The case involves a dispute between Hellas Verona FC, professional football player Rade Krunic, and FK Borac Čačak, centered on the validity and breach of an employment contract offer. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued an award on December 21, 2018, addressing jurisdictional issues, the scope of CAS review, and the validity of conditional contracts under Swiss law. The dispute arose when Hellas Verona made an employment offer to Krunic on August 22, 2014, conditional upon his transfer from FK Donji Srem. The offer outlined salary terms for multiple seasons, and Krunic signed it. Hellas Verona negotiated a transfer agreement with Donji Srem, but Krunic’s lawyer later sent a cancellation letter, arguing that the club failed to provide a formal contract within a reasonable time. Krunic then signed with Borac Čačak in February 2015. Hellas Verona claimed breach of contract and sought compensation, but the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) rejected their claim in November 2017.
The CAS addressed four main legal issues. First, it clarified that FIFA’s jurisdiction over the dispute was a matter of merits, not CAS jurisdiction. Second, under Article R57 of the CAS Code, the panel had full authority to review facts and law de novo. Third, the principle of tempus regit actum dictated that substantive matters were governed by regulations in force at the time of the relevant facts, while procedural matters followed rules in effect when the procedural action occurred. Fourth, Swiss law permits conditional contracts, where a contract’s validity depends on an uncertain future event. The panel examined whether the offer contained all essential elements for a binding contract, such as a clear start date and obligations of both parties. While the FIFA DRC had deemed the offer valid, the panel expressed doubts, referencing FIFA guidelines emphasizing clarity in contracts. However, it left this question unresolved, as it concluded the offer’s condition—related to the transfer window—could no longer be fulfilled after the 2014 summer transfer window closed.
Hellas Verona argued the offer was binding and that Krunic breached it by unilaterally terminating the agreement. The club sought compensation of €1,660,802.15, covering residual contract value, transfer fees, and replacement costs. Krunic and Borac Čačak contested these claims, arguing no valid contract existed due to missing essential terms and the conditional nature of the offer. They also challenged FIFA’s and CAS’s jurisdiction, asserting the dispute should have been handled by an Italian arbitral tribunal. The panel upheld CAS’s jurisdiction based on FIFA statutes and rejected the statute of limitations defense, ruling the dispute arose when Krunic rejected the offer, not when it was made. The panel also noted inconsistencies in Hellas Verona’s arguments, as the club had previously denied the existence of a valid contract in separate proceedings.
The panel concluded the transfer condition was tied to the 2014 summer window and could not extend to the 2015 winter window. Hellas Verona’s inaction after the summer window closed, including failing to respond to Krunic’s cancellation letter or directly communicate with him, undermined its claim that the offer remained valid. The panel found no evidence of bad faith by either party to obstruct the transfer but determined the condition was unfulfilled, rendering the offer ineffective. Consequently, the panel dismissed Hellas Verona’s appeal, confirming the FIFA DRC’s decision and rejecting all other claims and counterclaims. The ruling emphasized the importance of clear contractual terms and timely fulfillment of conditions in football-related employment disputes.