The case revolves around a contractual dispute between professional footballer Redha Benhadj Djilali and Club Sportif Constantinois (CSC) following the club's unilateral termination of his employment contract. The player, an Algerian national, had signed a two-year contract with CSC effective from August 1, 2012, to July 31, 2014, with a monthly salary of 1,080,000 Algerian dinars. The 2012/2013 season proceeded without issues, but in July 2013, the player was excluded from preseason training. The club claimed the player failed to report for training after his annual leave, while the player argued he was unjustly barred from participation. A bailiff’s report confirmed the club had terminated the contract prematurely, prompting the player to seek legal recourse through the Algerian Football Federation’s (FAF) Dispute Resolution Chamber (CRL). The CRL ruled in the player’s favor, awarding him 2,390,000 dinars and declaring him free from contractual obligations due to the unjust termination. The club appealed to the Algerian Tribunal for Sports Dispute Resolution (TARLS), which upheld the CRL’s decision.
The player then appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the national tribunal’s decision lacked independence and autonomy. CAS asserted jurisdiction under Article R47 of its Code, citing the absence of specific contractual dispute resolution provisions and the national tribunal’s failure to meet arbitration standards. CAS examined the financial implications of the termination, referencing FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) and Algerian labor law, which stipulate compensation for wrongful termination should cover remaining salary and benefits. The club contended the player’s absence justified termination and sought reimbursement for alleged overpayments, but CAS found the termination unjustified, as the player had not been formally notified or given a chance to defend himself.
The CAS panel scrutinized the TARLS arbitration process, identifying procedural irregularities, including improper constitution of the arbitration panel and lack of clarity in arbitrator designation. The panel concluded the TARLS decision lacked independence and autonomy, reinforcing CAS’s jurisdiction. On the merits, the panel found the club’s termination unjust, as the contract lacked clauses allowing early termination and the club failed to provide valid justification. Applying Article 17 of the RSTP and Algerian labor law, the panel determined the player was entitled to compensation equivalent to his remaining salary. Though the player could have claimed 14,350,000 dinars, his final request was for 12,960,000 dinars, which the panel awarded, adhering to the principle of not ruling beyond the claimant’s request.
The CAS partially overturned the TARLS decision, ordering the club to pay the player 12,960,000 dinars as compensation for unjust termination. The ruling emphasized the importance of procedural fairness, contractual compliance, and the enforceability of obligations in professional sports. It also highlighted CAS’s role in ensuring fair resolution when national bodies fail to meet arbitration standards. The case underscores the consequences of unilateral contract breaches without valid justification and the necessity of adhering to due process in sports disputes.