U Craiova 1948 v. Marko Gajic

At a glance

Parties

U Craiova 1948 SA (Romania) v. Marko Gajic (Serbian professional footballer)

Case no.

CAS 2023/A/9444

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeal procedure under the CAS Code of Sports-related Arbitration (2023 edition)

Treaty

None. Appeal under Article R47 of the CAS Code and Article 57 para. 1 of the FIFA Statutes

Tribunal

Prof. Petros C. Mavroidis (Sole Arbitrator)

Sector

Professional football; employment contract

Outcome

Appeal dismissed (27 October 2023). The FIFA DRC decision of 24 November 2022 was confirmed.

Amount

Under the DRC decision, as confirmed: EUR 10,949 in outstanding pay plus 5% interest p.a. from 15 January 2022, and EUR 40,385 in compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. from 23 May 2022. The player sought CHF 5,000 towards his legal fees. The published award omits the costs rulings.

The dispute

On 22 July 2021 the Romanian club U Craiova 1948 SA hired the Serbian player Marko Gajic until 30 June 2023. His pay was a signing fee of EUR 10,000 net and a salary of EUR 7,000 net per month. After an injury on 10 December 2021, the player went to Serbia for treatment. He missed training from 13 to 16 December 2021. The club held disciplinary proceedings and on 29 December 2021 terminated the contract because of that absence. The FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber largely upheld the player's claim. The club appealed to CAS. It argued that the player's absence was unauthorised and gave it just cause under the Romanian Labour Code and the rules of the Romanian Football Federation (RFF). In the alternative, it argued that the player had under-reported his pay at his new club, Radnicki 1923, so the compensation should be reduced.

Key holdings

1. Applicable law: the FIFA regulations, in particular the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), apply primarily, and Swiss law applies additionally. Romanian statutes do not apply. The DRC had not relied on them, and the club had not objected to the DRC's choice of law. ¶¶ 47–49
2. Just cause under Article 14 RSTP, read with Article 337.2 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, has two requirements. The substantive one is usually a pattern of behaviour, or a single incident grave enough, that makes continuing the employment unreasonable. The procedural one is written notice to the other party. A one-off absence from training would hardly be grave enough, and the principle of proportionality calls for warnings or fines instead. ¶¶ 68–70
3. The club had no just cause to terminate on 29 December 2021. It showed no pattern of misconduct. The player proved that he had left after informing club officials and with their consent. The absence was brief, and the club never put him in default. The player cooperated in the disciplinary proceedings and had no incentive to leave the club. ¶¶ 73–74
4. The club's allegation that the player acted in bad faith over his pay at Radnicki 1923 concerned events after the termination. It was therefore irrelevant to whether the club had just cause. ¶ 72
5. The under-reporting claim failed. The club gave no evidence that the Radnicki 1923 contract was a sham, and it did not comment on the copy the player produced. That contract shows a monthly salary of RSD 38,000 net (EUR 323.00). ¶¶ 76–80
6. The appeal was dismissed and the DRC decision of 24 November 2022 was confirmed. All other requests for relief were dismissed. Operative part

Procedural history

1. 29 December 2021The club terminated the employment contract.
2. 23 May 2022The player filed his claim with the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber.
3. 24 November 2022The DRC partially accepted the claim (ref. FPSD-6130). Its grounds were notified on 26 January 2023.
4. 10 February 2023The club filed its Statement of Appeal with CAS. It filed its Appeal Brief on 24 February 2023.
5. 24 March 2023The Deputy President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division dismissed the club's request for a stay.
6. 28 April 2023The appointment of Petros C. Mavroidis as Sole Arbitrator was confirmed.
7. 9 August 2023A remote hearing was held.
8. 27 October 2023Award: the appeal was dismissed and the DRC decision confirmed.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Petros C. Mavroidis Sole arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport — appointed by the institution

For the claimant

U Craiova 1948 SA (in-house)

For the respondent

Filip Blagojevic

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• football
• just cause
• Article 14 RSTP
• FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber
• termination of employment contract
• absence from training
• injury
• Article 337 Swiss Code of Obligations
• burden of proof
• proportionality
• mitigation
• Radnicki 1923
• compensation for breach of contract
• applicable law
• Romanian Labour Code
• disciplinary proceedings

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.