The case involves a legal dispute between New Panionios Football Club and professional footballer Erol Bulut regarding the validity and extension of his employment contract. The conflict arose from two agreements: an initial contract signed on November 5, 2001, which was not submitted to the Hellenic Union of Joint-Stock Football Companies (EPAE) and was signed outside the official transfer period, and a second agreement signed on January 3, 2002, which complied with EPAE formalities and was registered on January 11, 2002. The second contract included a one-year unilateral renewal clause, which New Panionios exercised for the 2002-2003 season. However, when the club attempted a second renewal for the 2003-2004 season, Bulut contested its validity, arguing it lacked legal and contractual basis.
During this period, New Panionios imposed a four-month disciplinary suspension on Bulut starting May 21, 2003, citing alleged defamatory statements. Bulut appealed to the Financial Disputes Resolution Committee (B’ EEODEP), seeking contract termination and payment of outstanding wages. The first-instance committee upheld the suspension but extended Bulut’s contract by four months. On appeal, B’ EEODEP reduced the suspension to one month and ordered New Panionios to pay €25,897.28 in unpaid wages. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) later ruled that any agreement signed outside the transfer period was invalid under Greek football regulations, including renewals. It also stated that a unilateral contract extension via disciplinary suspension violated general labor law principles, as it disadvantaged the employee. The CAS emphasized that an employee cannot be forced to remain with an employer, and breach of contract may lead to damages but not injunctive relief.
Further complications arose when New Panionios attempted to unilaterally extend Bulut’s contract, but the Control Committee of EPAE rejected this action, ruling the club lacked the contractual right to do so. The B’ EEODEP upheld this decision, stating the January 2002 contract only allowed for a one-year renewal until June 2003 and that the 2001 contract was void under Greek regulations. In November 2003, FIFA authorized Bulut to provisionally register with Turkish club Bursaspor. In June 2004, FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) rejected Bulut’s claim for payment but also dismissed New Panionios’ counterclaim for €400,000 in damages, upholding Bulut’s registration with Bursaspor. New Panionios appealed to the CAS, seeking to overturn the DRC’s decision and claiming damages. The club argued Bulut’s contract had been validly extended and his unauthorized departure caused financial harm, while Bulut maintained the extensions were invalid.
The CAS’s jurisdiction was established under FIFA’s statutes, and the proceedings included witness testimony and a hearing in Lausanne in December 2004. The panel ruled that the November 2001 contract was invalid due to non-compliance with EPAE formalities and transfer period rules. The only valid contract was the January 2002 agreement, which expired on June 30, 2003, with no provision for further extensions. The panel emphasized that disciplinary measures extending the contract were invalid and that Bulut was justified in considering himself free from obligations after June 30, 2003. The CAS dismissed New Panionios’ appeal, upholding the DRC’s decision and reinforcing that no damages could be awarded without a valid contractual foundation. The case highlights the complexities of contractual disputes in professional football and the importance of adhering to regulatory and labor law principles.