The Players’ Status Committee of the RFU has for the first time made a decision on the basis of its own interpretation of the employment contract

Sergey Skorovich resorted to the Russian Football Union, demanding that his ex-employer, Sinara MFC, pay him the salary debt, compensate him for unmotivated unilateral termination of the employment contract and compensate him for the failure to transfer to him the ownership of a flat.

The RFU Dispute Settlement Chamber, acting as the first instance, acknowledged that the coach’s contract had been terminated without motive, and awarded the demanded compensation to S.Skorovich.

As far as the ambiguous wording of the contract regarding the transfer of a flat to the coach, S.Skorovich claimed that the parties had agreed on the transfer of the ownership, and the Club contradicted him, saying that the contract stipulated only rent. The RFU Dispute Settlement Chamber obligated the Club to fulfil its undertaking regarding the flat, but did not specify the way to do that.

In connection with S.Skorovich’s request, the RFU Players’ Status Committee (second instance) was forced to evaluate the real intentions of the parties at the signing of the employment agreement by way of analyzing the text of the contract, the meanings of certain words and expressions, business customs and practice on similar cases of jurisdictional bodies of FIFA and the Court of Arbitration for Sports in Lausanne (CAS).

As a result, the RFU Players’ Status Committee upheld S.Skorovich’s claim and obligated Sinara MFC to compensate the former couch for the failure to transfer to him the ownership of a flat.

In Russia, this is the first time, when a jurisdictional body of the RFU, in order to settle a dispute, is forced to construe a contract’s provisions not on the basis of the text, but on the basis of its own interpretation of the text.

Mikhail Prokopets, Head of Sports Law Group of the Law Firm "YUST", represented S.Skorovich’s interests in all instances.