CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10425 — Lucca Camina Pereira v. Athletic Club Ajaccien

"Camina Pereira v. AC Ajaccio" · CAS partially upheld a player's appeal, awarding EUR 5,600 in unpaid salaries and breach compensation against AC Ajaccio.

What happened in Camina Pereira v. AC Ajaccio

Brazilian/Spanish player Lucca Camina Pereira (also known as Lucca Souza Cortizo) signed a one-season employment contract with French club AC Ajaccio on 13 September 2022, earning EUR 2,800 per month. The club paid salaries through April 2023 but withheld May and June 2023 payments. In June 2023, the FFF refused to homologate the contract because the club failed to provide documentation of the player's French residence authorisation. The player also claimed a second contract dated 23 September 2022 extended his employment to September 2026. The FIFA Football Tribunal (decision of 2 May 2024) awarded only EUR 2,800 outstanding remuneration and EUR 2,800 compensation, with interest running from 6 June 2023 on both amounts. The player appealed to CAS seeking EUR 112,000. The Sole Arbitrator confirmed the EUR 5,600 total award but corrected the interest start date on the June salary to 1 July 2023. The panel rejected the second-contract claim for lack of evidence and found no valid early termination, precluding Article 17 RSTP compensation. The case matters because it reaffirms that clubs bear responsibility for obtaining work permits and cannot withhold salary without proving unjustified absence.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10425

On 8 January 2024, the player filed a claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (FIFA DRC) seeking EUR 14,000 in outstanding remuneration and EUR 98,000 in breach-of-contract compensation. The respondent failed to reply. On 20 September 2023 (operative decision dated 2 May 2024, notified 15 July 2024), the FIFA Football Tribunal partially accepted the claim, awarding EUR 2,800 as outstanding remuneration and EUR 2,800 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause, both with 5% p.a. interest from 6 June 2023, and rejecting all further claims. The player filed a Statement of Appeal at CAS on 30 July 2024, within the 21-day limit under Article 58(1) FIFA Statutes. CAS proceedings were formally initiated on 27 November 2024. A hearing was held by video-conference on 22 May 2025. The player sought EUR 112,000 plus interest and costs.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10425

• The Employment Contract signed on 13 September 2022 was validly entered into and lapsed on its contractual termination date of 30 June 2023 without early termination by either party.
• By withholding salary payments for May and June 2023 without proving unjustified absence, the club breached the Employment Contract.
• The player failed to discharge his burden of proof under Article 8 of the Swiss Civil Code that a second contract extending employment to September 2026 was concluded on 23 September 2022.
• Because the Employment Contract was not terminated early, the conditions for compensation under Article 17 FIFA RSTP were not met and no such additional compensation was due.
• Interest on the May 2023 salary of EUR 2,800 runs from 6 June 2023 and interest on the June 2023 salary of EUR 2,800 runs from 1 July 2023, pursuant to Articles 102 and 104 of the Swiss Code of Obligations.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator applied FIFA RSTP as the primary law and Swiss law subsidiarily, consistent with Article R58 of the CAS Code and Article 56(2) FIFA Statutes, notwithstanding the Employment Contract's French-law clause, because both parties invoked FIFA regulations. On the salary withholding, the panel placed the burden on the club under Article 8 SCC to prove unjustified absence; the club produced no evidence of formal invitations to training, notices of unauthorised absence, disciplinary proceedings, or a valid early termination under Article 1243-1 of the French Employment Code. The panel also noted the club submitted only 2024/2025 French football regulations for a 2022/2023 dispute. On the FFF homologation failure, the panel adopted FIFA Football Tribunal jurisprudence that it is the club's duty to secure work permits. On the second contract, the panel found the undated CBF system screenshot insufficient, noting the player could not confirm at the hearing where, when, or by whom it was signed, and that a near-four-year extension ten days after the first contract was highly unlikely. The panel rejected Article 17 RSTP compensation because no early termination occurred before the contract's natural expiry on 30 June 2023.

Why Camina Pereira v. AC Ajaccio matters in CAS jurisprudence

The award reinforces that clubs bear the burden of proving unjustified player absence before withholding salary, and confirms FIFA Football Tribunal jurisprudence that securing work permits and residence authorisation is the club's responsibility. It also illustrates the evidentiary threshold required to establish a second contract in CAS proceedings — an undated system screenshot without corroborating documentation is insufficient — and clarifies that Article 17 RSTP compensation is unavailable where a fixed-term contract expires naturally without a valid early termination.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2009/A/1909

Frequently asked questions about Camina Pereira v. AC Ajaccio

Why did CAS reject the player's claim for EUR 112,000 compensation in Camina Pereira v. AC Ajaccio?

The player's EUR 112,000 claim rested on a second contract allegedly extending his employment to September 2026. The Sole Arbitrator found the only evidence — an undated screenshot of the CBF system — insufficient, and the player could not confirm at the hearing where, when, or by whom the second contract was signed. Because no valid early termination occurred before the Employment Contract's natural expiry on 30 June 2023, Article 17 FIFA RSTP compensation was also unavailable.

Who was responsible for the FFF's refusal to homologate the AC Ajaccio employment contract?

The Sole Arbitrator held the club responsible, adopting FIFA Football Tribunal jurisprudence that it is the club's duty to secure work permits and residence authorisation for its players. The FFF rejected the contract because the club failed to provide documentation of the player's French residence authorisation, and the panel found no basis to attribute this failure to the player.

What interest rates and start dates did CAS apply to the unpaid salaries in Camina Pereira v. AC Ajaccio?

The Sole Arbitrator applied the Swiss statutory default interest rate of 5% p.a. under Articles 102 and 104 of the Swiss Code of Obligations. Interest on the May 2023 salary of EUR 2,800 runs from 6 June 2023 (the date shown on the May pay slip), and interest on the June 2023 salary of EUR 2,800 runs from 1 July 2023 (the day after the 30 June 2023 pay slip date). This corrected the FIFA Football Tribunal's decision, which had applied the same 6 June 2023 start date to both amounts.

Can a French football club withhold a player's salary because the player left for Brazil without formal notice, as AC Ajaccio argued?

No, on the facts of this case. The Sole Arbitrator placed the burden on the club under Article 8 of the Swiss Civil Code to prove the absence was unjustified. AC Ajaccio submitted no evidence of formal training invitations, notices of unauthorised absence, disciplinary proceedings, or a valid early termination under Article 1243-1 of the French Employment Code. The club also relied on 2024/2025 French football regulations for a 2022/2023 dispute, which the panel found inadequate.

Topics: Art. 17 RSTP & contract termination at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.