DRC Overdue Payables
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-12365
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 22 April 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Kalifa Coulibaly
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), member
Michele COLUCCI (Italy), member
CLAIMANT/COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Kalifa Coulibaly, France
Represented by Alexis Rutman
RESPONDENT/ COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Crvena Zvezda, Serbia
Represented by Davor Radić
INTERVENING PARTY
Quevilly - Rouen Metropole, France
Represented by Moyersoen Avocat
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-12365
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 29 August 2022, the French player, Kalifa Coulibaly (hereinafter: the Claimant/CounterRespondent or the Player) and the Serbian club, Crvena Zvezda (hereinafter: the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant or the Club) concluded an employment contract valid as from
the date of signature until 30 June 2023 (hereinafter: the contract).
2.
Clause 4.4. of the contract reads as follows: “the Club shall make the Player aware of all his
tax liabilities in accordance with legal regulations in the Republic of Serbia”.
3.
In accordance with the contract, the Player was entitled to a monthly net salary of RSD
(Serbian Dinar) 33,900, payable “no later than by 15th of the current month”.
4.
On the same date as the contract, the Player and the Club concluded the annex to the
contract (hereinafter: the annex) in which the Club agreed to pay the Player the following
amounts:
5.
-
A net amount of EUR 250,000 as a sign-on fee, payable until 30 September 2022.
-
A net monthly amount of EUR 55,000 as a “loyalty fee”.
-
A net amount of EUR 10,000: EUR 5,000 net payable in December 2022 and EUR
5,000 net payable in May 2023.
Clause 4 of the annex reads as follows:
“The Parties agree that all the amounts in this annex be it fixed payments and/or
performance bonuses represent net amounts.
All amounts indicated in the present Annex, as well as in the Contract, are to be
considered as "NET " payments, payable in RSD counter value according to the
middle exchange rate of the NBS on the day of payment, calculate and pay the due
income taxes and contributions in accordance with article 84a of the Law on
Personal Income tax in Serbia.
The Player agrees that on the minimum earning referred to in the Professional
Player contract Club shall additionally pay taxes and contributions, while the net
amount included in the Annex and for that reason is not paid.”
6.
On 13 December 2022, the Player sent a default notice to the Club, claiming an outstanding
amountof EUR 315,500 corresponding to the unpaid sign-on fee, monthly salaries
(including the loyalty fee) and allowances, and setting a time limit until 31 December 2022
for payment.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-12365
7.
On 7 February 2023, the Player and the Club concluded a “mutual termination and
settlement agreement” in order to terminate the contract and its annex (hereinafter: the
settlement agreement).
8.
Clause 3 of the settlement agreement reads as follows:
“3.1. The contracting parties agree that this Agreement terminates the Contract
number P 150 and its addendum of the Contract number P 150/1, both dated 29
August 2022 and fully annuls and replaces the Settlement Agreement Number P25
concluded by the Parties on 30 January 2023.
3.2. Instead, now, The Contracting Parties agree that on 30 January 2023, the Club has
an obligation towards the Player in the total amount of EUR 337,500 net, which
includes all existing obligations of the Club towards the Player, and the Club
undertakes to settle the amount in RSD counter value according to the middle
exchange rate of the NBS on the day of payment, by the following dynamics:
•
Net amount of EUR 87,500 no later than 5 April 2023.
•
Net amount of EUR 150,000 no later than 31 May 2023.
•
Net amount of EUR 100,000 no later than 15 July 2023.
3.3 In addition, the Club assumes the obligation to pay compensation to the Player
due to the earlier termination of the Contract and its addendum in RSD counter value
according to the middle exchange rate of the NBS on the day of payment according to
the following:
•
Net amount of EUR 30,000 no later than 25 February 2023.
•
Net amount of EUR 30,000 no later than 25 March 2023.
•
Net amount of EUR 30,000 no later than 25 April 2023.
•
Net amount of EUR 30,000 no later than 25 May 2023.
•
Net amount of EUR 30,000 no later than 25 June 2023.
3.4. The Contracting Parties agree that after payment of the said amount in due course
the contracting parties have no further claims and obligations.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-12365
3.5. If the Club is late with any of the payments specified in Article 3, the Player will
send the official notification to the Club by sending the email to […], and will provide
a final deadline of 15 days.
3.6. If the Club still fails to fulfil to pay this outstanding amount within the granted
deadline, the Club shall pay a penalty of 10% one-off from the amount of each due
installment and a default interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the overdue
payment, from the day on which it remained payment originally due, by the effective
payment date.”
9.
On 22 May 2023, the Claimant sent a default notice (hereinafter: the first default notice) to
the Respondent and requested payment in the amount of EUR 117,500 net corresponding
to the outstanding remuneration in accordance with clause 3.2 and 3.3 of the settlement
agreement, setting a time limit until 8 June 2023 for payment. However, the Club did not
make any payments by the stipulated time limit.
10. On 9 June 2023, the Claimant once again sent a default notice (hereinafter: the second
default notice) to the Respondent and requested payment of EUR 297,500 net
corresponding to the outstanding remuneration in accordance with clause 3.2 and 3.3 of
the settlement agreement, setting a time limit until 25 June 2023 for payment. However,
the Club again did not make any payments by the stipulated time limit.
11. On 20 July 2023, the Claimant sent the Respondent a third and finaldefault notice
(hereinafter: the third default notice) and requested payment of (i) EUR 427,500 net
corresponding to the outstanding remuneration in accordance with clause 3.2 and 3.3 of
the settlement agreement, (ii) of EUR 37,750 net corresponding to the 10% penalty on the
amounts owed in accordance with clause 3.5 of the settlement agreement and (iii) the
payment of 12% interest p.a. on the amounts due; setting a time limit until 5 August 2023.
Once more the Club did not make any payments by the stipulated time limit..
12. In accordance with the information retrieved from the Transfer Matching System (TMS), on
31 August 2023 (i.e., after the contract would have expired on its own terms), the Player
concluded a new employment contract with the French club Quevilly – Rouen Metropole
(hereinafter: the intervening party), valid as from 1 September 2023 until 30 June 2024.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
13. On 23 October 2023, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. The following is a
brief summary of the position of the parties.
a. Position of the Player
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-12365
14. The Player lodged a claim against the Club for overdue payables and requested payment
of EUR 476,250.
15. In his claim, the Player argued that the Club only paid EUR 60,000 net on an unspecified
date pursuant to the settlement agreement and requested the remaining amount of EUR
427,500 net in accordance with clauses 3.2. and 3.3. of the settlement agreement.
16. Additionally, the Claimant requested the payment of 10% on each of the amounts due as
a penalty, as contractually agreed in clause 3.5 of the settlement agreement, and 12%
interest p.a. on the amounts due as from the due dates until the date of effective payment.
The Player further highlighted that the payments must be net amounts.
17. Finally, the Player indicated that:
“Since the [Club] did not meet its financial commitments between February 2023
and July 2023, and the Respondent had to leave Serbia and come back to France
in September 2023 to play football in French League 2 (see Exhibit n° 7), the
Respondent is now a French Tax Resident and therefore subject to the Serbia/
French tax treaty (see Exhibit n° 8).
Therefore, it is also requested that should any of the above-mentioned sums
granted to the Respondent be subject to any French income tax and/or French
social contributions of any kind, then the Respondent shall fully pay and cover such
French income taxes and/or social contributions (in addition to any Serbian ones).”
18. In view of the foregoing, the Player requested the following request for relief:
“✓ the total sum of EUR 427,500 net (FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY-SEVEN THOUSAND
FIVE HUNDRED EUROS NET), corresponding to the outstanding payments still owed,
to date, by the Club to [the Player] as per articles 3.2. and 3.3. of the Settlement;
✓ the total sum of EUR 48,750 net (FORTY-EIGHT THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED
FIFTY EUROS NET), corresponding to the penalties of 10% one off still owed, to date,
by the Club to [the Player] as per article 3.5. of the Settlement;
✓ a default interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the overdue payment, from
the day on which it remained payment originally due, by the effective payment
date, as per article 3.5. of the Settlement;
✓ any French income tax and/ or French social contributions of any kind that could
be owed by the Respondent in respect of the above-mentioned sums (principal,
penalties and default interest), in addition to any Serbian ones;
✓ The refund of legal fees incurred in filing such claim before FIFA.”
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-12365
b. Position and counterclaim of the Club
19. The Club rejected the claim of the Player and filed a counterclaim.
20. The club alleges the following events took place:
-
On 29 August 2022, the Club paid the Player’s flight tickets.
-
On 20 September 2022, the Club paid the Player’s hotel costs.
-
On 19 December 2022, the Player failed to attend the first training session in
Serbia without the Club's consent.
-
On 7 January 2023, the Club orally informed the Player to terminate the
contract due to Player’s behaviour.
-
From 19 December 2022 until 7 January 2023, the Player wanted to go on loan to
the intervening party, but the Club informed him that he must first return to
Serbia to continue his contractual obligations without any conditions, which the
Player refused to do.
-
On 9 February 2023, the parties in good faith concluded a mutual agreement with
the obligation to pay the amounts in RSD.
21. In view of the foregoing and “because of that the fact that Player was missing in the period of
19 days without any previous written approval of the Club it means that this relationship
between the parties come ends (terminated) on 7 January 2023 with immediately effect. Based
on the above, the Player must pay to the Club a compensation for the breach of contract because
he did not come to the Club in period of more than 19 days which means that this financial
obligations from Club in the Mutual termination on 9 February 2023 are without any effect for
the Club.”
22. The Club considered that the Player breached the contract and its annex due to his
behaviour, and therefore, it should be entitled to compensation.
23. The Club also emphasized that “because of that the obligation what parties agreed in the
article 3.2 and 3.3 of the Settlement Agreement must be paid to the Player in Serbia dinars and
not in euro because the payment in euro is impossible for the Club because in accordance with
the article 34 of the Law on foreign currency transaction of the Republic Serbia forbids that and
because of that Club cannot pay this agreed amount. Therefore, because of the Law on foreign
currency transaction of the Republic Serbia, the Club cannot fulfill this condition and pay any
money to the Player in euros.”
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-12365
24. In view of the foregoing, the Club requested FIFA to declare the settlement agreement null
and void “because the player closed his bank account in Serbia and requested to receive this
money from the Club on foreign bank account what is forbidden.”
25. The Club also contested the Player's claim for payment of French income tax and legal fees.
In this regard, the Club referred to clause 4.4 of the contract and clause 4.2 of its annex
and stressed that there was no obligation on the part of the Club towards the Player
regarding the payment of taxes, in particular in France. Furthermore, the Club emphasised
that the settlement agreement did not mention anything regarding the payment of taxes
by the Club to the Player.
26. In view of the foregoing, the Club requested the following relief:
” 1. The claim of the CounterRespondent-Claimant, Kalifa Coulibaly, is rejected.
2. The counter-claim of the CounterClaimant-Respondent, FK Crvena Zvezda, is
accepted.
3. The Settlement Agreement on 9 February 2023 is null and void and without any
effect between the parties.
4. The Claimant-CounterRespondent, Kalifa Coulibaly, has to pay to the RespondentCounterClaimant FK Crvena Zvezda the amount of EUR 487,500 net as compensation
for the breach of contract, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 8 January 2023 until the date
of effective payment.
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 article 24 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) 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 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
paid 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 article 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-12365
8. This decision is rendered without costs.”
c. Player’s reply to the counterclaim
27. In his reply to the counterclaim, the Player rejected the position of the Club and argued
that the contract was terminated via the settlement agreement, which was mutually
agreed.
28. Moreover, the Player asserted that the Club's allegation of terminating the contract on 7
January 2023 was false and groundless, considering that Club provided no evidence as to
any of the alleged facts and, on the contrary, it was the Player that would have had just
cause to terminate the contract in December 2022, considering that the Club failed to pay
EUR 315,500 corresponding to the sign-on fee, loyalty fees and monthly allowances.
29. As to the Club’s allegation that the settlement agreement is null and void because the
Player closed his bank account in Serbia and requested to receive the money in a foreign
bank account, the Player indicated that he did not close his bank account in Serbia.
Moreover, the Club had already made two payments to the Player’s Serbian bank account.
It is to be noted that, the Player provided evidence of the bank account details and changed
the bank registration form with a Serbian account.
30. Furthermore, the Player argued that the fact that the Club had to pay the amounts in RSD
and not in EUR was not a reason to declare the settlement agreement null and void.
31. As to the payment of the French taxes, the Player asserted that due to the Club's failure to
meet its financial obligations between February 2023 and July 2023, he had to leave Serbia
and return to France. As a result, he became a French tax resident and is subject to the
Serbia/French tax treaty. Therefore, and considering that he is entitled to net amounts, the
Respondent shall fully pay and cover the French income taxes and social contributions.
32. In view of the above, the Player requested to reject the counterclaim since:
“o The Mutual Termination and Settlement Agreement dated 9 February 2023 is
absolutely valid and binding and should not be declared null and void;
o The Club never notified any unilateral termination of the Employment contract to
the Player for just cause before the signing of this Mutual Termination and Settlement
Agreement dated 9 February 2023 (only the Player had just cause to terminate the
Employment contract, should he had decided to do so as of January 1st, 2023);
o Therefore, the Player shall not have to pay any compensation fee to the Club for
alleged breach of the contract.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-12365
All claims filed by the Player in his initial Claim remain unchanged.”
d. Final comments of the Club
33. In its final comments the Club rejected the allegations made by the Player.
34. Furthermore, with regard to the French taxes, the Club referred to clause 4.4 of the
contract and clause 4 of its annex, according to which there is no obligation on the part of
the Club towards the Player regarding the payment of taxes, in particular in France. The
Club further added that there was no wording in the contract regarding the payment of
taxes and indicated that “this request of the Player about the tax must be dismiss is full and
what is in accordance to the jurisprudence of the FIFA and CAS because the FIFA is not competent
for any dispute which arises from the tax and especially when something like that is never agreed
in any agreements and especially in the Settlement Agreement on 9 February 2023”.
e. Position of the intervening party
35. The intervening party indicated that the Club did not formulate a claim against it pursuant
to art. 17 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) and that,
therefore, it cannot present its position on it.
36. Subsidiarily:
-
The intervening party indicated that the contract had been terminated by
mutual agreement, and not unilaterally. The counterclaim appeared to be
based on allegations and assertions without providing any concrete evidence
to support the Club’s position, given that the contract was terminated on 7
February 2023 and that the Club did not contest the termination until its
response to the claim (i.e., on 23 November 2023).
-
As to the compensation requested, it is not justified, as it included the
outstanding remuneration EUR 337,500 (clause 3.2. of the settlement
agreement) and the compensation EUR 120,000 (clause 3.3 of the settlement
agreement)
-
The intervening party did not induce the breach, considering that the Player
began his employment with the intervening party on 31 August 2023, i.e., after
the end of the contract.
37. In view of the foregoing, the intervening party stressed it must be dismissed from the case
and that the Club’s counterclaim against the Player was totally abusive and dilatory.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-12365
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
38. 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 23 October 2023 and submitted
for decision on 22 April 2024. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023
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.
39. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber 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 RSTP (February 2024 edition), the Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at
stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension
between a French player and a Serbian club with the involvement of a French club.
40. Finally, 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 RSTP (February 2024 edition) and considering that the present claim was lodged on 23
October 2023, the March 2023 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is
applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
41. 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 TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
42. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established; 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
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-12365
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 the termination of the
contract and the validity of the settlement agreement. While the Player was of the opinion
that the contract was terminated with the settlement agreement, the Club was of the
opinion that the Player had terminated the contract without just cause prior to the signing
of the settlement agreement.
44. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
contract was terminated before the signature of the settlement agreement and whether
the latter is valid.
45. In doing so, the Chamber observed that:
-
The Club alleged that the Player was absent between 19 December 2022 and 7
January 2023 without the Club’s permission and that it informed the Player about
the termination of the contract. However, the Club did not provide any evidence
in this regard, such as any notice sent to the Player and/or disciplinary action
taken against him.
-
In December 2022, the Club was in default of payment of various salaries, as per
the default notice concerning the contract, dated 13 December 2022, and
-
There is no evidence that any unlawful termination occurred prior to the
signature of the settlement agreement. On the contrary, the wording of the
aforementioned settlement agreement was clear: the Player and the Club
terminated the contract and its annex via that very settlement agreement.
-
There is also no evidence that the Club was forced to sign the settlement
agreement. Rather, since the signature of this agreement and until the date of
the claim, there was no communication whatsoever contesting the validity of the
settlement agreement, and the Club paid the amount of EUR 60,000 in partial
performance of the settlement agreement.
-
As to the currency issue and the Club’s arguments that the settlement agreement
would be invalid for this reason, it has to be noted that, since the signature of the
settlement agreement, the Club was able to execute such payments in RSD;
however, it failed to do so. Moreover, per the evidence provided, it appears that
the Player’s bank account of in Serbia appears to be open. Consequently, the
Chamber considered that this could not be considered a reason to deem the
settlement agreement null and void.
46. In view of all the above reasons, the Chamber considered that the settlement agreement
was valid and binding for the parties and that the Player is entitled to the amounts
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-12365
mentioned therein. On the account of the above, the Chamber decided to reject the Club’s
counterclaim, and established accordingly that the issue whether the Intervening Party has
standing to be sued in these proceedings can be left open, even if art. 9 par. 4 of the
Procedural Rules award the FIFA general secretariat the power to request the intervention
of any natural or legal person as a party in a procedure at any stage.
47. Consequently, as to the Player’s requests for outstanding remuneration, 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 EUR 427,500 net.
48. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s requests for relief, clauses 3.5 and 3.6
of the settlement agreement, and the constant practice of the Chamber in this regard, the
latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the outstanding
amounts as follows:
-
On the amount of EUR 87,500 as from 6 April 2023 until the date of effective
payment;
-
On the amount of EUR 30,000 net as from 26 April 2023 until the date of
effective payment;
-
On the amount of EUR 30,000 net as from 26 May 2023 until the date of
effective payment;
-
On the amount of EUR 150,000 net as from 1 June 2023 until the date of
effective payment;
-
On the amount of EUR 30,000 net as outstanding remuneration as from 26
June 2023 until the date of effective payment;
-
On the amount of EUR 100,000 net as outstanding remuneration as from 16
July 2023 until the date of effective payment.
49. Furthermore, the Chamber decided to award the contractual penalty of EUR 42,750 (10%
of EUR 427,500), insofar as it is contractually based, reasonable, and proportionate, in line
with the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal. However, and pursuant to the principle of
ne bis in idem, the Chamber established that no interest should be applicable over the
penalty.
50. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Chamber also took note of the Claimant’s additional
request concerning the possible taxes and social security in France and Serbia. In this
regard, the Chamber remarked that since the above payments were not yet paid, the
Claimant has not incurred any tax liabilities and, hence, any ruling on the alleged taxes is
premature at this point.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-12365
51. Without entering into the merits concerning taxes, the Chamber added that the Claimant
needs to incur the cost and suffer the harm before it can effectively seek relief before FIFA.
Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the request for taxes is premature.
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
52. In continuation, the Chamber referred to art. 12bis par. 2 of the Regulations, which
stipulates that any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days
without a prima facie contractual basis may be sanctioned in accordance with art. 12bis
par. 4 of the Regulations.
53. To this end, the Chamber confirmed that the Player put the Club in default of payment of
the amounts sought, which had fallen due more than 30 days before, and granted the Club
a 10-day deadline to cure such breach of contract.
54. Accordingly, the Chamber confirmed that the Club had delayed a due payment without a
prima facie contractual basis. It followed that the criteria enshrined in art. 12bis of the
Regulations are met in the case at hand.
55. The Chamber further established that by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations it has
competence to impose sanctions on the Club. On account of the above and bearing in mind
that this is the first offense by the Club within the last two years, the Chamber decided to
impose a warning on the Club in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. a) of the Regulations.
56. In this same vein, the Chamber highlighted that a repeated offence will be considered as
an aggravating circumstance and lead to a more severe penalty in accordance with art.
12bis par. 6 of the Regulations.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
57. 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.
58. 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.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-12365
59. 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
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.
60. 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.
61. 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
62. 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.
63. 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.
64. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-12365
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Kalifa Coulibaly, is partially accepted.
2.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Claimant regarding taxes is premature.
3.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Crvena Zvezda, is rejected.
4.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, must pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the
following amounts:
a. EUR 87,500 net as outstanding remuneration plus 12% interest p.a. as from 6
April 2023 until the date of effective payment;
b. EUR 30,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 12% interest p.a. as from 26
April 2023 until the date of effective payment;
c. EUR 30,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 12% interest p.a. as from 26
May 2023 until the date of effective payment;
d. EUR 150,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 12% interest p.a. as from
1 June 2023 until the date of effective payment;
e. EUR 30,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 12% interest p.a. as from 26
June 2023 until the date of effective payment;
f.
EUR 100,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 12% interest p.a. as from
16 July 2023 until the date of effective payment;
g. EUR 42,750 as contractual penalty.
5.
Any further claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent are rejected.
6.
A warning is imposed on the Respondent/Counter-Claimant (cf. art. 12bis of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players).
7.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
8.
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:
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-12365
1. 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 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.
9.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant/CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
10. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-12365
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
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 18