The case CAS 2013/A/3263 involves a dispute between Azovmash Mariupol Basketball Club and Luca Bechi, a basketball coach, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 14 March 2014. The dispute arose from an employment contract signed on 9 February 2012, appointing Bechi as head coach for the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 seasons. The contract outlined the Coach's responsibilities, including leading games and practices, while the Club agreed to pay a guaranteed base salary of €65,000 for the first season and €175,000 for the second, along with additional benefits like a car and insurance. The Club terminated the contract after the 2011-2012 season, citing the Coach's failure to attend training camp, while the Coach argued the Club had already terminated his contract earlier. The Club then hired a new coach, which the Coach viewed as confirmation of his termination. The Coach later signed with another team, prompting the Club to file for arbitration with the Basketball Arbitral Tribunal (BAT), seeking damages for alleged breach of contract. The BAT ruled in favor of the Coach, ordering the Club to pay €160,000 in salary and €14,000 for benefits, plus interest. The Club appealed to CAS, challenging jurisdiction and requesting a Sole Arbitrator, while the Coach sought a three-member panel, which CAS ultimately granted.
The central issue was whether CAS had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, hinging on the interpretation of Article 9 of the contract, which mentioned "the arbitrator and CAS shall decide the dispute ex aequo et bono." The Club argued this clause granted CAS jurisdiction, citing its policy of modifying standard BAT clauses to include CAS appeals. The Coach contested this, claiming the reference to CAS was a clerical error and that neither FIBA regulations nor BAT rules permitted CAS appeals. The Panel examined the validity of the arbitration clause, emphasizing the need for mutual consent to establish jurisdiction. It noted the standard BAT clause in 2009 allowed CAS appeals, but the 2011 version explicitly excluded them, designating BAT as the final instance. The Panel found the reference to CAS in Article 9 inconsistent with the 2011 standard clause, likely a clerical error rather than intentional inclusion. It rejected the Club's arguments, stating its policy on CAS jurisdiction in other contracts was irrelevant here. The Panel also distinguished a cited Swiss Supreme Court decision, as the current dispute already involved an independent arbitral tribunal (BAT). Ultimately, the Panel concluded the isolated reference to "and CAS" did not demonstrate mutual agreement to submit to CAS jurisdiction.
The Panel ruled CAS lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the contractual clause did not sufficiently establish the parties' consent to CAS arbitration. The decision underscores the importance of clear and unambiguous language in arbitration agreements to confer jurisdiction on arbitral bodies like CAS. The case highlights the principle that jurisdiction cannot be assumed without explicit mutual agreement between the parties. The ruling resolved only the jurisdictional issue, leaving the merits of the dispute unaddressed. It reaffirms the necessity of precise contractual terms and the enforceability of arbitration clauses in sports disputes, providing a framework for similar cases in sports arbitration. The outcome emphasizes the legal and financial ramifications of contractual disputes in professional sports, particularly concerning termination clauses, benefits, and arbitration processes.