CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2024/A/10899 — Anorthosis Famagusta FC v. Alberto Perea Correoso

"Anorthosis Famagusta v. Perea Correoso" · CAS confirmed that a player's Article 14bis termination deadline does not extend to the next working day when it falls on a weekend.

What happened in Anorthosis Famagusta v. Perea Correoso

Spanish footballer Alberto Perea Correoso signed an employment agreement and supplementary agreement with Cypriot club Anorthosis Famagusta FC in January 2024, providing a combined monthly net remuneration of EUR 28,000. After receiving only EUR 10,000 in total payments, the player issued a formal default notice on 5 April 2024 under Articles 12bis and 14bis RSTP, granting the club 15 days to pay EUR 102,000 in arrears. The 15-day deadline expired on Saturday, 20 April 2024. The club argued Swiss law (Article 78 SCO) automatically extended the deadline to Monday, 22 April 2024. The player, acknowledging the bank closure, voluntarily extended the deadline to 9:00 am on 22 April 2024. The club paid only EUR 74,000 at 10:59 am on 22 April 2024 — both late and short of the EUR 92,660 the club itself had acknowledged owing. The player terminated the contract at 12:50 pm on 22 April 2024. The FIFA DRC awarded EUR 28,000 in outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest and EUR 303,000 in compensation. CAS dismissed the club's appeal in full, confirming the DRC decision. The case is significant for definitively establishing that the Article 14bis RSTP 15-day deadline is not subject to automatic extension when it falls on a non-working day, ensuring uniform global application of the rule.

Procedural history of CAS 2024/A/10899

On 25 April 2024, player Alberto Perea Correoso filed a claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), seeking outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract under Article 17 RSTP. Anorthosis Famagusta filed a counterclaim on 3 June 2024 seeking EUR 317,477.98 plus interest and sporting sanctions against the player. On 22 August 2024, the DRC accepted the player's claim, awarded EUR 28,000 as outstanding remuneration (plus 5% interest p.a. from 23 April 2024) and EUR 303,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause, and rejected the club's counterclaim. The grounds were communicated on 9 September 2024. Anorthosis Famagusta filed its Statement of Appeal with CAS on 30 September 2024 and its Appeal Brief on 30 October 2024, after extensions were granted. The player filed his Answer on 9 January 2025. A virtual hearing was held on 30 April 2025.

Key holdings in CAS 2024/A/10899

• The 15-day deadline under Article 14bis RSTP does not automatically extend to the next working day when the last day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or public holiday; clubs bear responsibility for compliance regardless of the day.
• FIFA has purposefully remained silent on the non-working day issue to ensure globally equal and uniform application of Article 14bis RSTP, meaning no legal lacuna (lacuna) exists that would justify applying Article 78 SCO.
• A club's failure to pay the full amount acknowledged as owing within the deadline — paying EUR 74,000 at 10:59 am against an acknowledged debt of EUR 92,660 due by 9:00 am — constitutes grounds for the player to terminate with just cause under Article 14bis RSTP.
• The burden of proving that a player intentionally failed to accept the best available contract to mitigate damages lies with the club invoking that allegation, and mere assertion without evidence is insufficient.
• In application of the principle of ne ultra petita, where the respondent did not file a cross-appeal, the compensation is capped at the amount awarded by the first-instance body (EUR 303,000) even if the arbitrator's own calculation yields a higher figure (EUR 310,466.64).

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first addressed whether the 15-day Article 14bis deadline extends when it falls on a non-working day. Aligning fully with CAS 2020/A/7134, he reasoned that FIFA, as a private association under Swiss law, has freedom to define its regulations and deliberately chose not to address non-working days in order to achieve a globally uniform rule independent of local peculiarities. Applying Article 78 SCO would introduce uncertainty, particularly for foreign players unfamiliar with local holidays. The arbitrator therefore found no legal gap requiring Swiss law to fill. On the facts, the club itself acknowledged owing EUR 92,660 in its 21 April 2024 letter, yet paid only EUR 74,000 at 10:59 am on 22 April 2024 — after the player's voluntarily extended 9:00 am deadline. Both the lateness and the shortfall independently justified termination. The club's counterclaim was rejected because the termination was with just cause. On mitigation, the arbitrator noted the club provided no evidence that the player had received or refused any offer, and observed that players in pending contractual disputes typically face difficulty finding new clubs. The ne ultra petita principle was applied twice: to preserve the DRC's EUR 28,000 outstanding salary figure (the club had not requested its recalculation) and to cap compensation at EUR 303,000 (the player had not cross-appealed the DRC's lower figure).

Why Anorthosis Famagusta v. Perea Correoso matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award reinforces the strict, globally uniform application of the Article 14bis RSTP 15-day deadline, expressly rejecting the argument that Article 78 SCO extends the deadline when it falls on a non-working day. The arbitrator grounded this in FIFA's deliberate regulatory silence, framing it as a policy choice rather than a lacuna. The award also illustrates the ne ultra petita principle operating in both directions within a single CAS appeal, and confirms the evidentiary burden on clubs alleging failure to mitigate.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2020/A/7134 Altay SK v. Pedro Miguel Pina Eugenio CAS 2022/A/8891 Boluspor KD v. Haris Hajdarevic & FK Zeljeznicar Sarajevo CAS 2017/A/5242 Esteghlal Football Club v. Pero Pejic CAS 2015/A/4346 CAS 2020/A/6927 CAS 2006/A/1062

Frequently asked questions about Anorthosis Famagusta v. Perea Correoso

Does the Article 14bis RSTP 15-day deadline extend to the next working day if it falls on a Saturday or Sunday?

No. In CAS 2024/A/10899, the Sole Arbitrator held that the 15-day deadline under Article 14bis RSTP does not automatically extend to the next working day when it falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or public holiday. FIFA's silence on the issue was found to be deliberate, aimed at ensuring globally uniform application of the rule, and no legal lacuna exists that would justify applying Article 78 of the Swiss Code of Obligations. Clubs bear full responsibility for complying with the deadline regardless of the day on which it falls.

What happens under Article 14bis RSTP if a club pays late and pays less than the full amount owed?

In Anorthosis Famagusta v. Perea Correoso, the club paid EUR 74,000 at 10:59 am on 22 April 2024 against an acknowledged debt of EUR 92,660 that was due by 9:00 am that day. The Sole Arbitrator found that both the lateness and the shortfall independently justified the player's termination with just cause under Article 14bis RSTP. A partial payment made after the deadline does not cure the default.

Can a club reduce compensation owed to a player by arguing the player failed to mitigate damages after termination?

A club can raise failure to mitigate, but the burden of proof lies entirely with the club to show the player intentionally refused the best available contract. In CAS 2024/A/10899, the club argued the player made no effort to find new employment, but provided no evidence of any offer the player had received or refused. The Sole Arbitrator also noted that players involved in pending contractual disputes typically face difficulty finding new clubs, and rejected the mitigation argument entirely.

How did the ne ultra petita principle affect the compensation calculation in the Anorthosis Famagusta v. Perea Correoso CAS award?

The Sole Arbitrator calculated that the true residual value of the contract was EUR 310,466.64, which exceeded the DRC's award of EUR 303,000. However, because the player had not filed a cross-appeal and only requested confirmation of the DRC decision, the principle of ne ultra petita prevented the arbitrator from awarding more than what the player had claimed. The compensation was therefore confirmed at EUR 303,000 with no interest, as the player had not requested interest on the compensation amount.

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.