The case involves a dispute between ZAO FC Lokomotiv (the Club) and Leonid Stanislavovich Kuchuk (the Coach) over the early termination of the Coach's employment contract, with the Football Union of Russia (FUR) also involved as a respondent. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued an award on January 28, 2016, addressing whether the Club had just cause to terminate the contract and the enforceability of liquidated damages clauses. The Coach was hired in June 2013 under a fixed-term contract until June 2015. Initially, the team performed well, but performance declined in the 2014/15 season, leading to tensions. After poor results, the Club requested a written report from the Coach on the team's failures and a plan for improvement. On September 15, 2014, the Club's president canceled a training session and met with the Coach. The next day, another coach was appointed, and discussions about terminating the Coach's contract began. The Coach was later denied access to the training ground and effectively suspended. Negotiations for mutual termination failed, and the Club dismissed the Coach on October 8, 2014, citing a gross violation for failing to attend training.
The Coach filed a claim with the FUR Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), arguing the termination was unjust and seeking compensation. The CAS panel examined whether the Club had just cause and whether the liquidated damages clause should be enforced. The panel concluded the Club lacked just cause and upheld the clause, requiring the Club to compensate the Coach as stipulated. The decision reinforced that contractual agreements on liquidated damages are binding and not subject to reduction based on subsequent earnings. The DRC ruled in the Coach's favor, ordering compensation for the remaining contract term until June 30, 2015. The FUR Players’ Status Committee (PSC) upheld this but adjusted the amount to EUR 1,841,597, rejecting the Club's argument that the Coach's new employment should reduce compensation.
The Club appealed to CAS, which confirmed its jurisdiction over the compensation amount but not over annulling the DRC decision. The Club argued the compensation was excessive, suggesting lower amounts based on different calculations, and invoked Russian Civil Law to seek a reduction. The Coach countered that the termination was unjustified, emphasizing the liquidated damages clause should be enforced without reduction. The CAS panel ruled in favor of the Coach, affirming the compensation clause as valid and dismissing the Club's appeals. The final compensation was calculated based on the Coach's monthly remuneration of EUR 210,730 for the remaining 8 months and 23 days, totaling EUR 1,841,597. The CAS upheld the PSC's decision, confirming the Coach's entitlement to full compensation and dismissing all Club appeals. The ruling emphasized the binding nature of contractual terms and the enforceability of liquidated damages unless manifestly unreasonable. The decision stands as final, with no further adjustments.