The case revolves around a dispute between professional football player Boris Galchev and Romanian club SC Dinamo 1948 concerning the termination of an employment contract and unpaid salaries and bonuses. The parties signed an employment contract on 12 July 2012, valid until 30 June 2014, which stipulated monthly salaries and performance bonuses. The club failed to pay Galchev's salaries for August and September 2012, as well as match bonuses, leading Galchev to terminate the contract unilaterally on 4 January 2013, citing just cause. He then filed a claim with FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), seeking unpaid salaries, bonuses, and compensation for breach of contract, totaling EUR 259,700. The club contested FIFA's jurisdiction and claimed a mutual termination agreement had been signed on 13 December 2012, which Galchev denied, alleging the signature was forged.
The DRC ruled on 21 May 2015, declaring the claim admissible but rejecting it, likely due to the alleged termination agreement. Galchev appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), where the sole arbitrator examined the case. The arbitrator noted that when parties leave the choice of authority for resolving disputes open, filing a claim with FIFA implies a tacit choice of FIFA's regulations and Swiss law as the applicable legal framework. The arbitrator emphasized that under Swiss law, an employee cannot waive mandatory rights, such as remuneration for work already performed, in a mutual termination agreement.
The arbitrator reviewed the evidence, including the disputed termination agreement, and considered the club's failure to pay salaries as a breach of contract. The arbitrator concluded that the termination agreement, if it existed, could not validly waive Galchev's right to unpaid salaries and bonuses for work already completed. The case highlights the precedence of FIFA regulations and Swiss law in employment disputes in international football, as well as the protection of players' rights to earned remuneration. The final decision reinforced that mutual termination agreements cannot override mandatory legal protections for employees.
The core dispute revolved around the authenticity of the Termination Agreement allegedly signed on 13 December 2012, which Galchev claimed he did not sign. The club maintained that the agreement was valid and offered to submit it for expert analysis. The DRC initially ruled in favor of the club, dismissing Galchev's forgery allegation. Dissatisfied, Galchev appealed to CAS, which appointed an independent graphologist to examine the disputed signatures. The expert report noted impressions from a blue post-it note on the Termination Agreement and identified a signature resembling Galchev's, though it could not definitively confirm its authenticity.
Galchev argued he might have signed the agreement by mistake or due to deception, as he did not understand Romanian or English. He claimed he was not in Romania on the alleged signing date and suggested the impressions could be from a third party. The respondent countered that Galchev’s claims lacked evidence and objected to introducing new testimony or documents at this stage. The Sole Arbitrator rejected Galchev’s requests for additional evidence and later, Galchev withdrew several claims from his appeal, including demands for salary and bonus payments, as well as compensation for breach of contract.
The Sole Arbitrator determined that while the signature on the Termination Agreement was genuine, the agreement could not validly waive Galchev's mandatory claims for unpaid salaries and bonuses for work already performed under Swiss law. Consequently, the arbitrator ruled that the Termination Agreement was invalid concerning the waiver of these payments, awarding Galchev EUR 42,400 in unpaid salaries and bonuses, plus interest for delayed payments. The decision also addressed bonus payments tied to league performance, affirming their classification as part of Galchev's salary.
The ruling underscored the enforceability of contractual rights and the importance of timely legal action, partially accepting Galchev’s appeal, annulling the earlier FIFA decision, and ordering the club to pay the outstanding amounts plus interest. All other claims were dismissed. The case highlights the complexities of employment disputes in international football, particularly regarding contract validity and financial entitlements, and reinforces the protection of players' rights under FIFA regulations and Swiss law.