The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on March 8, 2012, in a dispute between Aris FC and Javier Edgardo Campora, with the Hellenic Football Federation (HFF) also involved. The case centered on the termination of Campora’s employment contract and the validity of a termination agreement signed between the player and the club. The CAS panel addressed several key legal and procedural issues.
First, the panel ruled that a party cannot unilaterally withdraw consent to arbitration after filing its answer, unless exceptional circumstances justify a late submission. It also clarified that changes in federation regulations after the CAS procedure began could not retroactively affect the tribunal’s jurisdiction. Procedural fairness was another critical issue, with the panel emphasizing that parties must adhere to deadlines for presenting evidence, including witness testimonies. The panel rejected Campora’s late request to call a witness, noting that the refusal did not violate the principle of equality of arms under the European Convention on Human Rights, as Campora had ample opportunity to present his case.
The dispute arose from Campora’s employment with Aris FC from January 2009 to June 2010, with an extension agreement signed in April 2010. Shortly after, the parties signed a termination agreement on June 22, 2010. Campora claimed the agreement was intended to secure outstanding payments, while the club argued it waived his financial claims. The HFF initially ruled in the club’s favor, but the HFF Appeals Division overturned this decision, citing the agreement’s invalidity due to Campora’s immediate legal challenge, non-compliance with HFF regulations requiring an attorney’s signature, and Greek labor law prohibiting waivers of minimal wage entitlements.
Aris FC appealed to CAS, which upheld the HFF Appeals Division’s decision on jurisdictional and procedural grounds. The panel found the termination agreement one-sided, favoring the club, as it included compensation for early termination and a restrictive clause preventing Campora from playing for another Greek club. The panel dismissed Campora’s claim that he expected outstanding payments after signing the agreement, noting he had explicitly waived such rights. The panel also ruled that the HFF’s requirement for a lawyer’s signature did not apply, as the extension agreement had not yet been filed with the federation, making the termination agreement valid as a private agreement.
On the merits, the panel concluded that Campora, given his substantial earnings, could validly waive his financial claims under Greek law, which primarily protects minimum wage earners. The CAS ultimately set aside the HFF decision, ruling that Aris FC had no further financial obligations to Campora. The decision reinforced principles of contractual validity, procedural fairness, and compliance with applicable regulations, clarifying the enforceability of termination agreements and waivers in football disputes. The case underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules and the conditions under which such agreements are legally binding.