Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-13958
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 11 April 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Hubert Abee
Ndjo'o
BY:
Oleg ZADUBROVSKIY, Russia
CLAIMANT:
Hubert Abee Ndjo'o, Cameroon
Represented by Thomas Riera
RESPONDENT:
Nakhonmaesot United, Thailand
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-13958
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 August 2023, the Cameroonian player Hubert Abee Ndjo'o (hereinafter: Player or
Claimant) and the Thai club Nakhonmaesot United (hereinafter: Club or Respondent)
concluded an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 24 December
2024 (hereinafter: Contract).
2.
Under article 2 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player a monthly
remuneration of THB 25,000, payable by the 5th day of each subsequent month.
3.
On 7 March 2024, the Player lodged the claim at hand before FIFA. In his claim, he argued
that (i) on 30 November 2023, he was informed by the Club that his services would no
longer be needed; and (ii) he was illegally dismissed and replaced by another player named
Ngang as from January 2024.
4.
The Player alleged that since the beginning he was “neglected” by the Club leading to a fine
of THB 9,000 for his overstay in Thailand. He also claimed having unduly paid THB 25,000
“to help fix the visa complication caused by the team”.
5.
In addition, the Player argued that the Club ceased paying his remuneration in December
2023 and terminated the Contract without just cause. As such, he therefore requested to
be awarded the following amounts:
•
THB 25,000 as reimbursement of the visa extension fee;
•
THB 9,000 as reimbursement of the overstay fine;
•
THB 300,000 as compensation for breach of contract, amounting to 12 salaries from
December 2023 until December 2024; and
•
THB 40,000 for legal costs.
6.
On 11 March 2024, the FIFA general secretariat acknowledged receipt of the claim of the
Player and requested him inter alia to provide “confirmation of the date of the termination of
the employment contract at the basis of your claim, together with any additional documentation
in this respect, if need be”.
7.
On the same date, the Player stated as follows:
“[The Player] was illegally deregistered without proper documentation from the league
while a new player by the name of ‘NGANG’ was registered as a replacement of [the
Player] on 1 December 2023 by this means, the employment contract is considered
TERMINATED due to the fact that only three non-Thai citizens are allowed to be signed by
every teams in Thai league 3 division and as a 12 December 2023 [the Club] have three
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-13958
registered non Thai players which are: Houma Ekue Andre ‘Togolese’, Tah Nivan
Tewidikum ‘Cameroonian’, and the newly signed NGANG ‘Cameroonian’.
[Hyperlink] all Ngang’s pictures on [the Club’s] facebook page as of December 2023 –
January 2024”.
8.
In support of his allegations, the Player exclusively submitted hyperlinks allegedly to the
Club’s page in Facebook.
9.
On 11 March 2024, the FIFA general secretariat invited the Club to file its reply on the claim
of the Player by no later than 1 April 2024, to no avail.
10. On 3 April 2024, the Player informed that he remained unemployed following the alleged
termination of the Contract.
II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
11. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Single Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 7 March 2024 and submitted for
decision on 11 April 2024. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023
edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: Procedural
Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at
hand.
12. Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22, par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (February 2024 edition), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Cameroonian
player and a Thai club.
13. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (February 2024 edition)
and considering that the present claim was lodged on 7 March 2024, the cited edition of
said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-13958
b. Burden of proof
14. The Single Judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he may
consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
15. The competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments, and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
16. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the
matter and took note that it pertains to a claim for breach of contract and reimbursement
of expenses lodged by the Player against the Club in connection with the employment
relationship previously maintained between them.
17. In particular, the Single Judge observed that the Player alleges that the Club prematurely
terminated the Contract in December 2023 without just cause, triggering his entitlement
to the sums sought. Conversely, the Club failed to submit its response entailing that his
decision should be made on the basis of the evidence and argumentation presented by the
Player only (cf. art. 14 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules).
18. Against this background, the Single Judge determined that his task was to establish the
circumstances and the justice of the termination, as well as the ensuing consequences.
19. On this note, he turned to documentation on file and acknowledged that the only evidence
submitted by the Player in support of his argumentation was the following:
•
a screenshot apparently posted by the Club in its social media including its lineup for a match in January 2024, in which the Player is not listed (and was allegedly
replaced by Mr Ngang);
•
a copy of a fine of THB 9,000 allegedly imposed on him by the Thai authorities
due to his alleged overstay in Thailand, together with a copy of his passport and
proof of payment of THB 25,000 also linked to the renewal of his visa; and
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-13958
•
hyperlinks to Facebook posts allegedly including photos of Mr Ngang in the Club,
however with no connection to the Player.
20. While considering the above, the Single Judge determined that there was not a single piece
of evidence on file regarding the alleged breach and/or termination by any of the parties –
such as claimed by the Player. He further outlined that it was impossible to establish when
or why the Player stopped rendering services, as well as whether the Club effectively
terminated the Contract at any moment in time.
21. In other words, the Single Judge deemed that the Player failed to produce any
documentation capable of corroborating what happened as from the signature of the
Contract and until the submission of the claim sub judice. In particular, the Single Judge was
of the opinion that (i) by uploading exclusively pictures of social media, the Player could not
prove that he was deregistered or that Mr Ngang effectively replaced him; and (ii) the Player
could also not prove that any of the fines and/or fees paid in connection with his visa were
attributable to the Club.
22. On top of that, the Single Judge found it decisive that none of the parties (and especially
the Player) put the counterparty in default at any moment in time, as well as they did not
exchange any type of written communication, such as notices, emails, text messages,
WhatsApp messages and the like.
23. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that – from the (lack of) documentation on file – it
could not be established that a breach of contract from the Club’s side occurred, let alone
that it was severe enough to trigger the consequences of a corresponding termination. It
followed, in his view, that the Player could not corroborate his entitlement compensation.
24. The Single Judge concluded that seemingly around December 2023 the parties departed
from their execution of the Contract and/or could not demonstrate otherwise. For
completeness, the Single Judge decided that (i) as the Player confirmed having received his
monies until said month, there was also no outstanding remuneration; and (ii) the Player
also failed to corroborate that any of his immigration expenses were attributable to the
Club, reason why his claim for reimbursement was flawed.
25. The claim of the Player was therefore entirely rejected.
d. Costs
26. The Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football agent,
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-13958
27. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-13958
III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Hubert Abee Ndjo'o, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-13958
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 9