The case revolves around a dispute between FC Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk and professional footballer Ervin Bulku, which was initially adjudicated by FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber and later appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The conflict stemmed from an employment contract (Contract No. 2) signed on 1 August 2008, valid until 30 June 2011, which stipulated Bulku’s obligations to participate in training and matches while FC Dnipro was to pay him a monthly salary of USD 30,000. The dispute arose when Bulku was allegedly excluded from training in July 2010 and subsequently signed contracts with other clubs, including FC Kryvbas and HNK Hajduk Split. Bulku’s legal team argued that FC Dnipro had unilaterally breached the contract, demanding unpaid salaries and his release, while FC Dnipro claimed the contract was void due to non-registration with the Football Federation of Ukraine (FFU) and denied any loan agreements with FC Kryvbas.
The CAS panel, applying Swiss law, focused on interpreting the parties’ true intent, considering contractual wording, negotiations, and subsequent conduct. The panel emphasized that contract registration is an administrative act under Swiss law and does not affect validity. Key issues included whether FC Dnipro’s exclusion of Bulku from training constituted a repudiatory breach and whether Bulku’s subsequent contracts invalidated his claims. The panel reviewed correspondence, including Bulku’s demand for unpaid salaries and FC Dnipro’s conditional approval of his transfer, to determine if FC Dnipro’s actions justified Bulku’s departure or if Bulku had unlawfully terminated the contract.
The panel found that Contract No. 2 was never terminated by Bulku and that FC Dnipro’s refusal to allow him to train in July 2010 breached the contract. It dismissed FC Dnipro’s argument that non-registration invalidated the contract, citing legal precedent. The panel also noted FC Dnipro’s actions, such as sending letters implying Bulku could join another club, suggested acknowledgment of the contract’s validity. Ultimately, the panel ruled in Bulku’s favor, upholding the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber’s 2012 decision, which ordered FC Dnipro to pay $180,000 in compensation. The CAS dismissed FC Dnipro’s appeal, affirming the original decision in full and concluding that Bulku was justified in terminating the contract due to FC Dnipro’s breach. The case underscores the complexities of football contract disputes and the role of arbitration in resolving them.