The case involves a dispute between Al Nassr Saudi Club and Jaimen Javier Ayovi Corozo regarding unpaid salaries following the termination of their employment contract. The parties entered into an employment agreement on 1 July 2012, valid until 30 June 2013, with a monthly salary of USD 41,666.67. Due to the Player's injury, the contract was terminated on 19 February 2013, with the Club agreeing to pay salaries until the original end date. However, the Club failed to pay the salaries for January to June 2013, totaling USD 250,000.02. The Player sought resolution through the Saudi Arabian Football Federation (SAFF) and later filed a claim with FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) on 22 July 2014. The Club acknowledged the debt but cited financial difficulties, proposing delayed payment, which never materialized. The DRC ruled in favor of the Player on 6 November 2014, ordering payment of the outstanding amount plus 5% annual interest. The Club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 6 January 2015.
The CAS addressed several legal principles, including jurisdiction and procedural conduct. The Club's failure to challenge the DRC's jurisdiction during initial proceedings constituted a waiver of such objections. The CAS also highlighted the principle of "venire contra factum proprium," preventing parties from contradicting prior actions to another's detriment. The Club's refusal to produce original documents led to adverse inferences, suggesting concealment of unfavorable evidence. On the merits, the CAS upheld the DRC's decision, confirming the Club's obligation to pay the unpaid salaries with interest. The ruling emphasized the importance of timely jurisdictional objections and procedural compliance.
The case also involved disputes over document authenticity, with the Player alleging forgery of payment receipts. The Club's failure to provide original documents and inconsistencies in its statements weakened its position. The Sole Arbitrator ruled that the Termination Agreement did not require immediate lump-sum payment, and salaries were to be paid monthly as per the original contract. Default interest was calculated from the due dates specified in the Employment Contract, not from the Termination Agreement's signing date. The CAS dismissed the Club's appeal, upholding the DRC's decision and ordering the Club to bear procedural costs and compensate the Player for legal expenses.
The final award, issued on 26 August 2015, reinforced contractual obligations and the enforceability of arbitration decisions in sports disputes. The case underscores the importance of proper documentation, procedural adherence, and the consequences of failing to substantiate claims with credible evidence. The CAS's decision affirmed the Player's entitlement to unpaid salaries and interest, dismissing the Club's arguments as unsubstantiated and inconsistent. The ruling serves as a reminder of the legal principles governing sports arbitration and the consequences of non-compliance.