CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10602 — PAS Lamia 1964 FC v. Stefan Ashkovski

"Lamia v. Ashkovski" · CAS upheld a Bulgarian player's just-cause termination against a Greek club that abusively excluded him from first-team training.

What happened in Lamia v. Ashkovski

Stefan Ashkovski, a Bulgarian professional footballer, signed a two-season employment contract with Greek club PAS Lamia 1964 FC running from 1 September 2022 to 30 June 2024. After the 2022/23 season, the Club's Director pressured Ashkovski via Viber to find a new club, and from 10 July 2023 the Club excluded him from first-team training without adequate justification. Despite multiple default notices demanding reinstatement and payment of overdue salaries totalling EUR 36,283, the Club only complied at the last moment on 31 July 2023, assuring the Player he was 'fully reintegrated.' On 2 August 2023 — the very first training day — the Player was again separated from the first team. He immediately terminated the contract invoking Article 14(2) FIFA RSTP. The FIFA DRC found just cause and ordered the Club to pay EUR 800 outstanding remuneration and EUR 121,800 compensation. PAS Lamia appealed to CAS. The Sole Arbitrator confirmed just cause, noting the cumulative effect of abusive exclusion, salary delays, and the Club's broken reintegration assurance. The EUR 800 award was set aside because the Club had already paid it. The EUR 121,800 compensation (residual contract value EUR 133,800 minus EUR 12,000 mitigation from FK Radnicki) was confirmed. The case matters because it illustrates how a club's broken reintegration promise, combined with prior abusive conduct, can crystallise just cause even after apparent remediation.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10602

On 13 October 2023, Ashkovski filed a claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) of the FIFA Football Tribunal, claiming EUR 800 outstanding salary and EUR 134,700 compensation for breach of contract. The Club filed a counterclaim for EUR 40,000 compensation, arguing the Player terminated without just cause. FK Radnicki, invited to comment, did not respond. On 7 March 2024, the FIFA DRC issued the Appealed Decision: it partially accepted the Player's claim, ordering the Club to pay EUR 800 outstanding remuneration plus 5% p.a. interest from 1 August 2023, and EUR 121,800 compensation plus 5% p.a. interest from 2 August 2023, while rejecting the Club's counterclaim. On 14 May 2024, PAS Lamia filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS under Articles R47 and R48 of the 2023 CAS Code, seeking to set aside the Appealed Decision and obtain EUR 40,000 compensation from the Player. A hearing was held by video-conference on 16 January 2025.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10602

• A player has just cause to terminate an employment contract under Article 14(2) FIFA RSTP where a club pressures him to find alternative employment and then excludes him from first-team training without objective justification for a prolonged period.
• A club's voluntary written assurance that a player is 'fully reintegrated to the first team and its trainings' estops it from immediately separating that player again without fresh justification; doing so within two days constitutes a further breach entitling termination.
• Late payment of salaries that is remedied within the deadline set by the player's default notice does not independently constitute just cause, but forms part of the overall context of abusive conduct.
• The evidentiary value of an ergometric test report is limited where it does not compare the player's results against other squad members and where the club subsequently declared the player fully fit for reintegration.
• Under Article 17(1) FIFA RSTP, compensation for breach of contract equals the residual contract value minus earnings from new employment; where the residual value was EUR 133,800 and mitigation earnings were EUR 12,000, the compensation is EUR 121,800.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator applied the longstanding CAS standard derived from Article 337(2) Swiss Code of Obligations: just cause exists when, in good faith, the terminating party cannot be expected to continue the employment relationship. He assessed the Club's conduct cumulatively rather than element by element. The Viber messages of 24 June 2023 from the Club's Director were treated as direct evidence of an abusive strategy to pressure the Player into leaving. The Club's failure to provide objective justification for the separate training regime — no medical diagnosis, no milestones, no defined duration — was weighed heavily. The physiotherapist's witness statement was discounted because he lacked medical qualifications to diagnose injury. The ergometric report was discounted because it did not benchmark the Player against teammates and was in any event superseded by the Club's own reintegration assurance of 31 July 2023. The Arbitrator rejected the Club's argument that the Player needed to issue a fresh default notice on 2 August 2023, finding that the Player's 1 August 2023 warning — that any further sidelining would trigger immediate termination without further notice — was valid and proportionate given the Club's prior conduct. The Club's counterclaim for EUR 40,000 fell away automatically once just cause was established. The compensation calculation under Article 17(1) FIFA RSTP was uncontested.

Why Lamia v. Ashkovski matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces that a club's written reintegration assurance creates a binding expectation that cannot be immediately reversed without fresh objective justification; breaching that assurance within 48 hours, against a backdrop of prior abusive exclusion and salary delays, is sufficient to crystallise just cause under Article 14(2) FIFA RSTP. The case also confirms that cumulative conduct — none of whose individual elements may alone suffice — can collectively establish just cause, and that a player's pre-termination warning dispensing with further notice is effective where the club's prior conduct makes further performance futile.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2006/A/1180 CAS 2022/A/8963 CAS 2021/A/7714 CAS 2013/A/3091, 3092, 3093

Frequently asked questions about Lamia v. Ashkovski

Did PAS Lamia successfully argue that paying the player and reinstating him before termination removed just cause in the Lamia v. Ashkovski case?

No. Although the Club paid the outstanding salaries and issued a reintegration assurance by 31 July 2023, the Sole Arbitrator found that the Club's broken promise — separating the Player again during the very first training session on 2 August 2023 — combined with the prior abusive conduct, meant the Player could no longer reasonably be expected to continue the employment relationship. The Player's 1 August 2023 warning that any further sidelining would trigger immediate termination without further notice was held to be valid.

How was the EUR 121,800 compensation figure calculated in Lamia v. Ashkovski?

The FIFA DRC and CAS both applied Article 17(1) FIFA RSTP. The residual value of the employment contract from the date of termination (2 August 2023) to its end date (30 June 2024) was EUR 133,800. The Player mitigated his loss by signing with FK Radnicki from 25 September 2023 to 31 May 2024 at EUR 1,500 per month, totalling EUR 12,000 (8 months). Deducting EUR 12,000 from EUR 133,800 produced EUR 121,800, which the Club did not contest.

What weight did CAS give to the ergometric test report and the physiotherapist's evidence in the Lamia v. Ashkovski case?

The Sole Arbitrator gave both limited evidentiary value. The physiotherapist's witness statement was discounted because he was not a qualified doctor and therefore not competent to diagnose an injury. The ergometric report was discounted because it did not compare the Player's results against other squad members, making it impossible to conclude the Player was a negative outlier, and because the Club itself declared the Player 'fully reintegrated' on 31 July 2023, effectively superseding any fitness concerns the report might have raised.

Can a club's Viber messages pressuring a player to find a new club be used as evidence of abusive conduct under Article 14(2) FIFA RSTP?

Yes, in this case. The Sole Arbitrator treated the Club Director's Viber messages of 24 June 2023 — telling the Player it was 'not a good solution to go back to Lamia and be in a bad situation training only a player like you' — as direct evidence of an abusive strategy to pressure the Player into leaving. The Arbitrator held that where a club representative pressures a player into finding alternative employment at the risk of exclusion from the squad, and that exclusion then materialises without objective justification, it is to be presumed that the club is acting abusively within the meaning of Article 14(2) FIFA RSTP.

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.