Courts in Bucharest found the unilateral termination notice issued by a national‐level sports club to be absolutely void, requalified the contract between the two parties — originally a civil services agreement — into an individual employment contract governed by labor law. They also ordered the club to pay outstanding salary claims owed to the player, amounting to over 500,000 lei.
It should be emphasized that both the athlete’s contract and the litigation took place before the adoption of Article 14² of Law no. 69/2000, under which incomes earned under a sports activity contract are considered incomes from independent activities.
Summary of the Facts
In fact, a professional basketball player, a foreign national, performed his sporting activity during the 2017–2018 basketball season for a sports club from Romania. The parties entered into a sports service contract (a contract for the provision of sports services) for a fixed period of 9 months, and in return the club was to pay the player a monthly income.
Within that contract there was a clause stipulating that—even in cases of inability to play (due to injury, illness, etc.)—the sports club is obliged to respect all contractual obligations, including the payment of the salary.
Due to a severe injury, the professional player was unable to appear in matches or participate in training for several months. As a consequence, the club decided to unilaterally terminate the contract with the player.
Because the obligation to pay the monthly income, as stipulated in the contract, was not fully honored toward the player, he sought judicial recovery of these sums, engaging Brisc Legal lawyers from Cluj specialized in labor law and debt recovery.
Requalification of the Sports Activity Contract into an Employment Contract
The Bucharest Tribunal, hearing the case in first instance, classified the contract concluded between the claimant and the defendant club as an individual employment contract, under Law no. 53/2003 (the Labor Code). The fact that the parties had labelled the contract differently or that it was not registered with the Territorial Labor Inspectorate does not alter its legal nature as a civil agreement under Article 1851 of the Civil Code.
When analyzing the contract, the court held that clauses concerning:
- the obligation to comply with the internal regulations unilaterally imposed by the defendant;
- strict compliance with training schedules and camps;
- participation in all official and non-official competitions demanded by the club;
are intrinsic characteristics of an employment contract.
Although the contract did not explicitly use the term “salary,” the court found that the club’s obligation to perform was of that nature, as evidenced by the ensemble of contract clauses and by the fact that the performance was periodic, paid monthly in a determined amount.
Moreover, the tribunal noted that the contract also contained a series of obligations on the part of the player (to attend any training session, to sign and comply with an internal code of conduct, etc.), which correspond to the provisions of Article 39 of the Labor Code, regulating employee rights and duties.
To determine the legal nature of the contract between the professional player and the club, the court also relied on a per a contrario interpretation of Article 7, point 3 of the Fiscal Code, regarding independent activities. It held that the claimant was under a relationship of subordination, lacking the freedom to choose the place, the manner of performing the work, or the schedule — all were set by the defendant.
Considering these aspects alongside the fact that the claimant did not belong to a professional body that regulates, supervises, or represents the profession in question, the court concluded that the athlete’s activity was, in fact, dependent — characteristic of an employment relationship.
Thus, after the analysis, the tribunal concluded that, in view of:
- the onerous, bilateral (sinalagmatic), commutative, and successive performance nature of the contract;
- the fact that the obligations assumed by the parties contain elements specific to labor relations;
the agreement is to be considered an individual employment contract, concluded while respecting the validity conditions required under labor legislation.
Therefore, the termination notice issued unilaterally by the defendant as a means to end the parties’ relationship is without legal or contractual basis and is sanctioned by absolute nullity, pursuant to Article 78 of the Labor Code.
The decision at first instance favored the professional player, assisted and represented by specialists in individual employment contracts and labor law. The Bucharest Tribunal ruled that the unilateral termination of the contract by the sports club was executed illegally, since it was not effected through a legally appropriate way for terminating an employment contract.
Consequently, the court determined termination by operation of law (upon expiry of the term) of the employment contract. At the same time, the defendant was ordered to pay the outstanding salary claims to the professional player, including the applicable legal penalty interest from each monthly salary due date until effective payment.
When the sports club appealed, the Bucharest Court of Appeal fully upheld the decisions of the first instance court.