Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-5417
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 17 August 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Peter Gal
Andrezly
BY:
Jon Newman (USA)
CLAIMANT:
Peter Gal Andrezly,Slovakia
Represented by JUDr. Monika Hubocká
RESPONDENT:
Sepsi OSK, Romania
Represented by Vlad Vidican
Page 2
REF FPSD-5417
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 20 July 2019, the Slovakian player, Peter Gal Andrezly (hereinafter: the Claimant), and
the Romanian club, Sepsi OSK (hereinafter: the Respondent) signed an employment
contract (hereinafter: “the contract”), valid from 20 July 2019 until 30 June 2021.
2.
Pursuant to Article V, para-V.2 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive a
bonus payment in amount of EUR 15,000 net in the event that the Respondent qualifies
for the Europa League.
3.
Article V, para V.2 of the contract, inter alia, stipulated the following:
“if the team qualifies in Europa League, the Player is entitled to euro 15,000 net, bonus that
has to be paid by the club not later than 25.07.2020, 25.07.2021 respectively”
4.
According to the Claimant in the 2020/2021 season, the Respondent finished in 4th place
of the national competition in Romania and as a consequence, it qualified to be part of
the newly formed UEFA Europe Conference League for the 2021/2022 season.
5.
On 20 August 2021, the Claimant sent a default notice to the Respondent and requested
payment of the amount of EUR 15,000 net, granting it a deadline of 3 days.
6.
The Claimant mentioned that the Respondent failed to comply with payment of the
outstanding amount.
7.
On 31 August 2021, the Respondent sent a letter to the Claimant rejecting the latter’s
claim, inter alia, mentioning that “the pertinent provision guaranteed the bonus only in case
the club qualifies for UEFA Europa League and not for UEFA Europe Conference League.”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
8.
On 10 March 2022, 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
9.
The Claimant argued as follows:
-
that the Respondent breached its obligation arising from Employment contract and failed to
pay overdue amount of bonus in full even after being provided with additional grace period of
3 business days;
that at the time of negotiating and signing the Employment contract, there were only 2 UEFA
competitions in place (UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League) and based on such
structure, the provision of Article V, para V.2 was drafted.
-
Page 3
REF FPSD-5417
-
-
that it has been the parties intention to fix the bonus payment of 15.000,00 EUR/NET to the
particular spot or a place of the club (Respondent) in national competition that would
guarantee its entry into UEFA Europa League competition (at the time of the signing).
However, the circumstances have changed during the contract was in force due to the fact that
UEFA has introduced a new competition (UEFA Europa Conference League) and entirely
restructured the system under which clubs from Europe could qualify.
10. In conclusion the Claimant stated that the “4th place of the Respondent in the 2020/2021
season would have the Respondent qualified for the UEFA Europa League in 2021/2022 season
(if the UEFA competition system remained the same as was at the time of employment contract
signing), therefore triggering the Respondent’s obligation to pay bonus payment of 15.000,00
EUR/NET.”
11. The Claimant requesting payment by the Respondent of the amount of EUR 15,000 net
plus 5% interest per annum from 26 July 2021 until date of effective payment.
b. Position of the Respondent
12. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent stated that the UEFA Europa Conference League
is “the 3rd tier of European club football championships, after the Champions League and the
Europa League, founded in 2021, for the 2021-2022 season.”
13. In this context the Respondent made reference to the Regulations of the UEFA Europa
Conference League, indicating that there is a clear difference between the UEFA
Champions League (UCL), UEFA Europa League (UEL), and UEFA Europa Conference
League (UECL). Also, the two other championships have separate regulations.
14. In this regard the Respondent mentioned that it never qualified for the UEL as the
“qualification of a Romanian team in the UEL is dependent on the ranking of the team in the 2
national championships; the Romanian National Championship “Liga I” and the Romanian Cup
“Cupa Romaniei”.”
15. The Respondent mentioned that UEFA created a 3rd tier European football championship,
besides the existing UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League, the newly
introduced UEFA Europa Conference League gave the possibility to the team ranked 4th
in the Romanian National Championship “Liga I” season 2020-2021, Sepsi qualified in the
UEFA Europa Conference League for the season 2021-2022.
16. Moreover, the Respondent argued that the contractual provision highlighted by the
player refers to a “possible qualification in the UEFA Europa League, which is a different
competition than UEFA Europa Conference League, with its own set of rules, especially the
Regulation of the UEFA Europa League. This championship is the second-tier competition after
UEFA Champions League.”
Page 4
REF FPSD-5417
17. In conclusion, the Respondent requested that the claim of the Claimant be rejected.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
18. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred
to as the 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 March
2022 and submitted for decision on 17 August 2022. Taking into account the wording of
art. 34 of the June 2022 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.
19. Subsequently, 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 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (June 2022 edition), he is competent to
deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between a Slovakian player and a Romanian club.
20. 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 (June 2022 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 10 March 2022, the March 2022 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to
the substance.
b. Burden of proof
21. 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
22. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, he 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
Page 5
REF FPSD-5417
facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which he considered pertinent for the
assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
23. 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 the applicability of article
V, para-V.2 of the contract to the matter at hand and the Claimant’s entitlement to the
bonus specified therein.
24. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that he its task was to analyse the
circumstances under which the Claimant could become entitled to the bonus detailed in
the aforementioned contract.
25. The Single Judge first and foremost recalled the wording of art. article V, para-V.2 of the
contract, which stipulates “if the team qualifies in Europa League, the Player is entitled to
euro 15,000 net, bonus that has to be paid by the club not later than 25.07.2020, 25.07.2021
respectively
26. Upon analysis of the abovementioned factors, the Single Judge first of all wished to point
out that - in his opinion - the wording of article V, para-V.2 appears to be unequivocally
clear, specifically that it holds no reference to the UEFA Conference League. Moreover, at
the time of the signing of the contract, the parties did not formulate the wording of the
respective article in order for it to be applicable to future competitions or newly created
competitions such as the UEFA Conference League.
27. What is more, the Single Judge remarked that based on general public information, it is
known that the UEFA Conference League is a third-tier competition, after the UEFA
Champions League and the UEFA Europa League, hence a separate competition.
28. Based on the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant’s claim lacked any
contractual basis whatsoever and must be entirely rejected.
d. Costs
29. 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.
30. 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.
Page 6
REF FPSD-5417
31. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
Page 7
REF FPSD-5417
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Peter Gal Andrezly, is rejected.
2. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 8
REF FPSD-5417
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).
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 9