The case involves a dispute between Basquet Menorca SAD, a Spanish basketball club, and Vladimer Boisa, a Slovenian professional basketball player, concerning the termination of their employment contract. The parties initially entered into an agreement in August 2008 for Boisa to play for the club during the 2008/2009 season. This agreement was later terminated by a Termination Agreement dated February 23, 2009, which stipulated that Basquet Menorca would pay Boisa €130,200 in installments. The Termination Agreement included an arbitration clause specifying that any disputes would be resolved by the FIBA Arbitral Tribunal (FAT) in Geneva, Switzerland, under Swiss law, with appeals possible to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
Boisa filed a request for arbitration with FAT in December 2009, alleging that Basquet Menorca had failed to make the agreed payments and that the bank guarantees provided by the club were declined. Basquet Menorca responded in March 2010 but did not initially challenge the jurisdiction of FAT. The arbitrator ruled that the arbitration clause was valid and that Basquet Menorca’s jurisdictional challenge was untimely under FAT rules, which require such defenses to be raised in the initial response. The arbitrator also determined that the dispute was arbitrable under Swiss law, specifically Article 177(1) of the Swiss Act on Private International Law (PILA), which permits arbitration for pecuniary claims.
On the merits, the arbitrator found the Termination Agreement valid and enforceable, rejecting Basquet Menorca’s claims of fraud or invalidity. The club was ordered to pay Boisa the outstanding €130,200 plus interest and legal costs. Basquet Menorca appealed to CAS, arguing that the dispute was not arbitrable under Spanish law, that the burden of proof had been improperly shifted, and that the arbitrator had failed to justify dismissing their claims.
The CAS panel upheld the FAT decision, emphasizing that arbitrability was governed by Swiss law, not Spanish law, due to the arbitration clause specifying Switzerland as the seat. The panel confirmed that Basquet Menorca’s jurisdictional challenge was untimely and that the arbitrator had correctly applied the burden of proof, requiring more than vague assertions to invalidate the arbitration agreement. The panel found no procedural violations and dismissed Basquet Menorca’s appeal, affirming the original award in favor of Boisa.
Basquet Menorca further contested the validity of the Termination Agreement, claiming it lacked proper authorization and contained irregularities, such as an alleged forged signature and an unbalanced payment clause (435% of the original contract amount). However, the Panel found no evidence supporting these claims and dismissed them, noting that the agreement’s terms, even if unfavorable, did not invalidate it under Swiss law. The club also asserted an oral agreement for a smaller payment, evidenced by a promissory note, but Boisa countered that this note was part of the larger Termination Agreement. The Panel ruled in favor of Boisa, concluding that he had sufficiently proven the existence of the Termination Agreement and Basquet Menorca’s failure to pay.
The Panel rejected Basquet Menorca’s arguments, emphasizing the binding nature of contractual obligations and ruling that Boisa was entitled to interest on the unpaid sums, calculated at 5% per annum from the due dates until full payment. The CAS dismissed the appeal entirely, affirming the earlier decisions and underscoring the enforceability of arbitration clauses in sports-related disputes. The case highlights key principles in arbitration, including the importance of timely jurisdictional challenges, the determination of arbitrability under the law of the arbitration seat, and the limited grounds for challenging arbitral awards.