Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-15972
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 30 January 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player Valmir
Berisha
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA), Deputy Chairperson
Mario FLORES CHEMOR (Mexico), Member
Roy VERMEER (The Netherlands), Member
CLAIMANT:
Valmir Berisha, Sweden
Represented by Sila International Lawyers
RESPONDENT:
KF Llapi 1932, Kosovo
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-15972
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 26 May 2024, the Swedish player, Valmir Berisha (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant),
and the Kosovar club, KF Llapi 1932 (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) entered into
an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 1 July 2024 until 30 June
2025.
2.
Art. 2 of the Contract stated the following:
“The contract extension period is from 26.05.2025 with the option of renewal for one more year
if the club agrees to extend the contract and the contract enters into the contractual relationship
from the new football season, from 01.07.2024. […] Financial relations with the club start from
the new football season, from 01.07.2024.
The validity of this contract directly depends on the following conditions:
3.
•
Confirmation from the FFK, if the player enjoys the right to be active in the official
activities of the Club, as well as in the case of European Cups.
•
Medical check results.
•
The player’s working hours vary as reasonably required by the Club to fulfil normal work
duties.”
In accordance with the Contract, the Claimant and the Respondent (hereinafter jointly
referred to as the Parties) agreed on the following remuneration:
“A monthly salary of EUR 2000 and 10 salaries will be received for 1 calendar year.
EUR 5,000 in the name of signing the contract for the first year (the first year starts on 01.07.2024
until 30.06.2025).
If the club is satisfied with the player's performance, the contract will be extended until
30.06.2026, if the club is not satisfied, the contract will expire on 30.06.2025 and the conditions
are:
Monthly salary of EUR 3000 and 10 salaries will be received for 1 calendar year.
In special cases, when for the player the above obligations are covered by the physical sponsor
or legal, the company is released from obligations, with the consent of the player and the
sponsor.
The company does not undertake to pay any fine or penalty imposed on the player.”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-15972
4.
In addition, according to clause 10 of the Contract, the Parties agreed on the following:
“Any changes to this contract are made with the agreement of the parties and in writing. Changes
made in other forms, except for the written one, are not binding on the parties. The parties can
resolve disputes about the implementation of the Contract by mutual understanding, or by
appealing to the judicial bodies of the FFK. The legal appeal will be made according to the Statute
of this organization.”
5.
According to the Player, on 2 July 2024, the Club’s director and Head Coach, Mr. Tahir
Batatina, informed the player that the Club no longer counted on his services as he was
not in their plans for 2024-2025 season.
6.
In addition, the Player alleged that on 4 July 2024, the Club left the Player out of the first
team pre-season medical tests and, on the following day, he was left out the first team’s
photoshoot.
7.
On 5 July 2024, the Club signed a termination agreement (hereinafter: the Termination
Agreement) “for the amicable resolution of the labor relationship” which does not bear the
Player’s signature.
8.
According to clause 1 of the Termination Agreement, the “The Employment ContractProfessional Player signed on 26.05.2024 with number 13/2024 shall be mutually resolved with
mutual understanding, with immediate effect, from the moment of signing this agreement.”
9.
On the same day, the Club removed the Player from the WhatsApp team’s group chat.
10. On 6 July 2024, the Club’s kit manager messaged the Player asking him to return his Club
kit.
11. On 9 July 2024, the Club’s first team traveled to Poland to participate in the UEFA Europa
League Qualifying round against TS Wisla Krakow on 11 July 2024. The Player was not
included in the line-up.
12. On 10 July 2024, the Player sent a default notice to the Club requesting them to pay the
outstanding amount of EUR 5,000 net within the next 15 days. In addition, the Player
requested the Club to cease their abusive behavior and to reintegrate him in the team.
13. On 16 July 2024, the Player sent a second default notice to the Club reiterating the
outstanding remuneration towards the Player and requesting the immediate reintegration
of the Player in the Club’s first team.
14. On 22 July 2024, the Player sent a final default notice to the Club stating that the Club had
not responded to any of the above notices and set a new final deadline of 3 days for the
Club to remedy their default.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-15972
15. On 26 July 2024, the Player sent a termination letter to the Club (hereinafter: the
Termination Letter) stating that he unilaterally terminates his contract with immediate effect
based on art. 14 bis (2) and 14.2 of the Regulations.
16. On 29 July 2024, the lawyer of the Club sent an email to the Player stating the following:
”I apologize for not being able to respond to your letters because I am on vacation until
30.07.2024. Then, on 31.07.2024, I scheduled a meeting with the leadership of the club, and if
we can get a position regarding your requests, we will certainly let you know.”
17. On 31 July 2024, the Player replied to the Club’s email stating the following:
“The Contract was terminated with just cause, and Mr. Berisha is entitled to compensation equal
to the rest value of the Contract. As a result, we will proceed to file with the FIFA Football Tribunal.
Therefore, it is too late for the club to consider our requests, unless it is concerning
compensation.
Nonetheless, Mr. Berisha is open to settling the case amicably. So, we are open to listening to
settlement offers from the KF Llapi.”
18. On the same day, the Club replied to the player’s email stating the following:
“We inform you that the Contract between Club Llapi 1932 SH.P.K and the player Mr. Vamir
Berisha has been cancelled without taking effect yet.
This contract is not finalized, lacks the seal of protocol and has not been registered with the
Football Federation of Kosovo [FFK].
Therefore, based on the Labor Law in Kosovo and the legal norms of the Football Federation of
Kosovo FFK and FIFA, the Contract between the Club FC Llapi 1932 SH.P.K. and the player Mr.
Valmir Berisha has been cancelled by agreement and prior notification as you have also
ascertained, this contract does not produce any legal effect and the Club has no obligation to
the player Mr. Vamir Berisha.”
19. On the same day, 31 July 2024, the Player replied the following to the Club’s email:
“Your position is duly noted. However, I am afraid that it is wrong and only shows the club’s bad
faith.
According to the established FIFA and CAS jurisprudence, the administrative process of
registering a contract bears no influence over the contract’s validity. For example, FIFA clearly
stated in a recent case won by SILA:
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-15972
“In this context, the Single Judge first reminded the parties that, in line with the contents of art.
18 par. 4 of the Regulations, as well as the jurisprudence of FIFA, the validity of an employment
contract cannot be made conditional upon the execution of (administrative) formalities, such
as, but not limited to, the registration procedure in connection with the international transfer of
a player, which are of the sole responsibility of a club and upon which a player has no influence.
As a club is supposedly interested in acquiring the rights of a player and in benefiting from
his/her services, it is also expected to act accordingly and execute the administrative formalities
in view of obtaining, for instance, the player’s ITC and his/her subsequent registration with the
engaging FA.
Consequently, the registration or not of the player with the relevant FA does not exempt the club
of complying with the financial terms of the contract. Finally, the Single Judge that it is the club’s
obligation to ensure that all administrative formalities are met for the player to be able to play,
as per the employment contract.”
Besides, you do not dispute the conclusion of the contract, only that it was not registered.
Therefore, I urge the club to reconsider its position in line with the above.”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
20. On 10 September 2024, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the
parties’ position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
21. The requests for relief of the Claimant, were the following:
•
EUR 5,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 27 May 2024
until the date of effective payment;
•
EUR 2,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 27 July 2024
until the date of effective payment;
•
EUR 24,694 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 27
July 2024 until the date of effective payment.
22. Regarding the international dimension of the dispute, the Player argued that he holds the
Swedish nationality while the Respondent is affiliated with the Kosovar Football Federation
(hereinafter: the FFK), and therefore the present dispute has an international dimension.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-15972
23. Concerning the clause 10 of the Contract according to which “[t]he parties can resolve
disputes about the implementation of the Contract by mutual understanding, or by appealing
to the judicial bodies of the FFK”, the Player alleged that the FFK Player’s Status Contract
(hereinafter: the FFK PSC) “is in any case not compliant with the FIFA rules regarding NDRC, in
particular, (i) it is actually not a decision-making body, (ii) it does not respect the principle of
equal representation and (iii) its regulations are not publicly accessible.”
24. In continuation, the Player recalled the DRC’s case law according to which “even if the
contract at the basis of a dispute includes a valid and clear arbitration clause in favor of a
national dispute resolution system, the respondent referring to this clause must be able to prove
that, in fact, the national dispute resolution chamber meets the minimum procedural standards
as established in Article 22 of the FIFA RSTP. Therefore, the Respondent shall prove that the FFK
complies with the NDRC Recognition Principles currently in force.”
25. The Player underlined that it is up to the party contesting FIFA’s competence to provide
evidence that the national body does indeed meet the requirements foreseen in circular
no.1010. However, the Player argued that the FFK PSC does not comply with the circular
no.1010 due to the following:
•
The FFK’s official website does not contain any information regarding the operation
of the FFK PSC and its regulations are not publicly available.
•
Based on the FFK’s statutes, it appears that the FFK PSC is not designated to hear
any disputes as it is a body which controls execution of the FIFA’s and national
regulations and determines the status of players.
•
“Third, the composition of the FFK PSC, even if it exists as a decision-making body (quod
non), does not respect the principle of equal representation between employers and
employees. It follows from the fact that such requirement is not implemented to the FFK’s
Statutes, while no specific regulations govern the FFK PSC’s activity.”
•
“Fourth, according to Article 2 par. 3 subpar “e” of the New NDRC Recognition Principles.
“individuals appointed to the NDRC must not hold any other position within the relevant
member association […]. However, Art. 47 par. 2 of the FFK’s Statutes explicitly provides
that “the chairperson and members of the standing committees may be members of the
Executive Committee […]”. Thus, the FFK PSC’s rules directly contradict the FIFA’s
requirements with respect to the appointment of the NDRC’s members.”
26. To sum up, the Player reiterated that FIFA is competent to hear the present dispute and
the FIFA DRC shall adjudicate due to the following:
•
The present dispute has international dimension;
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-15972
•
The FFK PSC is not compliant with both circular no. 1010 and the New NDRC
Recognition Principles due to various reasons:
-
The FFK PSC’s regulations (if they exist) are not publicly accessible;
-
The FFK PSC is not recognised as a decision- making body in the FFK’s Statutes;
-
The composition of the FFK PSC under the FFK’s Statutes directly contradicts
the FIFA’s requirements on appointment of the members and on equality of
representation.
27. In addition, the Player claimed that he had just cause to terminate the Contract based on
art. 14 and 14 bis of the Regulations. In particular, according to the Player, the outstanding
amount corresponded to 2,5 monthly salaries, i.e. EUR 5,000 and a 15-day deadline had
been sent to the Club, to no avail.
28. Finally, the Player claimed that, on 5 July 2024, the Club sent the Termination Agreement
to him showing that the Club was no longer interested in his services.
b. Position of the Respondent
29. In its reply, the Respondent contested the international dimension of the dispute by stating
that the Player has signed the contract with his Kosovar nationality:
“In the contractual section of the identity of the parties, the Claimant, i.e. Mr. Valmir Berisha,
has voluntarily indicated his credentials, which consist of:
(a) His full name, i.e. Mr. Valmir Berisha;
(b) His date of birth, i.e. 06.06.1996;
(c) His place of birth, i.e. Pozhar (Kosovo);
(d) His identification document, with number “1242334406”
The same has been reiterated also in the signatures section of the Contract, where the
identification document number has been again indicated.
[…]
For the sake of transparency, we note that it is true that the preambule of the Contract, does
not explicitly state the Claimant’s nationality […].”
30. The Respondent alleged that even if the nationality is not explicitly mentioned in the
Contract, the identification document number appearing in the first page corresponds to
the Kosovar personal identification number and therefore, the Player has signed the
Contract as Kosovar. In other words, the Respondent argued that the nationality under
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-15972
which he registered with the Club is the Kosovar nationality which gives a domestic
dimension to the dispute.
31. Consequently, according to the Respondent, pursuant to art. 22, lit, b of the Regulations,
the present dispute lacks the essential condition for the DRC to have jurisdiction and shall
be submitted to the FFK NDRC.
32. Regarding the FFK NDRC, the Respondent stated the following:
“In analysis of the Claimant’s SoC, we note that this party has completely omitted to indicate the
existence of the NDRC, as a judicial body within the FFK. Furthermore, the Respondent has
indicated that the FFK has put in place only the Player’s Status Committee, whilst the FFK
Regulations for the Registration, Status and Transfer of Players, provide in their art. 67 and 104,
provide the following:
“Termination of the contract for just reasons
Article 67
1. The termination of the contract for just reasons, if the player and the club do not find an
amicable solution, does it the Committee for the Registration and Status of Players, and in case
of appeals the NDRC.
The termination of the contract for just reasons can be requested by either the player or the
club.
The just causes for terminating the contract are factual in nature and shall be established on a
case by case basis, upon the request of a player or the club.
The contract can be terminated for just cause without mentioning the financial or sportive
sanctions.
The contract can be terminated for just cause shall not have any legal consequences or
obligation to pay compensation, and shall have the right to receive compensation.
Art. 104
The NDRC is competent to solve the disputes between clubs and players related to their
employment or the contractual stability, also those disputes that are related to the training
compensation and the solidarity contribution between clubs pertaining to the same association.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-15972
The jurisdiction, composition, applicable law and other matters are subject to the Regulations
of the NDRC adopted by the Executive Committee of the FFK.”
It results from the above that, as with any football association in the world, also the FFK has
created and constituted a domestic NDRC, which is competent for solving employment-related
disputes between players and club of domestic dimension. Not only this but, the current legal
system within the FFK, allows for player or clubs to have also an appellate body within its
structures, thus, reinforcing the parties’ right to a fair process.”
33. In continuation, the Respondent confirmed that the FFK NDRC is not compliant with the
circular no.1010 or with the New NDRC Recognition Principles insofar as it does not concern
a domestic dispute. Since according to the Respondent, the present dispute lacks an
international dimension, the FFK NDRC shall be competent and not the FIFA DRC.
34. In particular, the Respondent stated the following:
“The Claimant has claimed that the local FFK Players’ Status Committee (which should be the
NDRC as argued above) does not comply with the FIFA Circular no. 1010 for the New NDRC
Recognition Principles. This analysis would have been valid had the relationship between the
parties been of an international dimension, and it would have served only as a derogation to
the contractually agreed provisions of the lex fori, i.e. art. 10” of the Contract. […]
As argued, the non-compliance of the current NDRC with the New NDRC Recognition Principles
serves only as a derogation to the contractually agreed clauses, for contracts involving a club
and a foreign player, and not for contracts involving a club and a local player.”
35. As for the merits of the case, the Respondent argued that the start date of Contract as
stated in clause 2 was on 1 July 2024 and not on 26 May 2024 as alleged by the Player.
36. In addition, the Respondent alleged that the Contract did not stipulate the due date of the
sign on fee of EUR 5,000. The Respondent invoked the Kosovar civil code to argue that the
obligation of the Respondent to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 5,000 became due
only when it was requested by the Claimant, i.e. on 11 July 2024 and not on the date of the
signature.
37. Therefore, the Respondent claimed that the Player did not have just cause to terminate the
Contract on 26 July 2024 as the sign on fee only became due on 11 July 2024.
38. However, the Respondent mentioned that in case the DRC considers that the Contract was
terminated with just cause, the compensation requested shall be considered excessive.
39. In continuation, and concerning the allegations regarding the Club’s abusive behaviour
towards the Player, the Club argued that the day after the beginning of the contractual
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-15972
relationship between the Parties, the coach saw the Player’s performance and considered
that he is not suitable for the first team. According to the Respondent, in good faith, the
coach informed the Player about the termination of their contractual relationship at the
beginning of the Kosovar transfer window, so that he could start looking for another team
without risking of staying unemployed.
40. Finally, the Respondent requested the following relief:
“Having established that the present dispute lacks the essential international dimension for the
DRC to have jurisdiction over the SoC of the Claimant, Player Valmir Berisha, the Claimant, Club
KF Llapi 1932 request the dismissal of the SoC claim.
In the alternative,
Having established that the obligations requested by the Claimant to be performed by the
Respondent cannot and shall not be considered as overdue payables, the Respondent requests
from the DRC to rule that the unilateral termination of the Contract made by the Claimant,
Player Valmir Berisha was made without just cause and to reject the SoC. Therefore, no financial
or sporting consequences can be imposed to the Respondent.
In the alternative,
Having established that the calculated outstanding amounts and compensation for the breach
of contract allegedly owed to the Claimant, Player Valmir Berisha by the Respondent, Club FK
Llapi 1932 differ significantly from those claimed by the Claimant, the Respondent requests the
DRC to partially reject the SoC, by reducing the amounts payables by the Respondent in the
amounts indicated in par. 40 of this SoD.
c. Rejoinder of the Claimant
41. In his reply, the Player disputed the Respondent’s allegations regarding the domestic
dimension of the dispute. Firstly, the Player argued that the Contract does not indicate the
Claimant’s nationality at all. In addition, the Player stated that he holds the Swedish
sporting nationality, meaning that he is eligible to play for the national team of Sweden.
42. Secondly, the Player alleged that he provided the Club with a copy of his Swedish nationality
but also acknowledged that he had given his Kosovar documents believing that it was
requested merely for technical reasons.
43. Thirdly, the Claimant argued that any omissions of the Club in drafting of the Contract shall
be interpreted in favour of the Player based on the principle of contra proferentem.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-15972
44. In continuation, the Claimant invoked the FFK’s internal regulations and the practice of
registration of the Player’s former teammates holding dual nationality, to demonstrate that
the Player could not have been registered for the Club as Kosovar.
45. In addition, regarding the competence of the DRC the Claimant emphasized that “in its
response, the Club did not object to the Player’s arguments regarding the non- compliance of
the FFK’s judicial bodies with the FIFA Circular no. 1010. Rather, the Respondent stated that this
analysis is not applicable because the present dispute is, in its view, internal.”
46. Finally, the Player reiterated his initial request for relief:
•
EUR 5,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 27 May 2024
until the date of effective payment;
•
EUR 2,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 27 July 2024
until the date of effective payment;
•
EUR 24,694 net as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 27
July 2024 until the date of effective payment.
47. Regarding the calculation of the compensation, in addition to the mitigated compensation,
the Player requested EUR 12,000 as additional compensation corresponding to 6 monthly
salaries.
d. Comments from the FFK
48. The FIFA General Secretariat contacted the FFK in order to request information regarding
the Player’s registration with the federation.
49. In this regard, the FFK confirmed that the Player was registered for the Club with the
Swedish nationality, and provided as evidence his national passport as well as the player’s
passport.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-15972
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
50. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or DRC) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that
the present matter was presented to FIFA on 10 September 2024 and submitted for
decision on 30 January 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the January 2025
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.
51. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Respondent disputed the international
dimension of the dispute alleging that the Player had been registered with the Club as
Kosovar.
52. In this regard, the DRC pointed out that it remained undisputed that the Player holds the
Kosovar as well as the Swedish nationality. In addition, the DRC noted that the FFK
confirmed to the FIFA General Secretariat that the Player was registered for the Club with
his Swedish nationality providing the relevant supporting documentation.
53. In view of the above, the DRC decided that the dispute has an international dimension.
54. In addition, the DRC noted that the competence of FIFA has also been disputed by the
Respondent in favour of the NDRC of Kosovo, alleging that the latter is competent to deal
with any dispute deriving from the Contract, in accordance with its clause 10.
55. The Claimant insisted on the competence of FIFA to adjudicate the present claim,
sustaining that the NDRC of Kosovo is not an independent arbitration tribunal
guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of
players and clubs.
56. At this point, the Chamber reverted to Transitional measures established in art. 26 par. 1 lit.
c) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions January 2025, October
2024, June 2024 and February 2024), according to which “Article 22 paragraph 1 b) and c)
shall apply only to cases brought to FIFA as from 1 January 2025. Any other case shall be
assessed according to the previous regulations.”
57. Taking into account the above, the Chamber emphasised that, in accordance with art. 22
par. 1 lit. b) of the May 2023 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players,
FIFA is, in principle, competent to hear an employment-related dispute between a club and
a player of an international dimension. Nevertheless, the parties may explicitly opt in
writing for such dispute to be decided by an independent arbitration tribunal that has been
established at national level within the framework of the association and/or a collective
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-15972
bargaining agreement. Any such arbitration clause must be included either directly in the
contract or in a collective bargaining agreement applicable on the parties. Furthermore,
the independent national arbitration tribunal must guarantee fair proceedings and respect
the principle of equal representation of players and clubs. Equally, the Chamber referred
to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber Standard
Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008.
58. In this context, the Chamber pointed out that it should first analyse whether the Contract
at the basis of the present dispute contained a clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause in
favour of the NDRC of Kosovo. In this respect, the Chamber recalled the wording of clause
10 of the Contract that states as follows:
“Any changes to this contract are made with the agreement of the parties and in writing. Changes
made in other forms, except for the written one, are not binding on the parties. The parties can
resolve disputes about the implementation of the Contract by mutual understanding, or by
appealing to the judicial bodies of the FFK. The legal appeal will be made according to the Statute
of this organization.”
59. In this respect, after analysing the wording of the jurisdiction clause, the Chamber
concluded that such clause was indeed clear and exclusive in favour of competence of the
NDRC of Kosovo.
60. Having established the above, the Chamber noted that the Respondent failed to provide
any documentary evidence which could prove that the NDRC of Kosovo meet the
requirements established in art. 11 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations, detailed in the FIFA
Circular no. 1010.
61. In addition to the above, the Respondent itself recognised that the NDRC would not be
compliant with the Circular 1010 in case the dispute was to be considered international
(quote verbatim “this analysis would have been valid had the relationship between the parties
been of international dimension”). Therefore, the argument is moot as the dispute is indeed
international contrary to what was alleged by the Respondent.
62. In other words, the Chamber considered that as the Respondent itself – as it is also evident
from its request for relief – makes its second argument (the competence of the NDRC on
the basis of Clause 10 of the Contract) completely dependent on the first (the alleged
domestic nature of the dispute), the second issue is entirely absorbed in the first.
63. In view of the above, and based on the principle of burden of proof that relied with the
Respondent, the Chamber decided that the Respondent´s objection towards the
competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter must be rejected, and FIFA is
competent, on the basis of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations to consider the present
matter as the substance.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-15972
64. Consequently, the DRC 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 (January 2025 edition), the Dispute Resolution
Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a Swedish player and a Kosovar
club.
65. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of the
Regulations on Status and Transfer of Players, the January 2025 edition of said regulations
(hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
66. The Chamber 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 Chamber 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
67. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all
the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file.
However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for
assessing the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
68. The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, acknowledging that its task was
to determine whether the Player had just cause to terminate the Contract.
69. The Chamber has noted that the Parties concluded an employment contract valid as from
1 July 2024 until 30 June 2025. In this context, the Chamber observed that on 26 July 2024,
the Player terminated the Contract for overdue payables.
70. In this regard, the Chamber referred to the wording of art. 14 bis par. 1 of the Regulations,
in accordance with which, if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two monthly
salaries on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-15972
contract, provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a
deadline of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).
71. In the case at hand, the player alleged not having received his remuneration corresponding
to the sign-on fee of EUR 5,000 and the salary corresponding to the month of July 2024, i.e.
EUR 2,000.
72. The Chamber noted that the Respondent alleged that the sign-on fee became due the day
of the default notice as per the Kosovar civil law as the due date is not mentioned in the
Contract. However, based on the nature of the sign on fee, or as phrased in the Contract
“in the name of signing the contract”, and in the absence of a stipulated due date in the
Contract, the Chamber decided that it became due on the day of the signature of the
Contract, i.e. on 26 May 2024.
73. Regarding the salary corresponding to the month of July 2024, the Chamber considered
that on the date of termination (i.e. 26 July 2024) the above salary had not yet become
outstanding.
74. In view of the above, the Chamber observed that at the moment of the termination on 26
July 2024, only the sign-on fee was outstanding.
75. In this regard, the Chamber recalled that art. 14bis refers to unpaid and outstanding
salaries. Delayed remuneration of other forms (frequent, non-conditional) can amount to
just cause for a player to terminate his employment relationship prematurely based on art.
14 of the Regulations (and not art. 14 bis of the Regulations). The particular circumstances
of every such case, have to be assessed separately in light of art. 14 of the Regulations in
order to define whether the termination was made with just cause. According to the wellestablished jurisprudence of the DRC, factors such as whether the outstanding amount is
significant, the extent of the delay and the general attitude of the parties in the specific
case have to be taken into account.
76. In this respect, the Chamber first referred to art. 14 of the Regulations according to which,
"A contract may be terminated by either party without consequences of any kind (either payment
of compensation or imposition of sporting sanctions) where there is just cause. In general, just
cause shall exist in any circumstance in which it can no longer be reasonably expected in good
faith from a party to continue a contractual relationship."
77. In other words, and in line with the well-established jurisprudence of the Chamber, the
termination of a contract should always be an action of last resort. Hence, if there are more
lenient measures which can be taken in order to assure the other parties’ contractual
duties, such measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract. A
premature termination of an employment contract can only be an ultima ratio action.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-15972
78. In this context, the Chamber observed that the sign-on fee was outstanding for 2 months
and corresponded to more than 2 monthly salaries of the Player. In addition, the Player
has provided written evidence of having put the Respondent in default on 10 July 2024, at
least 15 days before unilaterally terminating the Contract on 26 July 2024. Additional
reminders were sent to the Club on 16 July 2024 and 22 July 2024 with the Club responding
on 31 July 2024 alleging that the termination does not produce any effects since the
Contract had not been registered with the FFK.
79. Furthermore, the Chamber reiterated that the Club confirmed that on the day after the
start day of the Contract, the Player was informed that the Club was no longer interested
in his services as his performance did not meet their expectations. In addition, the Club
acknowledged that a termination agreement was sent to the Player for the termination of
their employment relationship that the Player refused to sign, clearly demonstrating that
the Club did not wish to continue the employment relationship.
80. Considering all of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant clearly had just
cause to terminate the Contract based on art. 14 of the Regulations.
ii. Consequences
81. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
82. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, is equivalent to EUR 5,000 for the
sign-on fee. The Chamber also considered that EUR 2,000 for the salary of July 2024 shall
be granted as outstanding remuneration as the Player worked for 26 days for the month
of July 2024.
83. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. EUR
7,000 (i.e. EUR 5,000 + EUR 2,000).
84. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate
of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as follows:
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 5,000 as from 27 May 2024 until the
date of effective payment;
-
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 2,000 as from 27 July 2024 until the date
of effective payment.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-15972
85. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the Claimant by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so,
the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations,
the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise
provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, taking into account the damage
suffered, according to the “positive interest” principle, having regard for the individual facts
and circumstances of each case, and with due consideration for the law of the country
concerned.
86. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
87. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the club to the player had to be assessed in application of the
other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber
recalled that, as a general rule, the compensation to be paid to the player by the club shall
be equal to the residual value of the contract that was prematurely terminated, unless the
player signed a new contract following the termination of his previous contract (cf. art. 17
par. 1 lit. i)).
88. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of EUR 22,000 (i.e. EUR 2,000 x 11 months from 1 August 2024
until 30 June 2025) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
89. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to
mitigate his damages.
90. Indeed, the player found employment with the Kosovar club, FC Malisheva valid as from 13
August 2024 until 30 June 2027. In accordance with the pertinent employment contract, the
player was entitled to EUR 500 per month. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the
player mitigated his damages in the total amount of EUR 5,306,45, corresponding to the
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-15972
total value of the new employment contract, i.e. pro rata the month of August 2024 for the
19 days worked and the months as from September 2024 until 30 June 2025.
91. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be
due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract
termination took place due to said reason i.e. overdue payables by the club, and therefore
decided that the player shall receive additional compensation.
92. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of EUR
6,000, i.e. three times the monthly remuneration of the player.
93. The Chamber reminded the parties that, as per the last sentence of art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of
the Regulations, the overall compensation may never exceed the rest value of the
prematurely terminated contract.
94. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount
of EUR 22,000 to the player (i.e. 22,000 minus 5,306.45 plus 6,000, limited to a maximum of
22,000), which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation
for breach of contract in the present matter.
95. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 27 July 2024 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
96. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
97. In this regard, the DRC 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. The overall
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
98. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-15972
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
99. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
100. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
101. The Chamber 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 Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
102. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 25
par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
103. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-15972
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Valmir Berisha.
2.
The claim of the Claimant, Valmir Berisha, is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, KF Llapi 1932, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 7,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 5,000 as from 27 May 2024 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 2,000 as from 27 July 2024 until the date of
effective payment.
- EUR 22,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 27
July 2024 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-15972
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-15972
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 – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 23