The case involves a dispute between Volyn Football Club and professional football player Maicon Pereira de Oliveira concerning the termination of an employment contract and alleged unpaid salaries. The initial contract, signed in 2009, was set to expire in 2012, but the Club claimed it was extended until 2014 through a document the Player alleged was forged. Forensic analyses supported the Club's assertion that the Player's signature was authentic. The Player argued that unpaid salaries for several months in 2012 justified his unilateral termination of the contract in August 2012. He filed a claim with FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) seeking unpaid wages and interest, while the Club defended the contract extension's validity.
The dispute escalated to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), where procedural and jurisdictional issues were addressed. The CAS ruled that new evidence submitted by the Player, an administrative form signed annually, was inadmissible due to its late submission. The Panel also determined that the withdrawal of a claim before the DRC did not constitute a final decision on the merits, meaning the CAS lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal on substantive grounds. The termination of proceedings following a claim withdrawal was deemed procedural, not a resolution of the underlying dispute. The CAS emphasized that decisions on claim withdrawals are final only concerning procedural consequences, not substantive issues, and clarified that internal legal remedies must be exhausted before an appeal to the CAS can proceed.
Parallel proceedings occurred at the Football Federation of Ukraine (FFU) Dispute Resolution Chamber, where the Player sought to invalidate the contract extension and impose disciplinary penalties on the Club for alleged document forgery. The Player's attorney later withdrew this claim, citing the contract's termination due to unpaid salaries. The Club contested the withdrawal, arguing it violated their right to be heard, but the FFU DRC upheld the withdrawal as within procedural rights. The Club then appealed to the CAS, which formed a panel to hear the case. The Player contested CAS jurisdiction, arguing the dispute should be handled by FIFA. The CAS Panel excluded late-submitted evidence and ultimately declined jurisdiction, rendering further consideration of the merits unnecessary.
The CAS Panel affirmed its jurisdiction under Swiss Private International Law (PILA) and Article R27 of the CAS Code, as the dispute fell under appeal arbitration proceedings provided for in FFU Regulations. However, it concluded that the Club had not exhausted all internal remedies before appealing to the CAS, as it could have filed a new claim before the FFU DRC to address substantive issues. The Panel found the appealed decision was only final concerning the procedural aspect of the claim withdrawal, not the merits of the employment dispute. The Club's request for the CAS to rule on the integrity of a statement related to the employment dispute was deemed beyond the CAS's jurisdiction, violating the principle of exhausting internal remedies.
Ultimately, the CAS Panel dismissed the Club's request for relief concerning the substantive employment dispute and the statement's integrity, along with all other motions. The case underscores the complexities of football-related labor disputes, the importance of timely evidence submission, and the distinction between procedural and substantive decisions in sports arbitration. It also highlights the necessity of exhausting internal legal remedies before seeking arbitration at the CAS. The proceedings adhered to procedural fairness, with both parties affirming their rights to be heard and treated equally. The final award was issued on 4 July 2013, concluding the matter without addressing the substantive claims.