Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-677
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 12 August 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Juan del Carmen
Camara Mesa
COMPOSITION:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
MD Abu Nayeem Shohag (Bangladesh), member
Tomislav Kasalo (Croatia), member
CLAIMANT:
Juan del Carmen Camara Mesa, Spain
Represented by Mario Resino Sastre
RESPONDENT:
SC Dinamo 1948, Romania
Page 2
REF FPSD-677
I.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
On 31 May 2019, the Spanish player, Juan del Carmen Camara Mesa (hereinafter: the
Player), and the Polish club, SSA Jagiellonia Białystok (hereinafter: the parent club) signed
an employment contract valid as of said date until 30 June 2023.
2.
On 3 September 2020, the parent club and the Romanian club, SC Dinamo 1948
(hereinafter: the Club) agreed on the temporary transfer of the Player to the Club, with
validity as of 6 September 2020 until 30 June 2021 (hereinafter: the loan agreement).
3.
In accordance with the loan agreement, the parent club and the Club agreed to insert an
option that would allow the Club to acquire on a permanent basis the services of the Player
“after the season 2020/2021”.
4.
Accordingly, on 6 September 2020, the Player and the Club concluded an employment
contract (hereinafter: the Contract) as from the same date until 30 June 2021.
5.
The Contract foresaw a potential extension of the labour relationship for two further
sporting seasons (i.e. until 30 June 2023).
6.
In accordance with the Contract, the Club undertook to pay to the Player inter alia the
following amounts:
EUR 18,000 as monthly salary for the season 2020/2021;
EUR 19,000 as monthly salary for the season 2021/2022;
EUR 20,000 as monthly salary for the season 2022/2023.
7.
According to article 4.1 of the Contract, each salary should have been paid “on the 15th
day of the month following the one wherefore payment is due.”
8.
Furthermore, pursuant to clause 3.1 of the Contract, several payments (hereinafter:
bonuses) were agreed by the parties with regard to the season 2020/2021 as well as for
the optional further seasons (2021/2022 & 2022/2023). Among these there were, in
particular, two fixed (guaranteed) bonuses to be paid as follows:
EUR 18,000 on 20 January 2021;
EUR 18,000 on 27 March 2021.
9.
In this respect, art. 3.6 of the Contract provided that: “The club will guarantee the collection
of the bonuses generated even if the contract is not in force in the event that the player
leaves the club during the first year or in any of the extensions after exercising the purchase
option.”
Page 3
REF FPSD-677
10.
By correspondence dated 30 November 2020, the Player put the Club in default of payment
of the salaries of September, October and November 2020, granting a term of 10 days in
order to remedy the default.
11.
On 5 December 2020, the Club replied to the Player, acknowledging that due to financial
difficulties as well as to the changes in the Club’s board of directors, several other players
had put it in default, hence the Club requested an extension of the deadline granted by the
Player until 22 December 2020, in order to solve the matter in an amicable manner.
12.
On 15 January 2021, the Player notified the Club of the unilateral termination of the
Contract with just cause, namely overdue payables amounting to 3 monthly salaries.
13.
As of 8 February 2021, until 30 June 2021 the player has been under contract with the
Polish club U. Craiova 1948. According to the relevant contract, the Player is entitled to EUR
53,500 as total remuneration.
II.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFA
14.
On 25 January 2021, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a.
The claim of the Player
15.
In its claim, the Player alleged that the Club did not pay any of the salaries due as from the
month of September 2020 until the date of the claim.
16.
For the above reason and recalling to have put the Club in default of several due salaries
waiting for a significant long period, the Player is of the opinion that he had just cause to
terminate the employment contract on 15 January 2021.
17.
Therefore, in addition to the outstanding remuneration for the aforementioned months,
the Player requested also the payment of full compensation for the residual value of the
employment contract, namely until 30 June 2021.
18.
The requests for relief of the Player were the following:
EUR 81,000 as overdue payables (as of 6 September 2020 until 15 January 2021);
5% interests p.a. accrued for the late payment of the outstanding remuneration
(i.e., EUR 81,000), on the date the claim was filed, as from each due date until the
effective date of payment;
Page 4
REF FPSD-677
EUR 99,000 as compensation for the breach of contract by the club (as of 16 January
2021 until 30 June 2021);
EUR 54,000 as additional compensation;
EUR 18,000 as guaranteed bonus due on 20 January 2021;
EUR 18,000 as guaranteed bonus due on 27 March 2021.
b.
Position of the Club / Counterclaim
19.
In its reply to the claim, the Club firstly argued to have paid the Player an amount
corresponding to EUR 68,885 on 26 March 2021, as “financial rights” due to the Player for
the period between 6 September 2020 and 31 December 2020.
20.
In this context, the Club submitted also proof of the alleged payment.
21.
Secondly, the Club objected that the notification letter sent by the Player on 30 November
2020 would not fulfil the requirements set by article 14bis of FIFA Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players (RSTP) in order to justify a termination of the employment contract
with just cause.
22.
In particular, the Club argued that said notification was sent exclusively on the basis of art.
12bis of FIFA RSTP as the Player mentioned only the payment of the overdue payables and
not the termination of the Contract, and the latter granted only 10 days instead of the 15
required by art. 14bis RSTP.
23.
Therefore, according to the Club, it was legitimate to expect a claim for outstanding
remuneration but not for unilateral termination of the employment contract by the Player,
especially as it was inferable from the latter’s declaration to the medias - the last one being
dated 11 January 2021 (i.e. 4 days before the letter of termination) - that he wanted to
keep playing for the Club.
24.
Furthermore, the Club remarked that the “Regulation in the Status and Transfer of Football
Players of Romanian Football Federation” (RFF) shall be deemed as the applicable law but
on the contrary it has been completely ignored by the Player.
25.
In this context, the Club reported the content of art. 18.10 of RFF, which states the
following:
” 10.
Players and clubs may invoke just cause or sporting just cause for the unilateral termination
of their contracts on the following grounds:
Page 5
REF FPSD-677
a) Players:
Their contractual rights were not paid for a period exceeding 60 days from their
due date, only if they sent a formal notice to the club and they grant a term of
payment of minim 15 days to fulfil their payment obligations. The notification
addressed to the club can be sent through any way, by e-mail, fax, and post letter
or by bailiff. The claim address to the secretary of N.D.R.C. of R.F.F. will have
mandatory attached he proof of notification of the club. (…);
b) Clubs:
- the player was absent without justification from the training sessions and the
official matches of the team, for a period exceeding 15 consecutive days, and the
club is able to bring evidence of this fact”.
26.
Accordingly, the Club argued that the (first) term of payment (for September 2020) was 15
October 2020 and the 60 days term of delay would have been fulfilled only on 15 December
2020, whereas the Player put the Club in default on 30 November 2020, i.e. 45 days after.
27.
In this respect, the Club stated that as a consequence of the unlawful termination of the
Contract by hand of the Player, the employment agreement shall be deemed to have been
effectively ceased as of 15 February 2021 only, date in which the Player signed a new
employment contract with the Polish club U. Craiova.
28.
Therefore, in the Club’s view, the Player was absent without justification from the training
sessions and the official matches of the team for a period exceeding 15 consecutive days,
hence the Club would be entitled to terminate the employment contract pursuant to article
18.10 of the RFF.
29.
Consequently, the Club lodged a counterclaim against the Player, requesting the latter to
pay compensation for the unilateral termination of the employment contract without just
cause as occurred on 15 January 2021.
30.
In this context, the Club requested FIFA DRC either to condemn the Player to pay an amount
corresponding to 25% of the total retribution paid to the latter by the same Club or to
award a compensation computed according to the criteria set by art. 17.1 of FIFA RSTP.
c.
Player’s reply to the counterclaim
31.
In its repy, the Player acknowledged to have received on 26 March 2021 the amount of
EUR 68,885 from the Club.
32.
Concerning the second objection moved by the Club, the Player argued that the letter of
default sent to the former on 30 November 2020 met all the requirements set by art. 14bis
of FIFA RSTP.
Page 6
REF FPSD-677
33.
In particular, the Player alleged that the grace-period of 10 days got indeed extend de facto
to a 45-days deadline, namely until 15 January 2021, as the Player waited until that moment
before terminating the Contract but nonetheless the Club failed to pay the equivalent of
more than 2 monthly salaries.
34.
Additionally, the Player pointed out that it shall be deemed irrelevant the subsequent
changes occurred within the Club’s Board of Directors, as until the above date of
communication, all the correspondence in question had been sent to the correct / official
address of the Club and the latter had acknowledged to be aware of the negotiations held
among the relevant parties in this respect.
35.
Moreover, with regard to the alleged Player’s absences from the training sessions, the latter
denied the facts and highlighted that the Club failed to corroborate its allegations.
36.
In consideration of the above, the Player amended his requests for relief as follows:
EUR 12,115 as residual overdue payables (as of 6 September 2020 until 15 January
2021);
5% interests p.a. accrued for the late payment of the outstanding remuneration
(i.e., €81,000), on the date the claim was filed, as from each due date until the
effective date of payment;
EUR 99,000 as compensation for the breach of contract by the club (as of 16 January
2021 until 30 June 2021);
EUR 54,000 as additional compensation;
EUR 18,000 as guaranteed bonus due on 20 January 2021;
EUR 18,000 as guaranteed bonus due on 27 March 2021.
III.
CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
a.
37.
Competence and applicable legal framework
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as 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 25 January 2021 and submitted
for decision on 12 August 2021. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the January
2021 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and
the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned
edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
Page 7
REF FPSD-677
38.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules
and observed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition February 2021), 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 Spanish player and
a Romanian club.
39.
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. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Player (edition February 2021 and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 25 January 2021, the January 2021
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b.
Burden of proof
40.
The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12
par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the DRC stressed the
wording of art. 12 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties.
41.
In this respect, the Chamber also recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3
of the Regulations, FIFA’s judicial bodies may use, within the scope of proceedings
pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated
or contained in TMS.
c.
42.
Merits of the dispute
The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the
DRC entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the DRC started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the DRC emphasised that in the following considerations
it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered
pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
43.
The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute whether the Player had just cause
to terminate the employment contract on 15 January 2021. In order to determine the
existence or not of just cause, the DRC confirmed that it had to address the following issues:
Page 8
REF FPSD-677
A) What amounts were owed to the Player by 30 November 2020, the day of the
default notice?
B) What amounts were owed to the Player by 15 January 2021, the day of the
termination of the contract?
C) Did the Player have just cause to terminate the Contract?
D) What are the consequences of the foregoing considerations?
44.
These questions are addressed below.
A. What amounts were owed to the Player by 30 November 2020?
45.
The DRC started by observing that the default notice sent by the Player on 30 November
2020 referred to three unpaid salaries, i.e. September 2020, October 2020 and November
2020.
46.
In this respect, the DRC noted that in accordance to art. 4.1 of the Contract, each salary
was payable every 15th day of the following month.
47.
Accordingly, on 30 November 2020, only two salaries resulted to be already collectible by
the Player, namely those related to the months of September 2020 (as of 15 October 2020)
and October 2020 (as of 15 November 2020).
48.
Moreover, the DRC assessed that, with regard to the month of September 2020, the
remuneration due to the Player shall be calculated on a pro-rata basis, as the employment
agreement entered into force as of the 6th day of said month.
49.
Therefore, the amount of EUR 33,000 was owed to the Player at the date of the first
notification, namely on 30 November 2020.
50.
Nevertheless, and with the foregoing in mind, the Chamber observed that the above
amounts regarding September, October and November 2020 were not disputed by the
Club, which on the contrary simply requested an extension of the deadline provided by the
Player until 22 December 2020.
B. What amounts were owed to the Player by 15 January 2021?
51.
In continuation, the Chamber noted that, in spite of the aforementioned request for
extension submitted by the Club in order to postpone the payment of the amounts claimed
by the Player, the Club completely failed to remedy its default within the deadline granted
by the latter.
Page 9
REF FPSD-677
52.
Consequently, the total amount that remained outstanding on 15 January 2021, date of
termination of the Contract, was EUR 69,000, it corresponding to the (pro-rata) salary of
September 2020, October 2020, November 2020 and December 2020.
53.
Therefore, it appears evident to the Chamber that on the date of termination the Club had
delayed approximately four monthly salaries.
54.
Furthermore, the DRC noted that such amounts were not contested by the Respondent,
who on the contrary almost entirely paid the outstanding sum on 26 March 2021, as
subsequently acknowledged by the same Player.
C. Did the Player have just cause to terminate the Contract?
55.
By his correspondence dated 30 November 2020, the Player awarded only 10 days for the
club to cure its breach. The DRC noted furthermore that the Player expressly mentioned art.
12bis of the Regulations in his default notice.
56.
Furthermore, the Chamber took note of the Club’s argument according to which art. 18
par. 10 of the RFF Regulations shall be deemed as the relevant domestic provisions
applicable in casu, hence in the Club’s view the Player would have not complied with the
proper terms required for a valid notification and the unilateral termination occurred
without just cause.
57.
However, the DRC wished to draw the Club’s attention to the FIFA DRC longstanding
jurisprudence, according to which FIFA’s regulations shall prevail over any national law
chosen by the parties. In this regard, the Chamber emphasised that the main objective of
the FIFA regulations is to create a standard set of rules to which all the actors within the
football community are subject to and can rely on. This objective would not be achievable
if the DRC would have to apply the national law of a specific party on every dispute brought
to it. This should apply, in particular, also to the termination of a contract. In this respect,
the DRC wished to point out that it is in the interest of football that the termination of a
contract is based on uniform criteria rather than on provisions of national law that may vary
considerable from country to country. Therefore, the Chamber deemed that it is not
appropriate to apply the principles of a particular national law to the termination of the
contract but rather the Regulations, general principles of law and, where existing, the
Chamber’s well-established jurisprudence.
58.
In this respect, the Chamber recalled that pursuant to art. 14bis par.1 of the Regulations,
in the case of a club unlawfully failing 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 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).
59.
Consequently, the DRC established that, in principle, the Player did not fulfil the requisites
of art. 14bis of the Regulations in his default notice. The DRC wished to highlight that the
Page 10
REF FPSD-677
criteria enshrined in the cited article is quite narrow and should be read on a restrictive
basis. This did not imply, however, in the Chamber’s view, that the assessment of other
criteria to establish just cause should be overlooked.
60.
To this, the Chamber observed that the Player terminated the employment contract only on
15 January 2021, i.e. 45 days after the notification of overdue payables. Accordingly, in the
DRC’s view, the Player granted de facto a larger lapse of time to the Respondent in order
to remedy its default, namely 36 additional days.
61.
In this respect, the Chamber wished to emphasize that the non-compliance with the formal
requirements of art. 14bis shall not, per se, exclude that the player had a just cause to
prematurely terminate the contract, especially considering the contents of art. 14 of the
Regulations.
62.
In particular, the DRC was eager to outline that even in such cases it remains still available
to the parties the possibility to explain that the breach by the club (non-payment of salaries)
was of such a severity that it did not reasonably permit to expect a continuation of the
employment relationship between the parties, and that therefore the compliant party had
no other option but to terminate the contract.
63.
In casu, the Chamber observed that the unilateral termination by hand of the Player
occurred after the Club failed to pay him approximately 4 monthly salaries, whereas the
latter had waited for almost two months without receiving any amount. The DRC was also
mindful of the fact that in spite of the default notice falling short of meeting the criteria
under art. 14bis of the Regulations, it nonetheless undisputedly warned the Club that it
owed certain (substantial) amounts to the Player.
64.
The DRC then recalled the solid jurisprudence of the Chamber according to which such
persistent and substantial non-compliance of the contractual obligations by the club can
justify the unilateral termination of the agreement as well as it can hold the club liable for
breach of contract.
65.
based on the foregoing, the DRC was of the opinion that by 15 January 2021 it was not
reasonable, on the Player’s side, to expect the continuation of the employment agreement.
Consequently in the DRC’s view the Player had just cause to terminate the Contract, namely
for overdue payables, on the grounds of article 14 of the Regulations.
66.
The termination of the Contract by the Player having being found as licit by the Chamber,
the absence of the same Player from the club’s facilities and training sessions as of 15
January 2021 shall result irrelevant. It followed that the counterclaim lodged by the Club
was reject it in its entirety by the Chamber.
Page 11
REF FPSD-677
ii. Consequences
67.
Having stated the above, and before addressing the question of the consequences of the
unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club, the DRC focused on the
quantification of the outstanding remuneration due to the Player.
68.
In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the monies remained as outstanding on 15
January 2021 (i.e. date of termination of the Contract), were EUR 69,000, corresponding
to the (pro-rata) salary of September 2020, October 2020, November 2020 and December
2020.
69.
Nevertheless, the Chamber noted that on 26 March 2021 the same Club paid the Player
EUR 68,885, and that the latter acknowledged such payment in his reply to the Club’s
counterclaim.
70.
Therefore, at the current date, a total of EUR 115 remains as outstanding and in accordance
with the general principle of pacta sunt servanda the Club shall pay said amount to the
Player.
71.
Moreover, and in line with the Player’s request as well as the jurisprudence of the DRC, the
Chamber observed that as the aforementioned payment occurred largely beyond the
relevant due date, the Club shall be liable to pay also the interest accrued on each of the
delayed salaries, as of their respective due dates until 26 March 2021, at the rate of 5%
p.a.
72.
Having established the above, the DRC turned its attention to the consequences of the
unilateral termination of the employment contract by the Player with just cause on 15
January 2021.
73.
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, 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 player under the
existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up
to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within
the protected period.
74.
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.
75.
In this respect, the Chamber underlined the absence of any compensation clause included
in the contract. Consequently, the DRC held that no compensation clause being
Page 12
REF FPSD-677
applicable to the case at hand, the compensation can be assessed on the basis of the
residual value of the contract in line with the jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution
Chamber.
76.
Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies
payable to the Player under the terms of the employment contract as from the date of
termination until its natural expiration. Bearing this in mind, the Chamber deemed that the
Player would have received in total EUR 108,000 as fixed salary for the period between
January 2021 and June 2021.
77.
Moreover, the DRC recalled that under art. 3.1 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay
the Player two fixed bonuses, respectively on 20 January 2021 and 27 March 2021, for a
total amount of EUR 36,000. In the Chamber’s view, said bonuses appear to be
independent from any specific pre-condition, hence they shall be computed as part of the
total residual value of the contract.
78.
Consequently, the DRC concluded that the amount of EUR 144,000 serves as the basis for
the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case
at hand.
79.
Equally, the Chamber verified as to whether the Player had signed a new employment
agreement after terminating the Contract on 15 January 2021, by means of which he
would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice
of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, such remuneration under a new employment contract
would be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for
breach of contract in connection with the Claimant’s general obligation to mitigate his
damages.
80.
In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, after the termination of the contract, the Player
signed an employment agreement with the Polish club U. Craiova 1948, to be valid as of 8
February 2021 until 30 June 2021, and for a total remuneration of EUR 53,500.
81.
Therefore, the DRC established that the compensation to which the Player is entitled shall
be mitigated to the amount of EUR 90,500.
82.
Subsequently, the Chamber turned its attention to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations,
according to which a player is entitled to an additional compensation of three monthly
salaries, subject to the early termination of the contract being due to overdue payables.
83.
With the above in mind, the Chamber decided to award the Player additional compensation
corresponding to three monthly salaries, i.e. EUR 54,000, in accordance with the
aforementioned provision.
84.
In conclusion, and recalling that the overall compensation may never exceed the rest value
of the prematurely terminated contract, the Chamber decided to partially accept the
Page 13
REF FPSD-677
Player’s claim and that the Club must pay the amount of EUR 144,000 as compensation for
breach of contract to the Player, which is considered by the Chamber to be a fair and
reasonable amount.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
85.
Finally, the Chamber referred to par. 1 lit a) 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.
86.
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.
87.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Club must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Player within 45 days of notification of
the decision, failing which, at the request of the Player, a ban from 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 Club in
accordance with art. 24bis par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
88.
The Club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
89.
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. 24bis par. 8
of the Regulations.
d.
Costs
90.
The Chamber referred to article 18 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “DRC
proceedings relating to disputes between clubs and players in relation to the maintenance
of contractual stability as well as international employment related disputes between a club
and a player are free of charge”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural
costs were to be imposed on the parties.
91.
Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 18
par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
Page 14
REF FPSD-677
92.
Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
Page 15
REF FPSD-677
IV.
DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Juan del Carmen Camara Mesa, is partially
accepted.
2.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, SC Dinamo 1948, has to pay the Claimant/Counter-Respondent,
the following amount:
EUR 115 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as from 25 January 2021 until
the date of effective payment.
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 15,000 as of 16 October 2020 until 26 March 2021.
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 18,000 as of 16 November 2020 until 26 March 2021.
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 18,000 as of 16 December 2020 until 26 March 2021.
5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 18,000 as of 16 January 2021 until 26 March 2021.
EUR 144,000 as compensation for breach of contract.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent are rejected.
4.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, SC Dinamo 1948 is rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account set out in the
enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
Pursuant to article 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not paid within 45 days of notification of this decision, the
following consequences shall apply:
1.
2.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant shall be banned from registering any new players, either
nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of three
entire and consecutive registration periods.
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 paid by the end of the of the
three entire and consecutive registration periods.
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant/CounterRespondent in accordance with article 24bis paragraphs 7 and 8 and article 24ter of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 16
REF FPSD-677
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party
within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted
version (cf. article 20 of the Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 17