non-compliance in professional sports.