CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11786 — Arkas Spor Kulübü v. Fédération Internationale de Volleyball (FIVB)

"Arkas Spor" · CAS confirmed that a player's unilateral termination letter extinguishes the employment contract for FIVB ITC purposes under Swiss law, validating the transfer.

What happened in Arkas Spor

Arkas Spor Kulübü, a Turkish volleyball club, had a fixed-term employment contract with player Ramazan Efe Mandiraci running from 1 August 2021 to 31 May 2026. On 6 August 2024, the player unilaterally terminated the contract by letter. On 20 August 2024, an international transfer certificate (ITC) procedure was initiated in the FIVB's VIS system for the player's transfer to Italian club You Energy Volley. The Turkish Volleyball Federation (TVF) approved and digitally signed the ITC on 26 August 2024, and the ITC was issued on 3 September 2024. The same day, the TVF sought to withdraw its approval, claiming a binding contract still existed. The FIVB intervened under Article 6.10.1 FIVB SR and found no valid contract bound the player to the club. The FIVB Appeals Panel dismissed Arkas's appeal on 28 August 2025. Arkas then appealed to CAS. The Sole Arbitrator dismissed the appeal, holding that under Swiss law a unilateral termination — even if unjustified — immediately extinguishes the employment contract as an acte formateur, leaving no 'written, legally binding contract' for Article 6.2.3 FIVB SR purposes at the time of the ITC request. The case matters because it confirms that FIVB transfer proceedings under Article 6.10.1 are administrative and prima facie in scope, separate from financial compensation claims, and aligns FIVB practice with the ECJ's Diarra judgment on player freedom of movement.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11786

On 19 September 2024, the FIVB exercised its intervention right under Article 6.10.1 FIVB SR and issued a decision finding no valid contract bound the player to Arkas, thereby validating the player's transfer to You Energy Volley (ITC No. 1974). On 1 October 2024, Arkas and the TVF jointly appealed to the FIVB Appeals Panel, requesting cancellation of the transfer and the player's return. On 28 August 2025, the FIVB Appeals Panel dismissed the appeals and confirmed the FIVB decision. The Appealed Decision was notified to Arkas on 1 September 2025. On 22 September 2025, Arkas filed a Statement of Appeal and Appeal Brief before CAS, also requesting provisional measures and document production. The President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division dismissed the provisional measures request on 23 October 2025. Both parties agreed to proceed before a sole arbitrator on written submissions only. The Sole Arbitrator was confirmed on 12 December 2025.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11786

• Under Swiss law, a unilateral termination of an employment contract — even if unjustified — is legally effective as an acte formateur that immediately extinguishes the contractual relationship ex nunc, so no 'valid, legally binding contract' existed for FIVB SR purposes when the ITC was requested on 20 August 2024.
• The phrase 'written, legally binding contract' in Article 6.2.3 FIVB SR has the same meaning as under Swiss law and does not carry a distinct regulatory meaning that would preserve the contract's binding status for transfer purposes after a unilateral termination.
• Article 6.10.1 FIVB SR proceedings are administrative and limited in scope to determining whether a valid contract exists at the time of the ITC request, without prejudice to financial or labour-law claims that may be pursued separately under Article 18 FIVB SR or before civil courts.
• The TVF's post-signature withdrawal of its ITC approval cannot automatically reverse or invalidate the ITC, as no withdrawal mechanism is provided in the FIVB SR and permitting retroactive withdrawal would undermine the smooth and transparent functioning of the international transfer system.
• Because no valid contract existed at the time of the ITC request, the Receiving Club was not required to negotiate with Arkas as a 'Current Club' under Article 6.2.3 FIVB SR, and the absence of such negotiations constituted no procedural defect.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator applied Swiss law subsidiarily pursuant to Article R58 of the CAS Code, given the FIVB's seat in Lausanne. She relied on Swiss Federal Tribunal jurisprudence (SFT 131 III 535; 4A_78/2018; ATF 4A_372/2016; ATF 127 III 86) establishing that a unilateral termination notice is an acte formateur that extinguishes an employment contract ex nunc regardless of whether just cause existed. She rejected Arkas's argument that 'legally binding contract' in Article 6.2.3 FIVB SR should be read teleologically to preserve the club's negotiation rights despite termination, finding no textual or contextual basis for a different regulatory meaning. She distinguished the administrative ITC procedure under Article 6.10.1 — which is limited to a prima facie assessment of contractual status at the moment of the ITC request — from full financial dispute proceedings under Article 18 FIVB SR, where compensation for unjustified termination can be pursued. She endorsed the FIVB's approach as consistent with the ECJ's Diarra judgment (C-650/22), which held that blocking an ITC solely because of a contractual dispute disproportionately restricts a player's freedom of movement under Article 45 TFEU. She also found that the TVF's failure to flag the existing contract when negotiating the Federation of Origin Solidarity Fee, and its subsequent attempt to withdraw ITC approval, could not cure the underlying legal position. Evidence of financial prejudice to Arkas was dismissed as irrelevant to the ITC question.

Why Arkas Spor matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award establishes that FIVB transfer proceedings under Article 6.10.1 FIVB SR are administrative and prima facie in scope, and that Swiss law governs the determination of whether a 'written, legally binding contract' exists for ITC purposes. It confirms that a unilateral termination — even if potentially unjustified — immediately ends the contract for transfer purposes, aligning FIVB practice with the ECJ's Diarra judgment on player freedom of movement and clarifying that clubs' financial remedies lie in separate dispute resolution proceedings rather than in blocking the ITC.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2011/A/2551 CAS 2010/A/2079 ECJ C-650/22 (Diarra) SFT 4A_78/2018 ATF 4A_372/2016 SFT 131 III 535

Frequently asked questions about Arkas Spor

Did Arkas Spor win at CAS after the FIVB approved the player's transfer despite an existing contract?

No. CAS dismissed Arkas's appeal in full and confirmed the FIVB Appeals Panel decision of 28 August 2025. The Sole Arbitrator held that the player's termination letter of 6 August 2024 extinguished the employment contract under Swiss law before the ITC was requested on 20 August 2024, so no valid contract existed for FIVB transfer purposes.

Can a volleyball player's unilateral termination letter invalidate a fixed-term contract for FIVB ITC purposes even if the termination may have been unjustified?

Yes, according to this award. The Sole Arbitrator applied Swiss Federal Tribunal jurisprudence holding that a unilateral termination is an acte formateur that extinguishes the employment contract ex nunc regardless of whether just cause existed. An unjustified termination gives rise only to financial consequences — such as damages — which must be pursued in separate proceedings under Article 18 FIVB SR or before civil courts.

What happens if a national federation tries to withdraw its ITC approval after digitally signing it in the FIVB VIS system?

The withdrawal has no effect on the validity of the ITC. The Sole Arbitrator confirmed that no withdrawal mechanism exists in the FIVB SR and that permitting retroactive withdrawal would undermine the smooth and transparent functioning of the international transfer system. The ITC became final and binding at the moment of its issuance following the TVF's digital signature and receipt by the FIVB in the VIS system.

Does the Diarra ECJ judgment affect how FIVB handles ITC disputes where a club claims a player is still under contract?

Yes. The Sole Arbitrator expressly endorsed the FIVB's approach as consistent with the ECJ's Diarra judgment (C-650/22), which held that refusing to issue an ITC solely because of a contractual dispute between a player and his previous club would disproportionately restrict the player's freedom of movement as a worker under Article 45 TFEU. This supports the FIVB's limited, prima facie scope of assessment in administrative transfer proceedings under Article 6.10.1 FIVB SR.

Topics: Doping, ethics & governance 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.