The case revolves around an employment dispute between Metallurg Donetsk FC and player Marin Aničić, which was adjudicated by FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) and later appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The dispute arose when the club terminated Aničić's contract during the protected period without just cause, leading to a series of legal proceedings. The FIFA DRC ruled in favor of the player, awarding him financial compensation and imposing a two-registration-period ban on the club for breaching the contract. The club appealed this decision to CAS, challenging the sporting sanctions while accepting the financial compensation.
The CAS panel, composed of Fabio Iudica, José Juan Pintó, and Manfred Nan, reviewed the case under Article R57 of the CAS Code, emphasizing the principle of legality and the need for sanctions to be based on clear legal provisions. The panel examined Article 17(4) of FIFA's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), which mandates sporting sanctions for contract breaches during the protected period. While acknowledging FIFA's discretionary practice of waiving sanctions in exceptional cases, the panel stressed that deviations from the regulation's clear wording require strong justification. The panel also clarified that sporting sanctions are supplementary to financial compensation, not an alternative.
The factual background revealed that Aničić signed a contract with Metallurg Donetsk in 2010, but the club sought to terminate it shortly after, citing medical and performance issues. The club proposed a minimal compensation agreement, which the player and his former club, HŠK Zrinjski, refused. Aničić rejoined Zrinjski and filed a claim with FIFA, alleging unjust termination. The club failed to respond to FIFA's invitation to present its case, leading the DRC to rule in the player's favor. The club's appeal to CAS argued that the sporting sanctions were disproportionate, given the unique circumstances, including the player's alleged health issues and the club's offer of compensation.
FIFA and the player countered that the club's breach was unjustified, emphasizing that medical conditions do not constitute just cause for termination and that clubs must conduct due diligence before signing contracts. The player highlighted the psychological distress and career disruption caused by the termination, as well as the inadequacy of the compensation offered. The CAS panel ultimately upheld the FIFA DRC's decision, finding the sporting sanctions justified and proportionate. The panel noted the club's negligent behavior and failure to fulfill contractual obligations, dismissing arguments for leniency. The ruling reaffirmed the importance of contractual stability in football and the regulatory framework governing player contracts.
The final decision by CAS confirmed the FIFA DRC's ruling, including the financial compensation and sporting sanctions, and dismissed all other motions or requests for relief. The case underscores the balance between strict regulatory enforcement and discretionary fairness in resolving employment disputes in sports, while reinforcing the principles of legality and predictability in disciplinary measures. The panel's decision serves as a reminder of the consequences of breaching contractual obligations during the protected period and the role of CAS in adjudicating such disputes.