The case revolves around a legal dispute between Yassine Chikhaoui, a Tunisian football player, and Stéphane Canard, a French players' agent, concerning the validity of an exclusive representation agreement signed when Chikhaoui was 19 years old. The agreement, governed by French law, granted Canard exclusive rights to negotiate contracts on Chikhaoui's behalf for two years. At the time of signing, Chikhaoui was considered a minor under Tunisian law, which sets the age of majority at 20. The central issue was whether the contract was valid given Chikhaoui's limited legal capacity and whether he could raise a plea of nullity against it. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) addressed several key legal questions, including the validity of the contract under Tunisian law and FIFA's Players' Agent Regulations.
The CAS clarified that FIFA's rules on notification of decisions are exhaustive and cannot be supplemented by Swiss law concepts of fictitious notification. The ruling emphasized legal certainty and foreseeability, requiring actual receipt of a decision for notification to be valid. Under Tunisian law, a minor's contract without parental consent is not automatically void but can be rescinded if the minor files an action within a year of reaching majority or raises a plea of nullity. The plea of nullity, unlike the rescission action, is not time-bound and can be raised at any time unless the minor voluntarily confirms or executes the contract. The CAS found that Chikhaoui's breach of the agreement by negotiating with FC Zurich without involving Canard did not constitute voluntary execution of the contract under Tunisian law, allowing him to raise a plea of nullity.
The agreement outlined Canard's exclusive rights to negotiate contracts, bonuses, and transfers for Chikhaoui, with a 10% commission on gross annual salary. It also imposed obligations on Chikhaoui to avoid independent negotiations and stipulated penalties for breaches. However, the CAS focused on the legal capacity issue, concluding that Chikhaoui, as a minor under Tunisian law, could challenge the contract's validity despite its terms. The CAS upheld Chikhaoui's right to nullify the contract, emphasizing the importance of national laws in determining contractual validity for minors under FIFA regulations. The decision reinforced the principle that contractual obligations involving minors must align with their legal capacity under applicable domestic law.
The case also involved procedural aspects, including the admissibility of Chikhaoui's appeal to the CAS. The appeal was deemed timely filed, as the initial notification of FIFA's decision was ineffective under FIFA's rules, which require actual receipt. The Sole Arbitrator rejected the application of Swiss law's fictitious notification principle, as it conflicted with FIFA's goal of establishing a uniform, worldwide standard for triggering appeal deadlines. The merits of the case focused on whether the contract was valid under Tunisian law, which requires parental consent for minors. Since Chikhaoui lacked such consent, the contract was deemed invalid.
Ultimately, the CAS ruled in favor of Chikhaoui, annulling the earlier decision by the FIFA Players’ Status Committee and dismissing Canard's claims. The decision underscored the importance of legal capacity and consent in contracts involving minors, as well as the procedural nuances of nullity pleas under Tunisian law. The case highlights the structured arbitration process in sports disputes, emphasizing adherence to procedural deadlines and jurisdictional rules while ensuring fairness and legal certainty.