The case involves Branislav Krunic, a former professional football player, who filed an appeal against the Bosnia and Herzegovina Football Federation (BIHFF) regarding unpaid wages and contributions from his employment contract with FC Borac. The dispute was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), with Prof. Petros Mavroidis serving as the sole arbitrator. The legal issues revolved around the applicable law and the standing to be sued. The FIFA Statutes were deemed applicable due to the parties' affiliation with FIFA, with Swiss law serving as the subsidiary law. Krunic had signed an employment contract with FC Borac in 2011, extended until 2014, but his playing career ended in 2013 due to a heart condition. He was later appointed as FC Borac’s sport director without a new contract. Krunic claimed unpaid wages and rent contributions amounting to BAM 50,870, but his claim was dismissed by lower instances, including the BIHFF Committee for Status of a Player, which ruled that he lost his professional player status upon becoming sport director and that his claims were time-barred or fell under national labor law.
Krunic appealed to the CAS, arguing that the lower instances erred in their decisions. However, the CAS found that the BIHFF lacked standing to be sued, as the dispute was contractual and not directed against the federation. The CAS emphasized that contractual disputes must be directed against the obligated party, in this case, FC Borac, rather than the national federation. The arbitrator also noted that Krunic’s claims should have been addressed through civil courts once his role changed to sport director. The case underscores the jurisdictional boundaries between sports arbitration and civil courts in employment disputes involving professional athletes transitioning to non-playing roles.
The proceedings before the CAS included Krunic filing a statement of appeal in December 2014, with a hearing held in May 2015. Krunic sought payment of unpaid salaries, rents, and associated contributions, along with statutory default interest and legal costs. The BIHFF defended its decision, requesting the appeal be dismissed and legal fees covered. The arbitrator concluded that CAS had jurisdiction but dismissed the appeal, ruling that the BIHFF was not the correct respondent. The decision highlighted the importance of proper legal standing in arbitration cases and reinforced that contractual disputes between association members do not fall under the scope of Article 75 of the Swiss Civil Code, which governs appeals against association decisions. The final award upheld the BIHFF’s original decision, emphasizing the need for compliance with contractual and regulatory obligations in sports disputes.