Specifically, the legal conflict between the players and their club started when they claimed that the contract conditions were unfair about their labor rights. The contract they signed stated that the salaries of the players was going to be paid every month, on the condition that they had to play at least in the seventy percent (70%) of the matches in the relevant month of the football season. Nine players applied to the Dispute Resolution Chamber of their football club and they claimed for the fair payment of their salaries, which were clearly owned by their club. In addition, they asked for an official declaration that stated the valid termination of the nine work contracts for good cause, with their correspondent compensation. The request was accepted and recognized by the Resolution Chamber, and it was ordered to the club to pay the outstanding salaries and the rest of the claims. However, the club was not satisfied with such decision and submitted an appeal before the same Resolution Chamber.
The new decision of the Resolution Chamber did not please the Football club as well. In first place, the Chamber considered that the appeals regarding seven players was delayed for procedural reasons. In second place, the amount of money owed to player number eight was reduced, attending to the particular case. In third place, the decision about player nine was confirmed and the Club was ordered to pay him the amount of money he requested. Then the Club appealed again, this time before the Court for Arbitration to Sport (well-known as the CAS), which produced two agreements that were made with Player number 6 and 9. They renounced to their claims and withdrew from the arbitral proceedings. Then the proceedings related to those two players were closed by the sole arbitrator, who issued a new award: the appeals submitted by the football club were rejected. Apparently there was no option of cassation, and, in consequence, the football club kept searching another legal way for defending its interests.
So this is one case when the Public Law enters to intervene Private Law. This is a good example that teaches an important lesson about arbitration. Sometimes public policy doesn’t avert the parties involved to arbitration from reaching an agreement about setting precise limits for the arbitrator's faculties of reviewing cases. The Swiss Supreme Court analyzed the case and ruled, this time, partially in favor of the Club’s interests. The Court decided that, on one hand, because there was no relation to any fact by the arbitrator, the factual allegations of the Club were not admitted. On second hand, the Court considered that the right to be heard was not violated, because (a) this right is not a permission for parties to claim a production of evidence for proving the facts they defend, (b) the sole arbitrator had admitted –in an implicit way– the argument of the Club about the appeals regarding to two of the nine players were filed on time and (c) arbitrators must deal with all kind of pertinent requests, arguments and proven facts that parties submit, even though arbitrators don’t have the mandatory condition for issuing reasoned awards, in terms of the right to be heard.
The Court also rejected the claim of the Club about the violation of the public policy. The tribunal considered that this is not an obligation of an arbitral court, because both parties always have the choice of limiting the faculties of the arbitrator, and the latter does not have to address all the disputes of a case with full faculties for reviewing it.
So, the Supreme Court not just rejected the Club’s argument regarding the wrong refusal of the arbitrator to take into account proven facts: The R57 Article of the CAS Code was enough legal justification for the arbitrator to refuse taking that proven facts into account. Nevertheless, the Court considered that the sole arbitrator did not attempt to address the Club’s arguments: there was no claim or the amount thereof; in particular, the execution of the contractual condition about their obligation of playing at least in the seventy percent (70%) of the matches in the relevant month.