The dispute between FK Senica and Vladimir Vukajlovic centered on the termination of their employment contract, with both parties presenting conflicting accounts of the circumstances. The contract, signed in September 2009, included provisions for termination, such as the club's right to terminate for breaches by the player and the player's right to terminate if salary payments were delayed beyond 45 days. In November 2009, discussions about ending the relationship took place, with Senica claiming it proposed an amicable termination, while Vukajlovic alleged he was pressured to leave due to performance issues and threats involving his expired visa. A temporary agreement allowed the player to seek another club, but Senica failed to pay his December 2009 salary, leading to further conflict.
The case was brought before FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which ruled in favor of Vukajlovic, ordering Senica to pay unpaid wages and reduced compensation. Senica appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that FIFA lacked jurisdiction and that the termination was justified due to the player's absence from training. Vukajlovic countered that the termination was unjust, citing unpaid salaries and the club's failure to secure a work permit. The CAS Sole Arbitrator determined that Senica had breached the contract first by not paying salaries, invalidating its right to terminate under Swiss law (Article 82 of the Swiss Code of Obligations). The arbitrator emphasized the principle of exceptio non adimpleti contractus, which prevents a party from demanding performance if it has not fulfilled its own obligations.
The CAS partially upheld Senica's appeal, setting aside the DRC's decision but ordering the club to pay Vukajlovic €7,400 in unpaid salaries plus interest. The arbitrator found that neither party was interested in continuing the relationship, and no additional compensation was awarded. The ruling highlighted the importance of contractual obligations and the unique nature of sports disputes, reinforcing that clubs cannot terminate contracts without just cause if they are in breach themselves. The case underscores the complexities of international football contracts and the role of FIFA and CAS in resolving such disputes. The final decision balanced the financial obligations of the club with the specific circumstances of the case, concluding the matter with a partial ruling in favor of Senica while upholding the player's right to unpaid wages.