The case involves a dispute between professional football player Mersudin Akhmetovic and FC Volga Nizhniy Novgorod, along with the Russian Football Union (RFU), concerning unpaid contractual expenses, including wages and relocation costs. The arbitration was conducted by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), with Prof. Petros Mavroidis serving as the sole arbitrator. The dispute arose from an employment contract signed on 1 January 2011, which stipulated a monthly salary and additional expenses for relocation. The contract included a repayment schedule for these expenses, but the club contested the accuracy of the translation regarding the currency of payment. The contract also outlined dispute resolution procedures, referencing Russian labor law and regulations from FIFA, UEFA, and RFU.
The arbitrator emphasized that, under Article R58 of the CAS Code, the applicable regulations of the relevant sports body take precedence over any other rules chosen by the parties. If gaps exist in these regulations, the rules agreed upon by the parties may be applied subsidiarily. The principle of res judicata was also highlighted, meaning that if a dispute has already been adjudicated by another judicial authority, the same claim cannot be reheard unless it pertains to a separate issue. The player had previously pursued legal action through the RFU's judicial bodies, which ruled in his favor for unpaid wages but dismissed his claim for moving expenses as time-barred under RFU regulations.
Regarding the statute of limitations, the arbitrator ruled that claims must be filed within two years from the date the debt became due, not from the date of formal notice or contract termination. Since Akhmetovic’s claim for the final installment of relocation expenses was filed outside this period, it was deemed time-barred. The player argued that the liability arose only upon the termination of his contract, but the arbitrator found this irrelevant, as the claim was governed by the clear terms of the RFU and FIFA regulations.
On the matter of moral damages, the arbitrator noted that Swiss law, which governs CAS proceedings, adopts a restrictive approach. Article 42 of the Swiss Code of Obligations requires claimants to prove actual loss or damage, and absent such proof, no compensation for moral damages can be awarded. The player sought compensation for alleged moral and financial harm due to procedural delays by the RFU, but he failed to substantiate his claim with evidence.
In conclusion, the arbitrator dismissed Akhmetovic’s claims, finding them either barred by res judicata, time limitations, or insufficient evidence for moral damages. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to contractual deadlines and procedural requirements in sports-related disputes, as well as the strict legal standards applied in sports arbitration. The case highlights the challenges of enforcing financial claims within the framework of football regulations and national laws, emphasizing the need for timely legal action and compliance with contractual terms.