The case involves a complex legal dispute between Club Sportiv "Gaz Metan" Medias (Gaz Metan), Eric de Oliveira Pereira (the Player), FC Karpaty Lviv, and Clube Atletico Metropolitano (Metropolitano) regarding football transfer and loan agreements. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued an award on 24 April 2018, addressing key legal principles such as the specificity of relief requests, the authority of foreign judgments, contract interpretation, and the prohibition of conflicting contracts. The panel emphasized that relief requests must be precise to ensure fair adjudication and that foreign judgments in Switzerland only hold the authority they would have if issued by a Swiss court. Contract interpretation should focus on the parties' intent, guided by good faith if intent is unclear, and signing conflicting contracts is impermissible as it breaches at least one agreement.
The dispute originated from a series of agreements starting in 2007, including an employment contract between Metropolitano and the Player, followed by a loan agreement transferring the Player to Gaz Metan. This agreement included an option for Gaz Metan to extend the loan for three years by paying $50,000, granting them 65% of the Player's transfer rights. Gaz Metan exercised this option in 2008, but conflicts arose when Gaz Metan attempted to enforce a transfer clause in 2010, offering Metropolitano 35% of €350,000. Metropolitano contested this, asserting the Player would return to them if not sold by the contract's end. The case highlights the complexities of football transfer agreements and the importance of clear contractual terms.
Further disputes emerged when FC Karpaty expressed interest in the Player in 2011, but Gaz Metan objected, citing FIFA regulations. Metropolitano and FC Karpaty later finalized a transfer agreement, though the Player's registration was initially blocked by the Romanian Football Federation due to Gaz Metan's claims. A FIFA decision eventually allowed provisional registration with Metropolitano. Gaz Metan pursued legal actions against the Player, including sanctions for missed training sessions, and a declaration that the Player had unilaterally terminated his contract. The National Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Romanian Football Federation ruled in Gaz Metan's favor, penalizing the Player. The Player later terminated his contract with FC Karpaty due to unpaid wages, leading to a FIFA ruling in his favor.
In 2012, Gaz Metan and the Player signed a new employment contract, resolving prior disputes and superseding previous agreements. The contract included clauses acknowledging the Player's prior unilateral termination and stipulating financial penalties for future breaches. Gaz Metan filed a claim with FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) in 2013, alleging that FC Karpaty and Metropolitano induced the Player's breach and seeking damages and transfer bans. The DRC dismissed the claim in 2016, citing forum-shopping, as the matter had already been decided by the National Dispute Resolution Chamber. Gaz Metan appealed to CAS in 2017, but the panel dismissed the appeal, finding the claims unfounded. The panel ruled that Gaz Metan's rights under the loan agreements ended in 2011, and Metropolitano was free to negotiate the Player's transfer thereafter. The panel also found that the Player's second employment contract with Gaz Metan was incompatible with FIFA regulations, as it conflicted with the loan agreement's expiration. The CAS upheld the DRC's decision, concluding that only the Player was responsible for the breach and dismissing all other claims. The ruling underscores the importance of adhering to contractual obligations and the jurisdictional boundaries of sports dispute resolution mechanisms.