Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
passed on 19 February 2020,
by Daan de Jong (The Netherlands), DRC judge,
on the claim presented by the player,
S adat Bukari, Ghana,
represented by Mr Josep F. Vandellos
as Claimant / Counter-Respondent
against the club,
Churchill Brothers S C, India
as Respondent / Counter-Claimant
regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties
I.
Facts of the cas e
1.
On 26 December 2018, the Ghanaian player, Sadat Bukari (hereinafter: Claimant I
Counter-Respondent) signed an employment contract (hereinafter: contract) with the
Indian club, Churchill Brothers SC (hereinafter: Respondent / Counter-Claimant).
2.
As per clause 1 of the contract, “the agreement shall commence from the day/date he
reports to the management”. The contract further stipulated that it “shall also further
remain in force from 1 August 2019 till the end of the last I-League / Super Cup match
of the season 2018-2019 or 30th April 2020 whichever is earlier without any prejudice
to the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant]”.
3.
Furthermore, pursuant to clause 10 of the contract, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
was inter alia entitled to a monthly salary of Indian Rupee (INR) 360,000 (“equivalent
to USD 5,000”).
4.
According to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the employment contract was valid
as from 26 December 2018 until 30 April 2020
5.
On 31 December 2018, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant informed the Indian
Embassy in Accra, Ghana, of the following: “We are enclosing herewith the following
documents with a request to kindly issue the necessary employment visa to the
abovementioned player:
a)
Invitation letter […] dated 31 December 2018;
b)
Notarized Contract/Agreement;
c)
Copy of Passport;
d)
Certificate of Incorporation.”
6.
On 15 January 2019, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent informed the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant in writing of the following: “I have not been able to facilitate my
travel and visa issues due to my financial challenges… Please I will like to humbly ask
you to send me [USD] 1,000 to aid me resolve the situation and come to join you soon.
Please note that I will refund all monies sent me on my arrival.”
7.
On 20 January 2019, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent informed the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant in writing of the following: “Due to my financial challenges I have
applied for the visa online and I have been advised by the embassy that to complete
the application successfully I must come and pay the visa fees […] In my previous email
[to you] I expressed the fact that I cannot afford to finance my travelling to [Accra] and
also pay the visa fees with my current financial situation […] I remain fully committed
to our contract and the club.”
8.
On 21 January 2019, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant informed the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent in writing of the following: “We would like to inform you that
Player Sadat Bukari, Ghana / Churchill Brothers SC, India
Page 2 of 15
we cannot send the money to you from here. However, we are requesting your agent
to help you in getting the visa. Please note that there are only six matches left to play.”
9.
On that same day, 21 January 2019, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent responded to
the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s correspondence as follows: “I will communicate
with my agent and see how best he can help fix my visa and travel issues so that I can
join the club in the earliest possible time”.
10.
In continuation, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent contacted the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant via email and WhatsApp on 23 February 2019, 3 March 2019 and 11
May 2019, followed by the following communication on 13 June 2019: “We are writing
to express our displeasure of the fact that many messages sent to [you] regarding your
plans for [the Claimant] which has been left unanswered. Meanwhile [the Respondent
/ Counter-Claimant] and [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] have signed and
concluded a professional contract. And the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] has sent
nursery documents backing the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] to secure a visa which
is successfully done”.
11.
On 14 June 2019, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant sent an email to the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent, which contained the following: “Kindly arrange to send us your
visa”.
12.
On 8 July 2019, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent informed the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant in writing of the following: “I want to bring to your notice that I
have travelled to [Accra] to take the visa which was scheduled to be ready today.
However, the consul ask the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] should send a
confirmation letter from the Indian FA and Minister of Your Sports in India. I have
called the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] but no answer. I have also left message to
them. Please reply soonest. I’ll be waiting at the embassy.”
13.
On 12 July 2019, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent put the Respondent / CounterClaimant in default, holding the following: “I am giving the [Respondent / CounterClaimant] one more reminder about the documents I need for my visa […]:
Confirmation letter from [the Indian FA];
Letter from Ministry of [Sports] in India.
Please send me the documents as soon as possible […] I am very keen to […] start
training with the team because my contract is valid until 30 April 2020 and I want to
fulfil my contractual duties. I also want to remind you that I signed the contract in
December 2018 and have not been able to report to management, because the
[Respondent / Counter-Claimant] did not help me get my visa, even though I did
everything possible from my end […] Also, let me remind you that the contract started
in December 2018 and the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] promised to pay me USD
5,000 per month, but the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] has not paid me any salary
Player Sadat Bukari, Ghana / Churchill Brothers SC, India
Page 3 of 15
till date. I request you to pay me due salaries from January 2019 to June 2019 (the total
amount is USD 30,000) within 15 days”.
14.
On 17 July 2019, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant informed the Claimant / CounterRespondent in writing of the following: “You never reported to Management for the
entire season. So the question of paying you never arises. As you never reported to
Management, your contract stands null and void […] Wishing you good luck in your
career].”
15.
On 23 July 2019, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent lodged a claim against the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant for termination of contract without just cause,
requesting the following:
a)
USD 30,000 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. on said
amount, calculated as follows:
i)
as from 1 February 2019, on the amount of USD 5,000;
ii)
as from 1 March 2019, on the amount of USD 5,000;
iii) as from 1 April 2019, on the amount of USD 5,000;
iv) as from 1 May 2019, on the amount of USD 5,000;
v)
as from 1 June 2019, on the amount of USD 5,000;
vi) as from 1 July 2019, on the amount of USD 5,000.
b) USD 50,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. on said
amount as from 17 July 2019 until the date of effective payment.
c) USD 15,000 as “additional compensation” plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as
from 17 July 2019 until the date of effective payment;
16.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent further requested the imposition of sporting
sanctions against the Respondent / Counter-Claimant.
17.
According to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
“has failed to acknowledge the fact that it is the responsibility of the [Respondent /
Counter-Claimant] to provide the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] with a valid
employment visa/work permit, so as to allow him to render his services and fulfill his
contractual obligations”.
18.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent further argued that he “took it upon himself to
duly file the application. The [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] informed the
[Respondent / Counter-Claimant] of his financial difficulties and requested them to
make an advance payment of USD 1,000 and mentioned that the requisite amount was
to be deducted from his salary. However, the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] refused
to provide any assistance, falsely claiming that it was impossible to transfer money from
India to Ghana.”
19.
As per the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Respondent / Counter-Claimant “has
mentioned in the Notice of Termination that the Contract never came into force since
Player Sadat Bukari, Ghana / Churchill Brothers SC, India
Page 4 of 15
the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] failed to report to the Management. The
[Claimant / Counter-Respondent] disagrees with the contention of the [Respondent /
Counter-Claimant]. Making the validity of the contract contingent on the Player
“reporting to the Management” essentially means that the validity of the Contract is
contingent on the obtainment of the work permit. Such clauses are invalid in
accordance with Art. 18 (4) of the RSTP.”
20.
In light of the above, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent maintained that the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant had terminated the employment contract without just
cause on 17 July 2019.
21.
As such, by means of his claim, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent held that he was
entitled to outstanding remuneration for the period of 26 December 2018 until 30 June
2019, and compensation for the period July 2019 until and including April 2020.
22.
As regards his request for outstanding remuneration, the Claimant / CounterRespondent stated that he was entitled to a monthly salary of USD 5,000. Therefore, as
per the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the total amount outstanding equalled USD
30,000 corresponding to the six monthly instalments of January 2019 until and
including June 2019.
23.
With regard to the compensation for termination of contract without just cause, the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent firstly explained that the residual value of the contract
equalled USD 50,000, corresponding to the 10 monthly instalments of USD 5,000 each
of July 2019 until and including April 2020.
24.
By means of its reply and counterclaim, dated 9 January 2020, the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant requested, inter alia, the following:
a)
INR 1,000,000 as compensation “for mental harassment and litigation costs;
b)
INR 500,000 as compensation corresponding to “exemplary costs […] for
initiating frivolous litigation;
25.
In this context, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant held that following the email of 31
December 2018, it requested the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to visit the Embassy
“as per standard visa procedure”. In this context, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
held that before signing the contract, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent “had
informed the club that they would take care of the visa application fee, and the
[Respondent / Counter-Claimant] would reimburse them once the [Claimant / CounterRespondent] reached India. Before this date, the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] had
never informed the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] of his financial difficulties […] As
per the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] policy, we do not make any advance payments
to players, unless expressly mentioned in the employment contract […] However, in this
case, we communicated with the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s] agent and asked
him to bear the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s] expenses.”
Player Sadat Bukari, Ghana / Churchill Brothers SC, India
Page 5 of 15
26.
As per the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, by means of his email of 13 June 2019, the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent confirmed that he had obtained his visa. However,
according to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
never sent its visa the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, as it requested in its email of 14
June 2019.
27.
In continuation, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant referred to the Claimant / CounterRespondent’s email of 8 July 2019, and maintained that neither the Indian FA, nor the
Indian Ministry of Sports could not provide the relevant documents, as it is not their
responsibility. In this regard, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant further argued that it
had already sent the relevant documents to the Embassy by means of its email of 31
December 2018.
28.
Finally, and following the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s default letter of 12 July
2019, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant understood that the Claimant / CounterRespondent “had no intention to obtain his visa and fulfil his contractual obligations”.
Consequently, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant decided to inform the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent that “his contract was being terminated” on 17 July 2019.
29.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant underlined that the Claimant / CounterRespondent had failed to cooperate with the club in obtaining his visa. In this regard,
the Respondent / Counter-Claimant highlighted that the Claimant / CounterRespondent contradicted himself by “explicitly” stating that on 13 June 2019 he had
obtained his visa, only to inform the Respondent / Counter-Claimant on 8 July 2019 that
he had not.
30.
Given all of the above, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was of the firm opinion that
it had a just cause to terminate the contract on 17 July 2019 and, as a consequence, the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim is to be rejected.
31.
On 23 January 2020, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent informed FIFA that he has
remained unemployed “as from 26 December 2018”.
Player Sadat Bukari, Ghana / Churchill Brothers SC, India
Page 6 of 15
II.
Cons iderations of the DRC judge
1.
First of all, the DRC Judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at
hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on
23 July 2019. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the 2019 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.
2.
Subsequently, DRC Judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed
that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players the Dispute Resolution Chamber
is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related
dispute with an international dimension between a Ghanaian player and an Indian
club.
3.
In continuation, the DRC 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 (edition 2018)
and considering that the present claim was lodged on 23 July 2019, the 2019 edition of
the said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to
the substance.
4.
The competence of the DRC Judge and the applicable regulations having been
established, the DRC Judge entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect,
the DRC Judge started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts and arguments
as well as the documentation on file. However, the DRC Judge emphasised that in the
following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary
evidence, which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
5.
In this respect, the DRC Judge recalled that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant signed an employment contract which was valid as
from “the date [the Claimant / Respondent-Respondent] reports to the management
and shall remain in force till […] 30 April 2019”. The DRC Judge acknowledged that, in
accordance with the employment contract, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was
obliged to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, a monthly salary of Indian Rupee
(INR) 360,000 (“equivalent to USD 5,000”).
6.
The DRC Judge further took into consideration that remained undisputed that, by
means of its correspondence dated 17 July 2019, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
terminated the employment contract.
7.
In continuation, the DRC Judge recalled that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
lodged a claim before FIFA for breach of contract requesting, inter alia, to be awarded
Player Sadat Bukari, Ghana / Churchill Brothers SC, India
Page 7 of 15
the amount USD 30,000 as outstanding remuneration, as well as the total amount of
USD 65,000 compensation for breach of contract.
8.
In light of the above, the DRC Judge established that the primary issue at stake is
determining as to whether the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had a just cause to
terminate the contract with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent on 17 July 2019 and to
determine the consequences thereof. In this respect, the DRC Judge deemed it essential
to make a brief recollection of the facts as well as the parties’ main arguments and the
documentation on file.
9.
With regard to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s arguments, the DRC Judge noted
that, as per the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
failed to carry out its responsibility of providing the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
with a valid employment visa/work permit, while making reference to art. 18 (4) of the
Regulations. The DRC Judge further recalled that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
argued that he “did everything possible from [his] end” in order to obtain the visa and
to provide his services to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant.
10.
In continuation, the DRC Judge analysed the arguments brought forward by the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant, who firstly stated that the Claimant / CounterRespondent’s obligation to visit the relevant Indian embassy is “standard visa
procedure”.
11.
Thereafter, the DRC Judge educed that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant referred to
the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s alleged financial difficulties to obtain the visa,
but who also held that, as per its policy, it does “not make any advance payments to
players, unless expressly mentioned in the employment contract”.
12.
Furthermore, the DRC Jude took into account that, as per the Respondent / CounterClaimant, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had contradicted himself in his
correspondences and that he “had no intention to obtain his visa and fulfil his
contractual obligations”. Consequently, the DRC Judge recalled, the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant was of the firm opinion that it had a just cause to terminate the
employment contract.
13.
Having analysed the arguments brought forward by the parties, the DRC Judge deemed
it firstly necessary to determine on which date the employment contract became valid
and binding. In this context, he referred to clause of the contract, and recalled that
“the agreement shall commence from the date the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent]
reports to the management”. However, the DRC Judge was quick to point out that such
a condition should be declared invalid, since the validity of a contract depends on the
willingness of the parties to enter into the agreement. As such, the DRC Judge
determined that the contract entered into force on the date of signature, i.e. 26
December 2018.
Player Sadat Bukari, Ghana / Churchill Brothers SC, India
Page 8 of 15
14.
By way of summary, the DRC Judge therefore concluded that the Contract entered into
force on 26 December 2018, and that it was unilaterally terminated by the Respondent
/ Counter-Claimant on 17 July 2019.
15.
In continuation, the DRC Judge turned to the question regarding who is responsible
for the obtainment of the visa and/or work permit. In this light, the DRC Judge recalled
that Art. 18 (4) of the Regulations provides that the validity of a contract may not be
subject to the grant of a work permit. Moreover, as per the DRC Judge, it is established
DRC jurisprudence that the responsibility for obtaining a visa or work permit lies with
the club, although the player must cooperate fully in the efforts aimed at obtaining
the visa or the work permit.
16.
Having said this, the DRC Judge understood that a fundamental question in this matter
is thus whether the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and Claimant / CounterRespondent fully cooperated in the efforts aimed at obtaining the visa.
17.
In this context, the DRC Judge observed that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant never
disputed that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had to pay USD 1,000 in order to
obtain the visa through the Indian Embassy in Ghana. Instead, as per the DRC Judge,
the Respondent / Counter-Claimant argued that it refused to make any advance
payments to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, because it was not contractually
established. Consequently, the DRC Judge interpreted this refusal as the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant not fully complying with its responsibility in accordance with Art. 18
of the Regulations.
18.
Next, the DRC Judge understood that it remained undisputed that between January
2019 and June 2019 the Claimant / Counter-Respondent did have not his visa. Having
said this, the DRC Judge noted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was of the
opinion that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had obtained his visa by referring to
the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s correspondence of 13 July 2019 (cf. I.10 and I.26).
However, after analyzing said correspondence, the DRC Judge was unable to draw the
same conclusion. Furthermore, the DRC Judge deduced that the Claimant / CounterRespondent never acknowledged to having obtained the visa in his subsequent emails.
19.
Similarly, the DRC Judge felt it safe to assume that on the date the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant sent its last email, i.e. 17 July 2019, the Claimant / CounterRespondent had still not obtained his visa.
20.
Given all of the above, given the fact that the responsibility for obtaining a visa permit
lies with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, and given that the parties failed to obtain
said visa, it can consequently be determined that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
terminated the contract on 17 July 2019 without just cause.
Player Sadat Bukari, Ghana / Churchill Brothers SC, India
Page 9 of 15
21.
Consequently, the DRC Judge decided to fully reject the Respondent / CounterClaimant’s argumentation and counterclaim.
22.
That said, the DRC Judge concluded that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is to be
held liable for the early termination of the employment contract without just cause by
the Respondent and should therefore bear the consequences of its unjustified breach
of the employment contract.
23.
In continuation, prior to entering into the issue of the consequences of the early
termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant / CounterRespondent, the DRC Judge firstly proceeded to determine the amount of outstanding
remuneration, if any, still due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent by the Respondent
/ Counter-Claimant to this day.
24.
In this regard, the DRC firstly referred to clause 10 of the contract and recalled that the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent was entitled to a monthly salary of INR 360,000.
Therefore, and contrary to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s request, the DRC
Judge understood that any amount due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent would
be paid in INR.
25.
In continuation, and taking into account that the contract was in force for the period
between 26 December 2018 and 17 July 2019, the DRC Judge determined that the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent was entitled to the monthly salaries of January 2019
until and including June 2019. Thus, the DRC Judge concluded that the total amount
outstanding to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent amounted to INR 2,160,000.
26.
On account of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC Judge decided that, in
accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant is liable to pay to the player outstanding remuneration in the total
amount of INR 2,160,000.
27.
Furthermore, considering the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim for interest and
also taking into account the DRC’s longstanding jurisprudence, the DRC Judge ruled
that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay 5% interest p.a. on the amount of
INR 2,160,000 as from the respective due dates.
28.
In continuation, the DRC Judge focused his attention on the calculation of the amount
of compensation for breach of contract payable by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the DRC Judge
first 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, 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 / CounterRespondent under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining
Player Sadat Bukari, Ghana / Churchill Brothers SC, India
Page 10 of 15
on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the
contractual breach falls within the protected period.
29.
In application of the relevant provision, the DRC Judge held that he 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
DRC Judge established that no such compensation clause was included in the
employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.
30.
As a consequence, the DRC Judge determined that the amount of compensation
payable by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the
Regulations. The DRC Judge recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive
enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of
compensation payable. Therefore, other objective criteria may be taken into account
at the discretion of the deciding body. In this regard, the DRC Judge emphasized
beforehand that each request for compensation for contractual breach has to be
assessed on a case-by-case basis taking into account all specific circumstances of the
respective matter.
31.
In order to estimate the amount of compensation due to the Claimant / CounterRespondent in the present case, the DRC Judge first turned its attention to the
remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent under the
existing contract and/or the new contract(s), which criterion was considered to be
essential. The DRC Judge deemed it important to emphasise that the wording of art.
17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows it to take into account both the existing contract
and the new contract, if any, in the calculation of the amount of compensation.
32.
Bearing in mind the foregoing, the DRC Judge proceeded with the calculation of the
monies payable to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent under the terms of the
employment contract as from its date of termination with just cause by the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent, i.e. 17 July 2019 until 30 April 2020, and concluded that the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent would have received INR 3,600,000 in total as
remuneration had the contract been executed until its expiry date.
33.
Consequently, the DRC Judge concluded that the amount of INR 3,600,000 serves as the
basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract
in the case at hand.
34.
In continuation, the DRC Judge acknowledged that the Claimant / CounterRespondent’s request for compensation included USD 15,000 as “additional
compensation”. In this regard, the DRC Judge deemed it appropriate to point out that
the request for said compensation presented by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
Player Sadat Bukari, Ghana / Churchill Brothers SC, India
Page 11 of 15
had no legal or regulatory basis and pointed out that no corroborating evidence had
been submitted that demonstrated or quantified the damage suffered.
35.
In continuation, the DRC Judge verified as to whether the Claimant / CounterRespondent had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant
period of time, by means of which he would have been able to reduce his loss of
income. According to the constant practice of the DRC, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
compensation for termination of contract with just cause in connection with the
player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.
36.
Having said this, the DRC Judge noted that according to the information on file, the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent remained unemployed as from 17 July 2019.
37.
Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the DRC Judge decided that the Respondent / CounterClaimant must pay the amount of INR 3,600,000 to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
as compensation for breach of contract.
38.
In addition, taking into account the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s request, the DRC
Judge decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay to the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of compensation as of the date
on which the claim was lodged, i.e. 23 July 2019, until the date of effective payment
39.
Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./3. 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 the failure of the concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of
outstanding remuneration and/or compensation in due time.
40.
In this regard, the DRC Judge pointed out 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.
41.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC Judge decided that, in the event that
the Respondent / Counter-Claimant does not pay the amounts due to the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent within 45 days as from the moment in which the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent, following the notification of the present decision, communicates
the relevant bank details to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, 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 / Counter-Claimant in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the
Regulations.
Player Sadat Bukari, Ghana / Churchill Brothers SC, India
Page 12 of 15
42.
Finally, the DRC Judge 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. 24bis par. 3 of the Regulations.
43.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber Judge concluded his deliberations in the present
matter by establishing that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim is partially
accepted and that any further claims lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are
rejected. Furthermore, the DRC Judge concluded that the counterclaim of the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected.
Player Sadat Bukari, Ghana / Churchill Brothers SC, India
Page 13 of 15
III.
Decision of the DRC Judge
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Sadat Bukari, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Churchill Brothers SC, has to pay to the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent outstanding remuneration in the amount of Indian Rupee (INR)
2,160,000, plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the aforementioned amount until the
date of effective payment as follows:
a) As from 1 February 2019, on the amount of INR 360,000;
b) As from 1 March 2019, on the amount of INR 360,000;
c) As from 1 April 2019, on the amount of INR 360,000;
d) As from 1 May 2019, on the amount of INR 360,000;
e) As from 1 June 2019, on the amount of INR 360,000;
f) As from 1 July 2019, on the amount of INR 360,000.
3.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
compensation for breach of contract in the amount of INR 3,600,000, plus interest at
the rate of 5% p.a. on the aforementioned amount as from 23 July 2019 until the date
of effective payment.
4.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected.
5.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Churchill Brothers SC, is
rejected.
6.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent, immediately
and directly, preferably to the e-mail address as indicated on the cover letter of the
present decision, of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the
amounts mentioned under III.2. and III.3. above.
7.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall provide evidence of payment of the due
amounts in accordance with III.2. and III.3. above to FIFA to the e-mail address
[email protected], duly translated, if need be, into one of the official FIFA languages
(English, French, German, Spanish).
8.
In the event that the amounts due plus interest in accordance with III.2. and III.3. above
are not paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant w ithin 45 day s as from the
notification by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent of the relevant bank details to the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall be banned
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 (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players).
Player Sadat Bukari, Ghana / Churchill Brothers SC, India
Page 14 of 15
9.
The ban mentioned in III.8. above will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete
serving, once the due amounts are paid.
10.
In the event that the aforementioned sums plus interest are 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 FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a
formal decision.
*****
Note related to the publication:
The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the Players’ Status Committee or the
DRC. Where such decisions contain confidential information, 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 Rules Governing the Procedures of the
Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).
Note related to the appeal procedure:
According to art. 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS
directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the
elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS. Within another 10
days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant
shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS.
The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:
Court of Arbitration for Sport
Avenue de Beaumont 2
1012 Lausanne
Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00
Fax: +41 21 613 50 01
e-mail: [email protected]
www.tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Player Sadat Bukari, Ghana / Churchill Brothers SC, India
Page 15 of 15