The case involves a legal dispute between Inverness Caledonian Thistle FC (the Appellant) and Marius Constantin Niculae (the Respondent), a Romanian professional footballer, concerning the interpretation of contractual provisions and the burden of proof under Scottish and Swiss law. The parties entered into a two-year employment contract in August 2007, which included clauses about transfer fees and the player's obligations. The contract stipulated that the Respondent would receive 30% of any transfer fee if his registration was transferred to another club, provided the transfer was initiated by the Appellant. The contract also prohibited the Respondent from engaging in discussions with other clubs without the Appellant's consent and specified that Scottish law would govern the agreement.
In July 2008, discussions arose regarding the Respondent's potential transfer. The Appellant claimed that during a meeting, the Respondent expressed interest in returning to Romania and waived his right to the 30% transfer fee and remaining salary. The Appellant submitted affidavits and an unsigned file note as evidence, but the Respondent disputed these claims. Offers from German and Greek clubs were received, but the Respondent traveled to Romania to negotiate with FC Dinamo București, which offered a lower transfer fee. The Appellant rejected initial offers, seeking a higher fee to recoup their investment. The Respondent later signed with FC Dinamo without returning to the club, leading the Appellant to accept a €500,000 transfer, of which they received €475,000 after deductions.
The dispute centered on whether the transfer was initiated by the Appellant, a condition for the Respondent's entitlement to the 30% fee. The Respondent filed a claim with FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which partially upheld his claim, ordering the Appellant to pay €142,500. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the transfer was not initiated by them and that the Respondent had waived his rights. The Respondent did not participate in the CAS hearing, despite being given the opportunity. The Appellant's representatives, including chairman George Fraser and vice-chairman Graeme Bennett, testified that the Respondent had expressed a desire to leave and had negotiated with FC Dinamo independently. They also refuted claims of financial difficulties forcing the transfer, presenting budgets showing the club's ability to afford the Respondent's salary.
The CAS Panel examined the evidence, including transfer offers, contemporary documentation, and press articles, and concluded that the Respondent failed to prove the Appellant initiated the transfer. The Panel emphasized the adversarial nature of CAS arbitration, placing the burden of proof on the Respondent. It found no evidence that the Appellant solicited the transfer offers or acted under financial duress. The Panel dismissed the Respondent's claim, annulled the DRC's decision, and upheld the Appellant's appeal, ruling that the Respondent did not meet the burden of proof required to establish the Appellant's initiation of the transfer. The case underscores the complexities of contractual disputes in football transfers and the importance of clear contractual language and thorough documentation.