The case involves a dispute between CJSC Football Club Lokomotiv and Slaven Bilic, a football coach, regarding unpaid amounts under a termination agreement. The parties had entered into an employment contract in 2012, which was terminated in 2013 through a mutual agreement. The termination agreement stipulated payments to the coach, including an additional premium and compensation for premature termination, with specific tax-related conditions. The Club was required to ensure the coach received net amounts after tax deductions, with provisions for tax compensation if the Russian tax rate changed. Payments were to be made in Russian rubles based on the Central Bank of Russia's exchange rate, with interest for late payments.
The coach later filed a claim with FIFA, alleging unpaid amounts under the termination agreement. The Club contested the claim and FIFA's jurisdiction. The FIFA Players' Status Committee ruled in favor of the coach, ordering the Club to pay the outstanding amount plus interest and procedural costs. The Club appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The CAS panel addressed several legal issues, including the applicable law, the admissibility of new evidence, and the interpretation of contractual terms under Russian law. The panel determined that Russian law governed the dispute, as the parties had agreed to it in the employment contract and relied on it throughout the proceedings.
The core dispute centered on the interpretation of the terms "day of charge" and "day of payment" in the termination agreement. The Club argued that the exchange rate on the day of termination (June 17, 2013) should apply, while the coach contended that the rates on the actual payment dates were relevant. The panel found the term "day of charge" ambiguous and concluded that the parties intended to use the exchange rates on the payment dates, as the agreement specified amounts in euros, indicating the coach's interest in receiving payments linked to euro values. The panel recalculated the outstanding amount to EUR 197,137.18, adjusting the initial FIFA decision, which had awarded the coach RUB 18,489,376 (equivalent to EUR 256,001.40). However, the panel limited the award to the original ruble amount, as the coach had not independently appealed for a higher sum, adhering to the principle of non ultra petita.
The panel also addressed procedural issues, including the admissibility of new evidence submitted by the Club. While it admitted translations of Russian labor laws, it rejected an expert report due to lack of justification for its late submission. The final ruling confirmed the adjusted amount, specifying that the payment in rubles must not exceed the original RUB 18,489,376, and granted the coach 5% annual interest on the outstanding amount from 30 days after the award notification until full payment. The decision underscores the importance of clear contractual terms in international employment agreements and the implications of exchange rate risks on obligated parties. The case highlights the complexities of contractual disputes in sports law, particularly concerning termination agreements and tax-related clauses.