The case involves a dispute between Portuguese football player Alexandre Ludovic Ribeiro Pereira and Moldovan club FC Zimbru Chisinau over the termination of the player's contract. The central issue revolved around two conflicting termination agreements. The first, dated May 31, 2016, stated the club owed the player €14,000, while the second, dated June 1, 2016, claimed all financial obligations had been settled. The player alleged the second agreement was forged, while the club argued the first was invalid. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) initially ruled in favor of the club, accepting the later-signed agreement as valid. The player appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which conducted a de novo review, reassessing all facts and legal issues independently.
The CAS examined procedural aspects, including the player's delayed submission of comments to FIFA, which were excluded from the initial proceedings. The panel emphasized that such delays, if not abusive, should not prevent evidence from being considered on appeal. The CAS also scrutinized the authenticity of the termination agreements, noting that merely being the later-signed document did not automatically validate it, especially if the signature was questionable or the document was in a language unfamiliar to the signatory. The player's agent testified that the player had only received one month's salary and had returned to Portugal by mid-May 2016, making it impossible for him to sign the second agreement. The agent also alleged the second agreement was falsified.
The CAS ruled in favor of the player, finding the first termination agreement credible and enforceable. It ordered the club to pay the player €14,000 plus 5% annual interest from the due date until payment was made. The decision highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and thorough evaluation of conflicting contractual versions in sports disputes. The CAS also dismissed the club's argument that the player's late submissions should preclude consideration of new evidence, as there was no evidence of procedural abuse. The ruling underscored CAS's role in ensuring impartial review, even when prior decisions had been made by governing bodies like FIFA. The case serves as a reminder of the critical need for credible evidence and adherence to procedural fairness in contractual disputes within sports arbitration.