The case involves a dispute between Anorthosis Famagusta FC, a Cypriot football club, and Sinisa Dobrasinovic, a professional football player from Serbia and Cyprus. The parties entered into an employment agreement on 28 April 2008, supplemented by a further agreement on 29 April 2008, outlining the terms of the player's employment, including financial conditions. The agreement was set to run from 1 June 2008 to 30 May 2010, with a total remuneration of €180,000, paid in installments, along with additional benefits such as accommodation, car use, and bonuses. The agreement included clauses allowing termination under specific conditions, such as mutual consent, serious breach of contract, or relegation of the club to the second division. On 31 May 2009, the club terminated the employment agreement, which the player contested, reserving his rights to claim unpaid salaries and compensation for unjust termination. The player’s counsel demanded payment of €193,286 for unpaid salaries, benefits, and compensation for early termination. When the club failed to comply, the player filed a claim with FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which ruled in favor of the player on 27 February 2013, ordering the club to pay €11,400 in outstanding remuneration and €137,792 as compensation for breach of contract.
The club appealed the DRC decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 20 June 2013. The CAS panel examined the case under Swiss law, which governs employment contracts in such disputes. The panel noted that under Article 337 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (CO), either party may terminate an employment agreement for important reasons, provided they justify the termination. If the termination is unjustified, the employee is entitled to compensation equivalent to the salary they would have earned until the contract’s expiry, minus any earnings from other employment during that period. The panel also clarified that counterclaims are inadmissible in CAS appeal proceedings, as per FIFA’s procedural rules and established CAS practice. The CAS ultimately upheld the DRC’s decision, reinforcing the principle that unjustified termination by an employer entitles the employee to compensation.
The club argued that the termination was justified, claiming the player orchestrated his termination to join another club, Kavala FC. However, the panel found insufficient evidence to support this claim, noting that media reports and witness statements did not prove a serious breach of contract. The panel concluded the club failed to demonstrate a valid reason for termination and thus acted without just cause. The panel examined the consequences of the breach, applying the 2008 FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), which stipulate that compensation should consider national laws, sport-specific factors, and objective criteria like the player’s benefits under the existing or new contract. The panel agreed with the DRC’s calculation of €148,400 as the total amount owed to the player for the remaining contract period, including salary, accommodation costs, guaranteed bonuses, and a lump sum payment. After deducting €10,608, the salary earned by the player from his new club, the net compensation was set at €137,792.
The club also sought repayment of €86,000, alleging it was an advance payment. The panel rejected this claim due to inconsistencies in the calculation and lack of clear evidence. The panel upheld the DRC’s decision, ordering the club to pay €10,700 for unpaid salary and benefits up to 31 May 2009, and €137,792 as compensation for the early termination. Interest of 5% per annum was applied from 1 July 2013, as per Swiss law. The panel dismissed all other claims, including the player’s request for earlier interest accrual and additional bonuses, ruling them inadmissible. The case highlights the importance of adhering to contractual obligations and the legal consequences of unilateral termination without valid cause in employment agreements governed by Swiss law. The ruling also reaffirms procedural rules in CAS appeals, emphasizing that respondents must file separate appeals rather than counterclaims. The decision was finalized in the award dated 14 May 2014.