We are thrilled and proud to announce that our client, Mrs. Ana Zivojinovic (the “Player”) succeeded in the CEV dispute against a Greek volleyball club Olympiacos (the “Club”). The case involved a clause preventing the Player to become pregnant, as well as the unilateral deduction of the Player’s salary due to the eruption of the coronavirus.
In June 2019, the Parties signed a 1-year employment contract, which contained a clause stating that the Player undertakes the obligation not to become pregnant during the entire gaming season. Due to the coronavirus eruption, the competition was suspended and the Player left Greece. At the same time, she became pregnant.
In April 2021, the Player addressed the Club and asked her salaries and bonuses under the contract be paid (with a proposal of decreasing the amounts corresponding to the period March – June 2020). In turn, the Club refused to make the payments, by invoking: (1) its (unilateral) decision to fully cut the Player’s salaries for the period March 2020 – June 2020 and (2) the fact that the Player breached the contract by becoming pregnant.
In July 2021, Mrs. Zivojinovic filed a claim before the European volleyball federation (CEV). This case was handled by a Slovenian lawyer Luka Milanovic and our partner Filip Blagojevic.
The claim submitted that, in light of absence of any guidelines from FIVB or CEV with regard to allocation of risks and effects on contractual relationships due to COVID-19, the Guidelines issued by the Basketball Arbitral Tribunal (a sports arbitration body that also decides disputes ex aequo et bono). Said guidelines suggest the following reduction of salaries: (1) for salaries up to EUR 2,500 monthly, a reduction by 0-20% shall be applied; (2) for every EUR exceeding EUR 2,500/monthly, a reduction by 50% shall be applied as a starting point, however, such reduction is subject to adjustment upwards or downwards as per the circumstances of an individual case. This argument was fully endorsed by the CEV.
Far more importantly, Mrs. Zivojinovic challenged validity of the “no-pregnancy” clause invoked by the Club, finding it contradictory with the European Convention on Human Rights and discriminatory in sense of the Universal declaration of Human Rights. In this regard, the CEV fully endorsed the position of Mrs. Zivojinovic, confirming that “applying said provision could result in a violation of international public policy, a line that a body deciding ex aequo et bono cannot cross. In light of the above, the CEV finds that Article VI. 1. of the Agreement violates the general principles of justice and fairness and, in particular, the “balances of duties and obligations”; consequently, said clause could not be relied upon by the Club to avoid abiding by the payment obligations provided under the Agreement”.
Finally, it shall be noted that the Club alleged that it had terminated the contract with just cause, although no termination notice was ever issued. In this sense, CEV endorsed our view that the termination envisaged in the contract was not a self-executing termination, but rather required the Club to take a formal step to terminate, i.e. if a party decides to terminate, then it must be made reasonably clear to the counterparty what is happening (termination does not occur “by telepathy”, nor can it be couched in vague language).
In spite of the CEV ruling, the Club refused to make the payment and the Player was forced to initiate a disciplinary procedure and request the CEV to impose a ban on registering new players on the Club. After several months of the disciplinary procedure, the Club had no other option but to comply with the CEV decision and remunerated the Player.
It goes without saying that this case will be a cornerstone for the future cases of female athletes.
