Dispute Resolution Chamber
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-365
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber judge
passed on 16 June 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Frank Cedric Abogo
BY:
Alexandra Gómez Bruinewoud (The Netherlands / Uruguay), DRC judge
CLAIMANT:
Frank Cedric Abogo, Cameroon
Represented by Mr Slim Boulasnem
RESPONDENT:
Croissant Sportif Chebbien, Tunisia
Page 2 of 16
REF FPSD-365
I.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
On 9 July 2019, the Cameroonian player, Mr Frank Cedric Abogo (hereinafter: the player
or the Claimant) and the Tunisian club, Croissant Sportif Chebbien (hereinafter: the club or
the Respondent) concluded an employment contract, as well as supplementary agreement,
the latter of which amended the financial conditions of the employment contract, both of
them valid as from 15 July 2019 until 30 June 2022.
2.
Clause 8 of the employment contract states that the player is entitled to a flight ticket
(return ticket) at the end of every sporting season.
3.
In accordance with clause 2 of the supplementary agreement, the club undertook to pay to
the player, inter alia, the following remuneration:
For the season 2019/2020:
TND (Tunisian Dinars) 5,000 as monthly salary;
TND 80,000 as “fixed bonus”
For the season 2020/2021:
TND (Tunisian Dinars) 5,500 as monthly salary;
TND 90,000 as “fixed bonus”
For the season 2021/2022:
TND (Tunisian Dinars) 6,000 as monthly salary;
TND 100,000 as “fixed bonus”
4.
On 24 October 2020, the player put the club in default of payment in the total amount of
TND 40,000, corresponding to the monthly salaries due to the player as from February until
September 2020 (8 monthly salaries) and the fixed bonus of the season 2019/2020, thereby
granting the club a 10 days´ deadline to remedy the default; however to no avail. The player
further requested the club to fix his administrative situation (working permit) and to
reinstate him in the training sessions.
5.
By means of his e-mail of 4 November 2020, the player put the club in default of payment
concerning the amounts indicated in his previous correspondence, plus the salary of
October 2020, thereby granting the club a 5 days´ deadline to comply with its financial
obligations; however, to no avail.
6.
On 12 November 2020, the player unilaterally terminated the contract in writing.
7.
On 7 December 2020, the parties signed a document called mutual termination agreement.
8.
Clause 2 of the termination agreement stipulates that the player declares having received
all his financial entitlements from the club.
Page 3 of 16
REF FPSD-365
9.
Clause 3 thereof states that the player is free to sign with a new club and that he thereby
waived his right to claim anything from the club for the period he was engaged with the
Respondent.
10.
On 7 December 2020, the player signed a new contract with the Tunisian club, Etoile
Sportive de Metlaoui, valid as from 7 December 2020 until 30 June 2022, by virtue of which
the player was entitled to receive a monthly salary of TND 3,500, as well as fixed bonuses
of TND 55,000 and TND 65,000 for the seasons 2020/2021 and 2021/2022, respectively.
II.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFA
11.
On 16 November 2020, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary
of the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a.
12.
The claim of the Claimant
On 16 November 2020, the player lodged a claim against the club before FIFA, requesting
to be awarded outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract in the
total amount of TND 397,500 and EUR 5,000, broken down by the player as follows:
Outstanding remuneration: TND 85,500
TND 40,000 corresponding to half of the fixed bonus of the season 2019/2020;
TND 5,000 corresponding to the salary of February 2020;
TND 5,000 corresponding to the salary of March 2020;
TND 5,000 corresponding to the salary of April 2020;
TND 5,000 corresponding to the salary of May 2020;
TND 5,000 corresponding to the salary of June 2020;
TND 5,000 corresponding to the salary of July 2020;
TND 5,000 corresponding to the salary of August 2020;
TND 5,000 corresponding to the salary of September 2020;
TND 5,500 corresponding to the salary of October 2020;
The price of a flight ticket (return ticket) “Carthage – Yaoundé” in an amount “to be
determined by FIFA Travel” – for the season 2019/2020.
Compensation for breach of contract: TND 312,000
TND 90,000 corresponding to the fixed bonus of the season 2020/2021;
TND 44,000 corresponding to the residual value of the contract for the season
2020/2021 (8 monthly salaries of TND 5,500 each – as from November 2020 until June
2021);
TND 100,000 corresponding to the fixed bonus of the season 2021/2022;
Page 4 of 16
REF FPSD-365
13.
TND 78,000 corresponding to the residual value of the contract for the season
2020/2021 (12 monthly salaries of TND 6,500 each – as from July 2021 until June 2022);
The price of 2 flight tickets (return ticket) “Carthage – Yaoundé” in an amount “to be
determined by FIFA Travel” – for the seasons 2020/2021 and 2021/2022;
EUR 5,000 as legal fees.
In his claim, the player argued that the club stopped paying his salaries as from February
2020 onwards and that, what is more, the club: failed to provide him with any work permit,
failed to convoke him for the training sessions as from the end of the 2019/2020 season
and, when the player showed up –despite not having been informed about the training
sessions by the club– the club prevented him from participating in the said trainings.
b.
14.
The reply of the Respondent
In its reply to the claim, the club referred to the mutual termination agreement concluded
with the player on 7 December 2020 and requested the FIFA administration to close the
present case in view of the content of the said mutual termination agreement.
c.
The replica of the Claimant
15.
In his replica, the player acknowledged having concluded the mutual termination
agreement.
16.
Nevertheless, the player explained that he only decided to sign the mutual termination
agreement in order to be able to sign a new work contract with a new club and thus be
able to play and earn a salary after several months without income. In this respect, the
player wished to emphasize that he financially supports several members of his family. In
this regard, the player held that the need to find a club quickly was therefore even greater,
as the financial stability of his family was at stake.
17.
In this respect, the player held that –in this context– he had to find a new employer and, as
stated in art. 17.2 RSTP, his new club would be jointly and severally liable for any
compensation, should the player be condemned to pay any such amount. In this regard,
the player stressed that the mere idea of being involved in legal proceedings is a barrier for
an eventual new club to sign him, reason why he had no alternative but to sign the mutual
termination agreement and provide his new club with some kind of warranty that he was
a free agent.
18.
In addition, the player argued that the club could have blocked the issuance of his ITC,
should the player sign a new contract with another club outside of Tunisia, which also left
the player without options. However, to sign in Tunisia was also not an option as the
regulations in the Tunisian Football Federation indicate that a player cannot unilaterally
Page 5 of 16
REF FPSD-365
terminate a contract after 15th July, and that the player can only become a free agent with
the approval of board members of the club.
19.
The above being said, the player referred to article 21 of the Swiss Code of Obligations
(SCO) and argued that the said provision states that, where there is a clear discrepancy
between performance and consideration under a contract concluded as a result of one
party’s exploitation of the other’s straitened circumstances, inexperience or
thoughtlessness, the person suffering damage may declare within one year that he will not
honour the contract and demand restitution of any performance already made. This is
clearly the case in casu, -continued the player- so that the contractual termination must be
considered null and void.
20.
The player further argued that it was not possible to terminate the contract again by
concluding the said mutual termination agreement, insofar he had already done so by
means of his correspondence dated 12 November 2020.
21.
The player further argued that the mutual termination agreement is null and void, insofar
the player cannot waive his entitlement to receive his remuneration for work already
performed, nor to a compensation for breach of contract. In this respect, the player referred
to art. 341 SCO.
22.
By means of his statement of replica, in view of the fact that the player was able to sign a
new contract during the overlapping period and could, hence, mitigate his damages in an
amount of TND 63,000, the Claimant requested to be awarded TND 334,500 (397,500 –
63,000 = 334,500) and EUR 5,000, plus the corresponding interest.
23.
Moreover, the player requested to be awarded an additional compensation in an amount
equal to 6 monthly salaries, in view of the “abusive behaviour” of the club, which: failed to
“regularize” his administrative situation in order to allow him to reside and work in Tunisia,
thus exposing him to legal proceedings; excluded him from the rest of the team without
any justification; and failed to reply to any of his default notices.
d.
The duplica of the Respondent
24.
In its duplica, the club firstly argued that the player sent his termination notice on 12
November 2020 to an e-mail address that the club no longer used since January 2020. In
this context, the club argued that it never received the said termination notice. What is
more, the club referred to clause 13 of the contract, which indicates the physical addresses
of the parties, and argued that any notification should have been addressed to the club´s
physical address.
25.
The club further stressed that, when signing the mutual termination agreement, the player
“annulled” all the effects created upon the issuance of his unilateral termination notice.
Page 6 of 16
REF FPSD-365
26.
As to the validity of the mutual termination agreement, the club referred to the content of
clause 2 thereof and stated that the player himself acknowledged having received all his
financial entitlements from the club. In this respect, the club maintained that, should the
player be awarded any amount in connection with the employment contract or the
supplementary agreement, it would be a clear situation of unjust enrichment.
27.
In addition, the club referred to clause 3 of the mutual termination agreement and argued
that the player committed himself to not file any claim against the club, reason why the
claim of the Claimant shall be deemed inadmissible.
III.
CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER JUDGE
a.
Competence and applicable legal framework
28.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber judge (hereinafter also referred to as the DRC
judge) analysed whether she was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect,
she took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 16 November 2020 and
submitted for decision on 16 June 2021. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the
January 2021 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status
Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the
aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
29.
Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. a) and b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition February 2021), the Dispute
Resolution Chamber judge is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns
an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an Cameroonian
player and a Tunisian club.
30.
Subsequently, the DRC judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Player (edition February 2021), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 16 November 2020, the October 2020
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b.
31.
Burden of proof
The DRC judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12
par. 3 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 DRC judge stressed
the wording of art. 12 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which she may consider
evidence not filed by the parties.
Page 7 of 16
REF FPSD-365
32.
In this respect, the DRC judge also recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe
3 of the Regulations, FIFA’s judicial bodies may use, within the scope of proceedings
pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated
or contained in TMS.
c.
33.
Merits of the dispute
The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established,
the DRC judge entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the DRC judge started
by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the DRC judge emphasised that in the following
considerations she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
she considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
34.
The foregoing having been established, the DRC judge moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the Claimant is requesting outstanding remuneration
and compensation for breach of contract from the Respondent in the total amount of TND
334,500 and EUR 5,000, plus interest.
35.
Furthermore, the DRC judge noted that it remained undisputed that the parties concluded
a mutual termination agreement, whereby the Claimant acknowledged having received all
his financial entitlements from the club and, in principle, waived his right to file any claim
against the club in connection with their employment relationship.
36.
In this context, the DRC judge firstly turned her attention to the position of the player, who
argued that he felt obliged to conclude the said mutual termination agreement, insofar he
needed to sign a contract with a new club in order to obtain an income, considering he had
not been paid for 9 months, and, for that purpose, he needed to provide his new club with
some warranties that it would not be held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation
to his former club ex. art. 17 of the FIFA RSTP.
37. In addition, the DRC judge also acknowledged that the player referred to the barrier of the
delivery of his International Transfer Certificate (ITC) by the Respondent, which the player
considered as a circumstance that would prevent him from being registered with a new club,
should the Respondent oppose to the delivery of his ITC.
38. The DRC judge also acknowledged that the Regulations in the Tunisian Football Federation
indicate that a player cannot unilaterally terminate a contract after the 15th of July and the
player will not be considered a free agent without the approval of Board members of the
club.
39.
The above being said, the DRC judge wished to make reference to the argumentation of
the Claimant, whereby the latter deemed that the mutual termination agreement shall be
Page 8 of 16
REF FPSD-365
deemed null and void, insofar: 1.) art. 341 SCO provides that an employee cannot waive,
during the term of a contract and for one year thereafter, any rights resulting from
imperative legal provisions or from a collective agreement. In this respect, the Claimant held
that, given that the mutual termination agreement was concluded on 7 December 2020,
he could not validly waive his entitlement to the amounts now claimed; 2.) the club took
advantage from the situation of the player, who only accepted the terms of the said
agreement in order to sign a new contract. In this respect, pointed out the DRC judge, the
Claimant referred to art. 21 SCO, in accordance with which the player would have a
deadline of 1 year after having concluded the mutual termination agreement to
communicate to the club that he would not respect the content of the said contract, given
that the club abused of the player´s situation of vulnerability; 3.) the mutual termination
agreement did not contain any reciprocal consideration and its sole subject-matter was the
waiving of the player´s financial entitlements, which is not reasonable.
40.
The above having been subject of the consideration of the DRC judge, she acknowledged
the position of the club, which –on its part– argued that the player failed to properly notify
his unilateral termination of the contract, which –in any case– shall not have any effect,
since the player accepted to sign the mutual termination agreement, whereby he
acknowledged having received all his financial entitlements from the club.
41.
In this regard, noted the DRC judge, the club argued that no amount can be awarded to
the Claimant, since that would create a situation of unjust enrichment. In view of the above,
and considering the content of clause 3 of the mutual termination agreement –noted the
DRC judge– the club requested FIFA to declare that the claim of the Claimant is inadmissible.
42.
Having remained undisputed that the parties concluded the mutual termination agreement,
the DRC judge stressed that a thorough analysis of the circumstances surrounding the
dispute at hand must be made in order to determine whether the player still holds his
financial credits against the club.
43.
In this respect, continued the DRC judge, it must be noted that the player acknowledged
having signed the mutual termination agreement. Nevertheless, the DRC judge wished to
stress that not only the general principle of law, pacta sunt servanda, shall be taken into
account, but also the context of the case, the general principles of labour law, the different
particularities that led to the conclusion of the termination agreement, specially: the
principles of reality and protection of the employee.
44.
First of all, the DRC judge emphasized that the club failed to pay to the player his salaries
during 9 months (as from February 2020 until October 2020), as well as half of his fixed
bonus for the season 2019/2020, in the amount of TND 40,000; despite the player having
put the club in default of payment on 2 different occasions (on 24 October 2020 and on 4
November 2020), thereby granting the club a total of 15 days, without the club replying to
any of the default notices and failing to remedy the default.
Page 9 of 16
REF FPSD-365
45.
Secondly, the DRC judge observed that the allegations of the player in connection with the
club´s lack of providence of his work permit and the prohibition of the club regarding the
participation of the player in training sessions have remained unchallenged and, therefore,
are to be deemed as uncontested facts.
46.
In view of the above, underscored the DRC judge, the player terminated the contract with
just cause ex. art. 14 of the Regulations on 12 November 2020, insofar, at that moment in
time: 1.) 9 monthly salaries and half of the fixed seasonal bonus were outstanding: 2.) the
club acted in bad faith when failing to reply to any of the 2 default notices sent by the
player; 3.) the club failed to obtain the player´s working visa (which is amongst the main
responsibilities of the club as employer); 4.) the club failed to convoke the player for training
sessions and even prohibited him from participating when he showed up.
47.
In connection with the termination agreement, the DRC judge wished to make several
observations:
48.
The DRC judge concluded that, insofar the player had already terminated his contract with
just cause on 12 November 2020, the termination agreement lacked of a valid subjectmatter, since the employment relationship was already terminated.
49.
Moreover, the DRC judge –after having carefully analysed the factual circumstances
surrounding the dispute at stake– noted that the termination agreement was only
concluded on 7 December 2020, exactly on the same date on which the player concluded
his new contract, which is not a coincidence, insofar –as per the information contained in
the TMS– the first registration period in Tunisia during the 2020/2021 season ended on 7
December, i.e. the player wished to sign a contract with a new club, but his transfer from
the Respondent to the new club was prevented until the moment the player agreed to sign
the termination agreement and discharge the club from its financial obligations. This
analysis is in application of the principle of reality: regardless of what is effectively signed,
it is a principle of Labour law to give even more relevance to what actually happened, what
was the reality and context behind the document signed.
50. In this context, stated the DRC judge, it is clear that the player was in no position to refuse
from signing the so called termination agreement, since he only did so in order to be
registered with his new club, render his services and get a remuneration, actions that cannot
be held against the player, who had remained unpaid for more than 9 months. This is
application of the principle of protection of the employee.
51. In this respect –continued the DRC judge– had the club really paid the overdue salaries to
the player, it was in a position to prove this. However, the only reply of the club was that
there was a termination agreement that had been signed which states that all salaries had
been paid.
52. Lastly, emphasized the DRC judge, the pressure that the club put on the player was even
more burdensome, since the applicable regulations within the Tunisia Football Federation
Page 10 of 16
REF FPSD-365
indicate that a player cannot unilaterally terminate a contract after the 15th July, the only
option being to seek the approval of board members of the club. In this respect, the DRC
judge wished to stress that the said actions and regulatory framework of the Tunisia Football
Federation seems to be a pre-Bosman regulation which cannot be admitted since it
contravenes the FIFA Regulations.
53.
In view of all of the above, the DRC judge concluded that the player terminated the contract
with just cause on 12 November 2020 ex. art. 14 of the Regulations, being the subsequent
termination agreement null and void.
ii. Consequences
54.
Having stated the above, the DRC judge turned her attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent during
the protected period.
55.
Bearing in mind the previous considerations, the DRC judge went on to deal with the
consequences of the early termination of the employment contract. First of all, the DRC
judge concurred that the Respondent must fulfil its obligations as per employment contract
up until the date of termination of the contract in accordance with the general legal
principle of “pacta sunt servanda”.
56.
On account of the above considerations and the documentation on file, the DRC judge
decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the remuneration that was
outstanding at the time of the termination of the contract with just cause by the Claimant,
i.e. Tunisian Dinars (TND) 90,804 (cf. point 12. above for breakdown), considering that the
average price of economy flight tickets (return ticket)s Cameroon-Tunisia-Cameroon
amounts to TND 5,304, as provided by FIFA Travel within the scope of the present dispute.
57.
In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s claim, as well as the DRC’s longstanding
jurisprudence in this respect, the DRC judge decided to award the Claimant interest of 5%
p.a. as of the respective due dates.
58.
In continuation, the DRC judge decided that, taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the
Regulations, the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent a compensation for
breach of contract in addition to any outstanding remuneration on the basis of the relevant
employment contract.
59.
In this context, the DRC judge outlined that, in accordance with said provision, the amount
of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country
concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including, in particular, the
remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contract and/or
Page 11 of 16
REF FPSD-365
the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five
years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.
60.
In application of the relevant provision, the DRC judge held that she, first of all, had to
clarify whether the pertinent employment contract contained any clause, by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon a compensation payable by the contractual parties
in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the DRC judge established that no such
compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter
at stake.
61.
Subsequently, and in order to evaluate the compensation to be paid by the club, the DRC
judge took into account the remuneration due to the player in accordance with the
employment contract as well as the time remaining on the same contract, along with the
professional situation of the player after the early termination occurred. In this respect, the
DRC judge pointed out that, despite the contract´s premature termination on 12 November
2020, if organically continued, the contract would have run until 30 June 2022.
62.
Consequently, taking into account the financial terms of the contract, the DRC judge
concluded that the remaining value of the contract as from its early termination by the
player until the regular expiry of the contract amounts to TND 312,000.
63.
In continuation, the DRC judge remarked that, following the early termination of the
employment contract at the basis of the present dispute, the player was able to find a new
employment. In particular, the DRC judge noted that, on 7 December 2020, the player
signed a new contract with the Tunisian club, Etoile Sportive de Metlaoui, valid as from 7
December 2020 until 30 June 2022, by virtue of which the player was entitled to receive a
monthly salary of TND 3,500, as well as fixed bonuses of TND 55,000 and TND 65,000 for
the seasons 2020/2021 and 2021/2022, respectively; namely –pointed out the DRC judge–
the player´s income with the new club during the overlapping period amounts to TND
185,823 (TND 2,823 –salary of December 2020 calculated pro rata–, TND 63,000 –salaries
as from January 2021 until June 2022–, TND 120,000 as fixed bonuses).
64.
Hence, noted the DRC judge, the player would –in principle– be entitled to a mitigated
compensation in the amount of TND 126,177 (312,000 – 185,823 = 126,177).
65.
Nevertheless, continued the DRC judge, since the player terminated the contract, inter alia,
due to overdue payables, the player shall be awarded an additional compensation in
accordance with art. 17.1 (ii) of the Regulations. In this respect, the DRC judge wished to
refer to the content of the said regulatory provision, which reads as follows: “in case the
player signed a new contract by the time of the decision, the value of the new contract for
the period corresponding to the time remaining on the prematurely terminated contract
shall be deducted from the residual value of the contract that was terminated early(the
“Mitigated Compensation”). Furthermore, and subject to the early termination of the
contract being due to overdue payables, in addition to the Mitigated Compensation, the
player shall be entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries (the
Page 12 of 16
REF FPSD-365
“Additional Compensation”). In case of egregious circumstances, the Additional
Compensation may be increased up to a maximum of six monthly salaries. The overall
compensation may never exceed the rest value of the prematurely terminated contract”.
66.
In this context, and considering the circumstances of the present case, in particular, the
abusive attitude of the club, which: was in default of payment of 9 monthly salaries, failed
to grant the player the corresponding working visa for him to render his services for the
club, prohibited to participate in training sessions, failed to reply to any of the default
notices sent by the player, thereby unequivocally showing bad faith and, more importantly,
because the actions of the club constituted a barrier to player´s transfer to a new club, the
Respondent even forcing the player to conclude termination agreement which content was
extremely abusive; the DRC judge decided that the club should pay to the player an
additional compensation of 6 monthly salaries to the player, insofar the circumstances that
surrounded the breach of contract committed by the club and the consequent termination
of the contract with just cause by the player shall have the consideration of egregious
circumstances.
67.
In this regard, the DRC judge noted that, insofar the fixed monthly income of the player
during the relevant season (season 2020/2021) with the Respondent amounted to TND
156,000 (TND 66,000 corresponding to the seasonal salary and TND 90,000 corresponding
to the seasonal fixed bonus), the player shall be awarded an additional compensation of
TND 33,000 ((156,000 / 12)*6 = 78,000).
68.
In this context the DRC judge concluded that, in view of all of the above, the player is
entitled to an overall compensation that amounts to TND 204,177 (TND 126,177, which is
the mitigated compensation, plus TND 78,000, which is the additional compensation
granted).
69.
In this respect, the DRC judge wished to highlight that the overall compensation granted,
TND 204,177, does not exceed the residual value of the contract and –hence–, the said
overall compensation is to be considered reasonable and proportionate.
70.
In addition, taking into account the player’s claim, as well as the DRC’s longstanding
jurisprudence in this respect, the DRC judge decided to award the player interest of 5%
p.a. on the amount granted as compensation for breach of contract, TND 204,177, as from
16 November 2020, i.e. the date on which the claim was lodged by the player before FIFA,
until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
71.
Finally, taking into account the consideration under number 30. above, the DRC judge
referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its
decision, the pertinent FIFA deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from
Page 13 of 16
REF FPSD-365
the failure of the concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration
and/or compensation in due time.
72.
In this regard, the DRC judge highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure
to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid and for the
maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.
73.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC judge decided that, in the event that the
Respondent does not pay the amounts due to the Claimant within 45 days as from the
moment in which the Claimant, communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent,
provided that the decision is final and binding, a ban from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and
consecutive registration periods shall become effective on the Respondent in accordance
with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
74.
The DRC judge recalled that the above-mentioned bans will be lifted immediately and prior
to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis
par. 3 of the Regulations.
75.
Lastly, the DRC judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
d.
Costs
76.
The DRC judge referred to article 18 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“DRC proceedings relating to disputes between clubs and players in relation to the
maintenance of contractual stability as well as international employment related disputes
between a club and a player are free of charge”. Accordingly, the DRC judge decided that
no procedural costs were to be imposed on the parties.
77.
Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the DRC judge recalled the contents of art. 18
par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
Page 14 of 16
REF FPSD-365
IV. DECISION OF THE DRC judge
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Frank Cedric Abogo, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Croissant Sportif Chebbien, has to pay to the Claimant TND 90,804 as
outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
On the amount of TND 5,000, as from 1 March 2020;
On the amount of TND 5,000, as from 1 April 2020;
On the amount of TND 5,000, as from 1 May 2020;
On the amount of TND 5,000, as from 1 June 2020;
On the amount of TND 5,000, as from 1 July 2020;
On the amount of TND 5,000, as from 1 August 2020;
On the amount of TND 5,000, as from 1 September 2020;
On the amount of TND 50,304, as from 1 October 2020;
On the amount of TND 5,500, as from 1 November 2020.
3.
The Respondent, Croissant Sportif Chebbien, has to pay to the Claimant TND 204,177 as
compensation for breach of contract, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 16 November 2020 until the
date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
5.
The Claimant is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent of the relevant bank
account to which the Respondent must pay the due amount.
6.
The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with this
decision to [email protected], duly translated, if applicable, into one of the official FIFA languages
(English, French, German, Spanish).
7.
In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established above is not paid by the Respondent
within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the
Respondent, the following consequences shall arise:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three
entire and consecutive registration periods. The aforementioned ban mentioned will be
lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.
Page 15 of 16
REF FPSD-365
(cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).
2. In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is still not paid by the end of
the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
8. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the DRC judge:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 58 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 20 of the Procedural Rules).
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
Page 16 of 16