The case involves a legal dispute between Football Club Khimki and Eljver Raça, a licensed players' agent, over the authenticity of a contract and the payment of EUR 300,000 in commission. The Club claimed that a fourth contract, which reduced Raça's compensation, was valid, while Raça denied signing it and sought payment under the original agreements. The FIFA Players’ Status Committee initially ruled in favor of Raça, ordering the Club to pay the disputed amount due to the lack of original documents for verification. The Club appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS panel examined whether a handwriting expert was necessary to determine the authenticity of the disputed signatures. It outlined key considerations for appointing such an expert, including the centrality of the signature's authenticity, the inability of untrained observers to detect forgery, and the specialized skills required for handwriting analysis. The panel emphasized its limited role in reviewing whether the expert's conclusions were logically derived from the facts. The parties had initially agreed to three contracts regarding Raça's commission for negotiating a player's contract extension. The Club later presented a fourth contract, allegedly signed by Raça, which reduced his compensation. Raça disputed this, leading to the FIFA ruling in his favor. The Club's appeal to CAS sought to overturn this decision, with proceedings involving procedural steps such as the withdrawal of FIFA as a respondent and the constitution of the arbitration panel.
The dispute centered on whether Raça had signed the fourth agreement, with communication barriers complicating the case—Raça spoke Croatian and limited English, while the Club President only spoke Russian. The Club failed to provide details about how the disputed agreements were delivered to Raça, raising doubts about their authenticity. The Club produced these agreements two years into the dispute, further questioning their validity. The CAS's jurisdiction was established under relevant statutes, with neither party contesting it. Swiss law was deemed applicable, as the contracts referenced FIFA, UEFA, and RFU rules for dispute resolution.
A handwriting expert, Deborah Boegli, was appointed to analyze the signatures. She compared contested signatures with undisputed samples, concluding they were likely authentic, showing natural variations consistent with Raça's handwriting. The Panel found her methodology credible, dismissing Raça's objections to her report. The Panel upheld her findings, determining the fourth agreement was validly executed and dismissing Raça's appeal. The decision underscored the importance of expert evidence in resolving disputes involving document authenticity. The CAS ruled in favor of FC Khimki, setting aside the earlier FIFA decision and dismissing all other motions. The case highlights the complexities of contractual disputes in sports arbitration, particularly when evidentiary challenges and language barriers arise.