The case revolves around a dispute between Football Club Volyn Lutsk (FC Volyn) and a professional football player, P., concerning the termination of their employment contract due to the club's failure to meet its financial obligations. The contract, signed in April 2012, specified monthly payments to the player, but FC Volyn defaulted on these payments, leading the player to issue warnings in March and May 2013 demanding overdue salaries for January to April 2013. When the club only partially paid the January salary and left the remaining months unpaid, the player terminated the contract on June 8, 2013, citing just cause under the Football Federation of Ukraine (FFU) Regulations and FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. The player then filed a claim with the FFU's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which ruled in his favor, declaring the contract terminated due to the club's fault, awarding unpaid salaries, and granting the player free agent status without compensation.
FC Volyn appealed the DRC's decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing against the termination and financial penalties. The CAS panel, composed of three arbitrators, upheld the DRC's ruling, emphasizing that consistent non-payment of salaries constitutes just cause for contract termination under FIFA regulations and CAS jurisprudence. The panel clarified that financial difficulties do not excuse payment defaults and that the player had fulfilled the necessary conditions by issuing prior warnings. The CAS also rejected the club's arguments regarding formal termination procedures and compensation claims, noting that such requirements apply only to unilateral termination by the club, not the player. The panel affirmed the player's right to terminate the contract due to the club's persistent non-payment, upheld the financial award, and maintained the player's free agent status.
The CAS proceedings faced logistical challenges due to political unrest in Ukraine, leading to rescheduled hearings and eventual participation via videoconference. Despite being duly informed, FC Volyn and its counsel failed to attend the final hearing, prompting the CAS to proceed under Article 57 of its Code, which allows hearings to continue in the absence of a duly summoned party. The club argued that the player did not properly terminate the contract under Ukrainian labor laws and abused his rights by filing a claim despite being aware of the club's payment schedule. The player countered that the club's systematic non-payment justified his actions and aligned with established legal principles.
The CAS panel confirmed its jurisdiction and dismissed the club's appeal, reinforcing the principle that clubs must fulfill financial obligations to players. The panel referenced FIFA commentary and CAS jurisprudence, which establish that prolonged non-payment of salaries severely breaches contractual obligations, justifying unilateral termination. The player was entitled to terminate the contract and obtain free agent status without compensation. The panel also declined to order interest payments on the outstanding sums, as the player had not appealed the DRC's original decision on this matter. The CAS ultimately rejected all other motions and requests for relief, confirming the DRC's decision in its entirety and emphasizing the finality of the ruling. The case underscores the importance of clubs adhering to financial commitments and the legal protections available to players in cases of contractual breaches.