Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF 20-00252
Decision of the
DRC Judge
passed via videoconference, on 12 June 2020,
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Roberto Dias Correia
Filho
BY:
Daan de Jong, (The Netherlands)
CLAIMANT:
Roberto Dias Correia Filho, Portugal
represented by Mr Pedro Macieirinha
RESPONDENT:
FK Senica, Slovakia
Page 2 of 8
REF 20-00252
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
On 11 June 2019, the Portuguese player, Roberto Dias Correia Filho (hereinafter: the Claimant
or the player) and the Slovakian club, FK Senika (hereinafter: the Respondent or the club)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from 1 July 2019 until
30 June 2020.
2.
According to article 8 of the contract, the club committed itself to pay to the player a monthly
salary of EUR 5,474 “during the period of 01 July 2019 until and including 30 June 2020
(holidays allowance included)”, payable “no later than on the last day of the following month”,
3.
On 14 January 2020, the player put the club in default of payment of EUR 13,454.79,
corresponding to “the monthly salaries at the end of October 2019, November 2019 and
December 2019”. Having said this, the Claimant provided the Respondent with a 15 days’
deadline to remedy the default.
4.
Subsequently, on 30 January 2020, the player terminated the employment relationship and
sustained that the amount of EUR 18,575.62 remained outstanding to him.
5.
On 6 February 2020, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA, requesting outstanding
remuneration in the amount of EUR 19,203, corresponding to the monthly salaries as from
October 2019 until and including January 2020. In addition, the Claimant requested
compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 27,370.
6.
In his claim, the Claimant maintained that, in accordance with article 14bis of the Regulations
and the legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”, he could “[exercise] his right to terminate the
[contract]”.
7.
In its reply to the claim, the club sustained that it “has been facing some financial difficulties,
and [it has] been exhausting all avenues to pay […] players and creditors, which includes the
sale of the club. This is a fact that all the players have been informed and have pledged to
support the club during this tricky time”.
8.
The club maintained that it had “made every effort to accommodate and assist the player”. In
this context, the club further held that it “agreed with the player that the player can leave the
club immediately and as a free player, and that [the club] would [forget] any transfer fee or
training compensation from any future club. All of which was agreed and accepted by the
player”.
9.
Moreover, as per the club, “the player confirmed he left the club and the apartment provided
by the club to seek employment with another club. The player has not trained or made himself
available to [the club] as a result and instead has been training with his potentially new club”.
Having said this, the club further sustained that “the player is seeking further remuneration
from [the club] […] to make up for the loss from his potential new club […]”.
Page 3 of 8
REF 20-00252
10. In support of its allegations, the club provided a copy of the WhatsApp conversations allegedly
maintained with the player on 8 January and 30 January 2020. Furthermore, the club provided
a copy of a “Confirmation” dated 7 January 2020, by means of which the club indicated the
following: “FK Senica, a.s. confirms that if FK Senica player Roberto Dias receive an offer from
another club, we will go for free”.
11. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS) and in the
media, the player did not sign a new employment contract. The player confirmed such
information.
II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
12.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber Judge (hereinafter: the DRC Judge) analysed
whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he referred to 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) as
well as to the fact that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 6 February 2020 and
decided on 12 June 2020. Therefore, the DRC Judge concluded that the 2019 edition of the
Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
13. Furthermore, 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, and considering that the
present claim was lodged on 6 February 2020, the January 2020 edition of said regulations
(hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
14. Subsequently, the DRC Judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules and
confirmed that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b of the
Regulations, he is competent to adjudicate on the present employment-related dispute
between a Portuguese player and a Slovakian club.
15. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC Judge
entered into the substance of the matter, by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as
well as the documentation contained in the file in relation to the substance of the matter.
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.
16. The DRC Judge took note that the parties concluded an employment contract, valid as from 1
July 2019 until 30 June 2020, in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to a monthly
salary of EUR 5,474.
Page 4 of 8
REF 20-00252
17. In continuation, the DRC Judge noted that the Claimant lodged a claim against the
Respondent maintaining that he had terminated the employment contract with just cause on
30 January 2020, after previously having put the club in default allegedly on 14 January 2020,
since the Respondent failed to pay the Claimant’s remuneration. In this respect, the Claimant
sustained that, at the time of termination, the Respondent owed him the amount of EUR
18,575.62.
18. The DRC Judge observed that as a consequence the Claimant asked to be awarded the
aforementioned outstanding dues along with the payment of compensation for breach of the
employment contract. In this respect, the Claimant requested to be awarded EUR 19,203 as
outstanding remuneration, corresponding to the monthly salaries as from October 2019 until
and including January 2020. The Claimant further requested the amount of EUR 27,370, as
compensation for breach of contract, corresponding, according to the Claimant, to the
residual value of the contract as from the termination until 30 June 2020.
19. The DRC Judge took into account that the Respondent, for its part, did not contest that it
owed the Claimant the outstanding salaries claimed by the latter, hence implicitly confirming
that it had not made any payment whatsoever to the player. In this regard, the Respondent’s
line of defense is that it “has been facing some financial difficulties”.
20. Having established the aforementioned, the DRC Judge concluded that the underlying issue
in this dispute was to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally
terminated with or without just cause by the Claimant and which party was responsible for the
early termination of the contractual relationship in question.
21. In this context, the DRC Judge deemed it necessary to highlight the content of art. 14bis par.
1 of the Regulations, according to which the player will be deemed to have a just cause to
terminate his contract “in the case of a club unlawfully failing to pay a player at least two
monthly salaries on their due dates”.
22. In this context, the DRC Judge turned his attention to the fact that, according to article 8 of
the contract, the monthly salaries were payable “no later than on the last day of the following
month”. Therefore, at the time the Claimant terminated de contract, i.e. on 30 January 2020,
only one month and a half salaries were outstanding, i.e. EUR 2,781 as part of the monthly
salary for October 2019 and EUR 5,474 corresponding to the monthly salary for November
2019.
23. On account of all the above-mentioned considerations, taking into account that the Claimant’s
termination did not meet the conditions stipulated under art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations,
the DRC Judge came to the conclusion that the Claimant did not have just cause to terminate
the contract.
24. Therefore, the DRC Judge decided that the Claimant’s claim for compensation for breach of
contract must be rejected.
Page 5 of 8
REF 20-00252
25. In this respect and notwithstanding the above, the DRC Judge however, after considering all
the facts of the case, deemed it important to recall that, although he had considered that the
player was to be held responsible for having terminated the contract without just cause, one
should not omit the fact that it was undisputed by the parties that the amount of EUR 19,203
had not yet been paid by the Respondent. In this respect, the DRC Judge stressed that the
financial situation of the Respondent did not form a justification for the non-payment of the
relevant amount.
26. On account of all the above and, bearing in mind that it was undisputed that no payment
whatsoever had been made in accordance with the contract, as well as the legal principle of
pacta sunt servanda, the DRC Judge decided that the Respondent was liable to pay to the
Claimant outstanding remuneration for the period he effectively rendered his services to the
club. Consequently, the DRC Judge concluded that the amount of EUR 19,203 was outstanding
to the player, corresponding to part of his salary for October 2019, i.e. EUR 2,781, as well as
his monthly salaries for November 2019, December 2019 and January 2020, i.e. EUR 16,422.
27. Finally, the DRC Judge concluded his deliberations in the present matter by establishing that
any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
28. Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II.13. above, the DRC Judge
referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with his 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.
29. 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.
30. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC Judge decided that, in the event that the
Respondent does not pay the amounts due to the Claimant within 45 days as from the
moment in which the Claimant, following the notification of the present decision,
communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent, a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and
consecutive registration periods shall become effective on the Respondent in accordance with
art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
31. 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.
Page 6 of 8
REF 20-00252
III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Roberto Dias Correia Filho, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, SK Senica, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 19,203.
3.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent, immediately and directly, preferably to the email address as indicated on the cover letter of the present decision, of the relevant bank account
to which the Respondent must pay the amount mentioned under point IIII.2. above.
4.
The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with point
III.2. above to FIFA to the e-mail address [email protected], duly translated, if applicable, into one
of the official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).
5.
In the event that the amount due in accordance with point 2. above is not paid by the Respondent
within 45 days as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the
Respondent, the Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally
or internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three entire
and consecutive registration periods (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players).
6.
The ban mentioned in point III.5. above will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving,
once the due amounts are paid.
7.
In the event that the aforementioned sum is still not paid by the end of the ban of three entire
and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to
FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 7 of 8
REF 20-00252
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 8 of 8