Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-9882
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 7 June 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Rizvan Ablitarov
BY:
Jorge Gutiérrez (Costa Rica), Single Judge of the DRC
CLAIMANT:
Rizvan Ablitarov, Ukraine
Represented by SILA International Lawyers
RESPONDENT:
Buxoro FK, Uzbekistan
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-9882
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 10 January 2022, the Ukrainian player, Rizvan Ablitarov (hereinafter: Claimant or player)
and the Uzbek club, Buxoro FK (hereinafter: club or Respondent) concluded an employment
contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as from 4 February 2022 until 30 November 2022.
2.
According to the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a monthly salary
of Uzbekistan Som (UZS) 32,550,000.
3.
Art. 7.2 of the contract establishes: “At the end of the 2022 football season, if the team enters
the Super League Uzbekistan, the Employer sets an incentive amount in the amount of
50,000,000 (fifty million) sum (UZS)”.
4.
On 7 November 2022, the player terminated the contract due to the club’s non-compliance
with its financial obligations.
5.
On 21 November 2022, the club was promoted to the Super League in Uzbekistan.
6.
On 22 December 2022, the player lodged a claim for breach of contract against the club in
front of FIFA (FPSD-8669/pas).
7.
On 15 February 2023, the Single Judge of the DRC decided that the player had just cause to
terminate the contract and awarded the player his outstanding dues as well as
compensation for breach of contract (FPSD-8669/pas; said decision became final and
binding).
8.
On 7 March 2023, the player put the club in default and requested payment of UZS
50,0000,000 om accordance with art. 7.2 of the contract, within 10 days.
9.
On 24 March 2023, the club replied to the player and rejected his request.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
10. On 10 April 2023, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
11. In his claim, the Claimant requested payment of UZS 50,000,000, corresponding to the
bonus resulting from art. 7.2 of the contract, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 1 December 2022.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-9882
12. The player argued that he is entitled to the bonus claimed as he was forced to terminate
the contract with just cause, as confirmed in the previous decision, and that he was
therefore “prevented from triggering the bonus”.
13. Moreover, the player pointed out that this bonus was not claimed in the previous
proceeding and that this claim is therefore “not barred by red judicata”.
b. Position of the Respondent
14. In its reply the club rejected the claim.
15. The club argued that the player did not participate in any match as of 1 June 2022 and
therefore is not entitled to the bonus claimed.
16. Moreover, the club argued that the previous decision established that “any further claims
are rejected”.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-9882
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
17. First of all, the Single Judge (hereinafter also referred to as 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 10 April 2023 and submitted for decision on 7
June 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023 edition of the
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the
aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
18. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 and art. 24 par. 1 lit. a) 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 (edition May
2023), he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a player and a club.
19. 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 (May 2023 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 10 April 2023, the October 2022 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to
the substance.
b. Burden of proof
20. 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 it 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
21. His 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 it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-9882
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
22. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute that the claimed bonus
is actually due to the player.
23. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to decide if the claimed
bonus is due to player or not.
24. In this framework, the Single Judge duly noted the Claimant’s argumentation, according to
which he is entitled to the promotion bonus as he was prevented from claiming it due to
the contractual breach caused by the club (and established in the previous decision).
25. On the other side, the Single Judge acknowledged that the club rejected said
argumentation and held that he did not contribute to the promotion as of 1 June 2022 and
that the previous decision rejected any further claims.
26. Taking into account the above, the Single Judge established that the promotion bonus
claimed in the matter at hand was not yet claimed in the previous proceeding. However,
the Single Judge wished to emphasize that the promotion, and therefore the trigger of the
bonus, occurred after the contractual relationship had ended.
27. Since the bonus was triggered after the contractual relationship had already ended, the
Single Judge decided to reject the claim.
d. Costs
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-9882
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Rizvan Ablitarov, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-9882
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. 8