The case revolves around a contractual dispute between professional footballer Mehdi Kerrouche and Algerian club Club Sportif Constantinois (CSC). Kerrouche signed a two-year contract with CSC in July 2012, which was set to expire in June 2014. During his tenure, he suffered an injury in August 2012, requiring surgery and rehabilitation in France. Upon his return to Algeria in March 2013, he was excluded from the team’s preseason training in Tunisia in June 2013. On July 17, 2013, Kerrouche sought legal intervention regarding his exclusion, and the club’s representative, Hakim Daba, stated that Kerrouche had been dismissed for failing to rejoin the team by the specified date, despite the contract’s validity.
Kerrouche filed a complaint with the Algerian Football Federation’s (FAF) Chamber for Dispute Resolution (CRL), which ruled in his favor on October 10, 2013, ordering CSC to pay unpaid salaries and damages for wrongful termination. The CRL deemed the termination unjustified, citing Daba’s admission as evidence. However, it denied Kerrouche’s claim for unpaid wages for the 2013-2014 season, citing Algerian labor law prohibiting payment for unworked periods. Kerrouche did not appeal this decision.
CSC appealed to the Algerian Tribunal for the Resolution of Sports Disputes (TARLS) on December 23, 2013, arguing that Kerrouche’s absence justified termination and prevented the club from signing a replacement. The case eventually reached the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which addressed jurisdictional and procedural issues. The CAS emphasized the principle of "competence-competence," allowing arbitrators to rule on their own jurisdiction, and clarified that appeals to CAS against TARLS decisions are permissible only if TARLS operates independently and adheres to its governing statutes.
The CAS also ruled that the date of a formal demand for unpaid salaries cannot be used to calculate interest on compensation for wrongful termination. The case highlights the complexities of sports arbitration, contractual disputes, and procedural safeguards ensuring fair adjudication. The final decision reinforced the autonomy of arbitral tribunals and the importance of timely jurisdictional objections.
Kerrouche sought compensation for unpaid salaries, medical expenses, and reputational damage, alleging the club spread false information about his fitness and character, hindering his career. The club contested the CAS’s jurisdiction, arguing the dispute should remain with TARLS, and denied Kerrouche’s claims, asserting his absence justified termination. The arbitrator upheld the initial decision on wrongful termination but rejected additional claims due to procedural inadmissibility or lack of evidence.
The arbitrator awarded Kerrouche DZD 6,191,680 as compensation for wrongful termination, dismissing claims for bonuses, medical expenses, and reputational damage. The CAS affirmed its jurisdiction, partially upheld the appeal, and modified the TARLS decision, setting a 30-day payment deadline with interest penalties for late payment. The case underscores the interplay between sports regulations, national labor laws, and the importance of procedural compliance in arbitration.