Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-6119
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 31 August 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Brahim
Darri
BY:
Dana Mohamed Al-Noaimi, Qatar
CLAIMANT:
Brahim Darri, the Netherlands
Represented by Maciej Balazinsk
RESPONDENT 1:
Denizlispor Kulubu, Turkey
RESPONDENT 2:
Samsunspor, Turkey
Represented by Mehmet Gokturk Aslan
REF FPSD-6119
I. Facts of the case
1.
On an unspecified date, the Dutch player, Mr Brahim Darri (hereinafter: the player or the
Claimant), and the Turkish club, Samsunspor (hereinafter: Samsunspor or the Respondent
2), entered into an employment contract valid as from the 25 June 2021 until 31 May
2022 (hereinafter: the Samsunspor Contract).
2.
On 27 August 2021, the player, Samsunspor, and the Turkish club, Denizlispor Kulubu
Dernegi (hereinafter: Denizlispor or Respondent 1), concluded a temporary transfer
agreement according to which the player was loaned from Samsunspor to Denizlispor
from 25 August 2021 until 31 May 2022 (hereinafter: the loan agreement).
3.
Article 4 of the loan agreement read as follows:
“ARTICLE 4 – LOAN FEE, PLAYER’S SALARY & PAYMENT CONDITIONS
a) In consideration for this temporary transfer of the player and the payment of the
player’s salary, Denizlispor shall pay the net sum of 150.000- € (one hundred fifty
thousand euros) + VAT (net of any taxes, levies and banking charges) to Samsunspor
as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
On 31.08.2021
On 30.09.2021
On 31.10.2021
On 30.11.2021
On 31.12.2021
On 31.01.2021
On 28.02.2021
On 31.03.2021
On 30.04.2021
On 31.05.2021
15.000- Euro
15.000- Euro
15.000- Euro
15.000- Euro
15.000- Euro
15.000- Euro
15.000- Euro
15.000- Euro
15.000- Euro
15.000- Euro
b) Payments are to be made to the following bank account to [Samsunspor]:
[…]
c) This Agreement is valid during the Loan Period. In case this Agreement is terminated
before 31.05.2021 due to any reason (except that the player terminate the employment
relationship between himself and Denizlispor), the above-mentioned instalments
which are not become due at the time of the early termination shall not be paid by
Denizlispor to Samsunspor.
d) The parties hereby agree and declares that during the Loan Period, Samsunspor shall
pay the player’s monthly salary as follows:
REF FPSD-6119
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
On 31.08.2021
On 30.09.2021
On 31.10.2021
On 30.11.2021
On 31.12.2021
On 31.01.2021
On 28.02.2021
On 31.03.2021
On 30.04.2021
On 31.05.2021
20.125- Euro
20.125- Euro
20.125- Euro
20.125- Euro
20.125- Euro
20.125- Euro
20.125- Euro
20.125- Euro
20.125- Euro
20.125- Euro
e) The parties hereby agree and declares that, during the Loan Period, Samsunspor shall
pay the player’s salary to the player and Denizlispor shall not pay any fees/salaries to
the player. However, in fact Samsunspor shall be only responsible for the amount of
5.125- € of the player’s monthly salary. The amount which shall be paid by Denizlispor
to Samsunspor in instalments specified in above article 4.a shall be paid for the
player’s salary. Within this regard, Denizlispor in fact, shall be responsible for 15.000€ of player’s monthly salary. Samsunspor shall add this amount to its responsibility of
paying 5.125- € and pay the amount of 15.000- € which Denizlispor is responsible for,
on behalf of Denizlispor to the player.
f)
In case Denizlispor does not pay the 2 instalments specified in article 4.1 in a row,
Samsunspor or the player shall warn Denizlispor and provide 15 days for the payment.
If Denizlispor does not pay the warning, the transfer fee of 150.000- € becomes due
immediately. During the period of non-payment of Denizlispor, Samsunspor shall only
be responsible for paying 5.125- € for each monthly salary to the player. In such case
the player accepts and declares not to raise any claims for the amount of 15.000- € for
each of his monthly salary to Samsunspor and he shall only raise claims to Denizlispor.
In addition to this, in case the player terminates this agreement with just cause due to
non-payment of his salaries according to article 14bis of the FIFA Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players’, Denizlispor irrevocably agrees, declares and
undertakes to pay a penalty to Samsunspor. In this case, the penalty shall be equal to
the total amount of player’s salaries which are prescribed in article 4.d of this
agreement for the period between the date of early termination and 31.05.2022 plus
the legal interest accrued to such amount.
g)
The player irrevocably agrees and declares that, Samsunspor shall only be responsible
for paying the amounts mentioned in article 4.d of this agreement and he shall not
raise any claim to Samsunspor regarding any other fees, bonuses, compensation, etc.
mentioned in the employment contract with the start date of 25/08/2021 and end date
of 31/05/2022”.
REF FPSD-6119
4.
On 26 August 2022, the player and Denizlispor concluded an employment contract valid
as from the same date until 31 May 2022 (hereinafter: the Denizlispor Contract). The loan
agreement was attached to the Denizlispor Contract as a part thereto.
5.
As per clause 3 of the Denizlispor Contract, the player would be entitled to the monthly
remuneration specified in the loan agreement (i.e. EUR 20,125 per month), plus extras
fees and bonuses.
6.
On 17 December 2021, the player sent Denizlispor a notice and requested it to pay the
outstanding amount of EUR 37,500 to Samsunspor, broken down as follows.
a. EUR 7,500 due until 30 September 2021;
b. EUR 15,000 due until 31 October 2021; and
c. EUR 15,000 due until 30 November 2021.
7.
In accordance with said notice, the player requested Denizlispor to cure the breach
within the following 15 days under penalty of terminating his employment contract in
line with art. 14bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP).
8.
On 22 December 2021, the player sent Samsunspor a notice requesting payment of his
outstanding salaries of EUR 47,750 within 15 days, broken down as follows:
a. EUR 7,500 due until 30 September 2021;
b. EUR 20,125 due until 31 October 2021; and
c. EUR 20,125 due until 30 November 2021.
9.
On 1 March 2022, the player sent Denizlispor an “ultimate request for payment” and asked
the club to pay EUR 45,000 to Samsunspor, broken down as follows:
a. EUR 15,000 due until 31 December 2021;
b. EUR 15,000 due until 31 January 2022; and
c. EUR 15,000 due until 28 February 2022.
10. The player wrote the following at the end of the abovementioned letter: “should
Denizlispor fail to pay the outstanding amount constituting the player’s salary within the
prescribed, final time limit, the player will be entitled to terminate his employment with
Denizlispor based on the [loan agreement] with immediate effect and with just cause for
outstanding salaries and will take further legal steps in order to enforce payment of the due
amounts before the FIFA Football Tribunal, including compensation for breach of contract
pursuant to art. 17 of FIFA RSTP. At the same time, pursuant to Art. 4, let. F) of the [loan
agreement], the whole amount of EUR 150.000,00 will become due immediately. As a
consequence of termination of the [loan agreement] by the player with just cause for
outstanding salaries, Samsunspor will also be entitled to request from Denizlispor payment
of a penalty equal to the total amount of the player’s salaries as per Art. 4, let. D) of the [loan
REF FPSD-6119
agreement] due for the period between the early termination and the end of the loan,
increased by due legal interest”.
11. On 17 March 2022, the player sent Denizlispor a “letter regarding the player’s outstanding
receivables with the ultimate request for payment”. Accordingly, he granted Denizlispor a
final deadline until 31 March 2022 to deliver the outstanding amount of EUR 45,000,
under penalty of termination.
12. On 1 April 2022, the player notified both Denizlispor and Samsunspor the termination
of the Denizlispor Contract with immediate effect and due to overdue payables. By
referring to the wording of art. 4 of the loan agreement, the player requested Denizlispor
a payment of EUR 90,000 within the following 10 days, corresponding to: (i) EUR 60,000
as outstanding remuneration for the months of December 2021 until February 2022;
and (ii) EUR 30,000 as compensation for breach of contract in line with art. 17 of the FIFA
RSTP.
13. The player informed that he remained unemployed following the termination of the
Denizlispor Contract.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
14. On 20 May 2022, the player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Claim of the player
15. In accordance with the player, “while the player’s salary shall technically have been paid by
Samsunspor on behalf of Denizlispor, Denizlispor was in fact materially responsible for
payment of the player’s salary in the amount of EUR 15.000,00 monthly”. Nevertheless,
Denizlispor failed to fulfil its financial duties, hence giving cause to the termination of
the employment relationship with immediate effect.
16. Consequently, the player argued that Denizlispor should be liable to pay him:
a. EUR 60,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from the due
dates, broken down as follows:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
EUR 15,000 due until 31 December 2021;
EUR 15,000 due until 31 January 2022;
EUR 15,000 due until 28 February 2022; and
EUR 15,000 due until 31 March 2022.
REF FPSD-6119
b. EUR 30,000 as compensation for breach of contract, plus 5% interest p.a. as from
11 April 2022, corresponding to the residual value of the contract (i.e. the salaries
payable by 30 April and 31 May 2021, being EUR 15,000 each).
17. Alternatively, the player claimed that the aforementioned amounts should be paid by
Denizlispor to Samsunspor, and immediately transferred from Samsunspor to him in
accordance with the loan agreement.
18. Lastly, the player requested sporting sanctions to be imposed on Denizlispor on the
basis of art. 12bis of the FIFA RSTP.
19. For completeness, the player’s requests for relief are fully reproduced below, quoted
verbatim:
“1. order [Denizlispor] to pay [the player] the outstanding remuneration in the amount
of EUR 60.000,00 (sixty thousand euro 00/100) plus 5% interest p.a. calculated as follows:
a.
EUR 15.000,00 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 31 December 2021 until the date of
effective payment,
b.
EUR 15.000,00 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 31 January 2022 until the date of
effective payment,
c.
EUR 15.000,00 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 28 February 2022 until the date of
effective payment,
d.
EUR 15.000,00 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 31 March 2022 until the date of effective
payment;
2. order [Denizlispor] to pay [the player] the compensation for breach of contract in the
amount of EUR 30.000,00 (thirty thousand euro 00/100), plus 5% interest p.a. as of 11 April
2022 until the date of effective payment;
Alternatively, should FIFA DRC find the Claimant’s receivables shall be paid by the
Respondent 2 on behalf of the Respondent 1, I hereby request to:
3. order [Denizlispor] to pay [Samsunspor] the outstanding remuneration of the player
in the amount of EUR 60.000,00 (sixty thousand euro 00/100) plus 5% interest p.a.
calculated as follows:
a.
EUR 15.000,00 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 31 December 2021 until the date of
effective payment,
REF FPSD-6119
b.
EUR 15.000,00 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 31 January 2022 until the date of
effective payment,
c.
EUR 15.000,00 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 28 February 2022 until the date of
effective payment,
d.
EUR 15.000,00 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 31 March 2022 until the date of effective
payment;
4. order [Denizlispor] to pay [Samsunspor] the compensation for breach of contract with
[the player] in the amount of EUR 30.000,00 (thirty thousand euro 00/100), plus 5%
interest p.a. as of 11 April 2022 until the date of effective payment;
5. order [Samsunspor] to pay [the player] the amounts stipulated in points 3 and 4 above
immediately after their receipt from [Denizlispor];
In any case, I hereby request FIFA DRC to:
6. impose on [Denizlispor] a fine or any other sanction under Art. 12bis sec. 4 of FIFA RSTP
that FIFA DRC deems appropriate;
7. impose on [Denizlispor] sporting sanctions in the form of a ban of registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, for 2 (two) consecutive registration periods”.
b. Reply of the Samsunspor
20. On 22 June 2022, Samsunspor filed its reply to the player’s claim.
21. For its part, Samsunspor stated that it is “not responsible and liable for all requested
overdue and unpaid remuneration of the Claimant. [Denizlispor] is the only one party to be
assumed as a party of this legal case and responsible for all requested overdue and unpaid
remuneration in accordance with the [loan agreement] signed among the parties”.
22. In addition, Samsunspor mentioned that it should not be deemed as a party to this
dispute as it has complied with all its financial obligations towards the player and never
breached any of the agreements.
23. Samsunspor concluded its reply as follows, in quoted verbatim:
REF FPSD-6119
“Briefly:
•
[Samsunspor] shall not be included and shall not be assumed as party in this legal
case for the conditional future payment.
•
In accordance with the [loan agreement], [Samsunspor] is not responsible for all
requested overdue and unpaid remuneration and all these amounts can only be
requested from [Denizlispor].
•
In case [Denizlispor] fulfils its financial obligation to [Samsunspor], the Claimant
will be immediately paid by [Samsunspor]”.
24. In light of the above, Samsunspor requested the player’s claim to be fully rejected.
c. Reply of the Denizlispor
25. On 23 June 2022, Denizlispor also submitted its position on this matter.
26. In its reply, Denizlispor stressed that it was not liable to pay any remuneration to the
player, but rather to Samsunspor. Therefore: (i) it “is not a debtor to the player”; (ii) the
player should claim against Samsunspor only; and (iii) “the player’s lawyer had no authority
(no power of attorney) to demand that any sums be paid by Denizlispor to Samsunspor”.
27. As a consequence of the above, the Denizlispor also requested the player’s claim to be
fully rejected.
d. Rejoinder of the player
28. On 28 July 2022, the player filed his comments on the Respondents’ replies. In synthesis,
he argued that all the parties to the dispute have standing in the case at hand: himself
to sue Denizlispor or, alternatively, Samsunspor; and both the respondents’ to be sued
because of the specific wording of the loan agreement.
29. In addition to the above, the player insisted that Denizlispor is the final debtor of his
outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract with just cause.
Therefore, “for the reason of procedural efficiency, the player is of the opinion that the
amounts requested in these proceedings shall be paid directly from Denizlispor to the player,
with the exclusion of Samsunspor. Alternatively, he claimed that Denizlispor should pay
its dues to Samsunspor, then to be immediately transferred to him.
30. Finally, the player reiterated his requests for relief as per his statement of claim.
REF FPSD-6119
e. Final comments of Denizlispor and Samsunspor
31. On 2 August 2022, both Denizlispor and Samsunspor were provided with a copy of the
player’s rejoinder, however both failed to file their final comments in reply thereto within
the deadline granted by the FIFA general secretariat.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
32. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred
to as Single Judge) analysed whether she was competent to deal with the case at hand.
In this respect, she took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 20 May
2022 and submitted for decision on 31 August 2022. Taking into account the wording of
art. 34 of the June 2022 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.
33. Subsequently, the Single Judge 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 FIFA RSTP (July 2022 edition), 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 Dutch player and two Turkish clubs.
34. For the sake of completeness, the Single Judge wished to clarify that she took due
consideration of the parties’ allegations as to their respective standing to sue / be sued
in the case at hand. Nevertheless, she determined that such assessment pertains to the
merits of the dispute (i.e. does not object the admissibility of the claim), hence shall be
dealt accordingly.
35. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to
the substance of the matter. In this respect, she confirmed that, in accordance with art.
26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (July 2022
edition), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 20 May 2022, the March
2022 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter
at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
36. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge
REF FPSD-6119
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which she
may consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
37. The competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single
Judge entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence,
which she considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
38. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the
matter and took note that this is a claim for outstanding remuneration and
compensation for breach of contract lodged by the player against Denizlispor, with an
alternative request against Samsunspor.
39. In particular, on 27 August 2021, the player was loaned from Samsunspor to Denizlispor.
Under the pertinent loan agreement, the parties agreed upon, inter alia, the financial
terms and conditions during the loan period, as well as their liabilities towards each
other.
40. On this note, the Single Judge underlined that it remained undisputed between the
parties that the Denizlispor Contract (and, consequently, the loan agreement) were
terminated by the player on 1 April 2022 due to overdue payables. Based on the
documentation on file, the Single Judge could equally confirm that there was just cause
for such termination on the basis of art. 14bis of the Regulations, as the criteria therein
included was clearly met in the case at hand. The Respondents, on the other hand,
limited themselves to challenge their standing and/or liability to deal with the
consequences following said termination.
41. Against this background, the Single Judge reverted to the player’s principal request (i.e.
against Denizlispor) and deemed that her task was to determine the following disputed
aspects:
(i)
Does Denizlispor have standing to be sued in the case at hand?
(ii)
What are the consequences that follow?
42. The Single Judge then moved to the analysis of each topic in turn.
REF FPSD-6119
A. Does Denizlispor have standing to be sued in the case at hand?
43. First and foremost, the Single Judge noted that: (i) Samsunspor argued that it should not
be a party to these proceedings because Denizlispor was the ultimate debtor of the
player, hence the one liable to deal with the consequences; nevertheless, (ii) Denizlispor
challenged said position and underlined that Samsunspor is the one liable to pay the
player’s remuneration as per the content of the loan agreement.
44. At this point, Single Judge recalled that the standing to be sued is attributed to a party
in which it can be validly placed the legal consequences deriving from the rights brought
forward with a claim on the basis of a legally protectable and tangible interest at stake
in the matter concerned. According to the jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration for
Sport (CAS), an individual or entity has “standing to be sued” if it is personally obliged by
the “disputed rights” at stake, i.e. the party against whom the claimant must direct its
claim in order to be successful (cf. CAS 2013/A/3140, para. 8.12 and CAS 2015/A/3999 &
4000, para. 73). Cases CAS 2006/A/1189; CAS 2006/A/1192, CAS 2013/A/3301, CAS
2008/A/1518, 2007/A/1329-1330, CAS 2007/A/1206, all confirmed that “(…) the defending
party has standing to be sued (legitimation passive) only if it is personally obliged by the
"disputed right” at stake”.
45. With the above in mind, the Single Judge acknowledged that the following facts
remained undisputed between the parties:
a. during the loan period, the player would be entitled to a monthly remuneration
of EUR 20,125, entirely payable by Samsunspor to him, but partially reimbursed
(EUR 15,000) by Denizlispor to Samsunspor (cf. clause 4, lit. a) of the loan
agreement);
b. Denizlispor has not paid the instalments due to Samsunspor from December
2021 until March 2022, hence Samsunspor has not paid the player his
entitlements for the same period; and
c. the player, for his part, terminated the Denizlispor Contract (and, consequently,
the loan agreement) with just cause due to overdue payables.
46. Against this background, the Single Judge noted that the case at stake ultimately pertains
to a claim for outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract in
connection with the employment relationship maintained between the player and
Denizlispor. Consequently, despite the financial arrangements involving Samsunspor (as
the player’s parent club), it is unequivocal – in the Single Judge’s view – that Denizlispor
undertook financial obligations towards him as his employer at the time of the
termination.
REF FPSD-6119
47. The above is also confirmed by the wording of clause 4, lit. f) of the loan agreement,
according to which the parties expressly established that, in case the payments due by
Denizlispor to Samsunspor were defaulted, the player should “raise his claim” against
Denizlispor only. As such, the Single Judge determined that, regardless of Samsunspor’s
formal duty to deliver the player his entitlements, it was not disputed that Denizlispor
was in fact the ultimate debtor i.e. the party de facto in breach of contract.
48. If follows from the above, for the Single Judge, that Denizlispor’s standing to be sued in
this dispute, besides deriving from the Regulations as the player’s current employer by
the time of the termination (cf. art. 17 of the Regulations) is also confirmed by the
express wording of the employment contract / loan agreement concluded between the
parties (cf. clause 4, lit. f) of the loan agreement). Furthermore, the Single Judge was also
convinced that Denizlispor was the one to violate its contractual obligations and give
cause to the termination of its employment relationship with the player, due to overdue
payables.
49. This alone suffices to confirm that Denizlispor not only has in fact standing to be a party
to the dispute at stake, but also shall be liable to the consequences of its breach of
contract. Accordingly, the Single Judge considered that she does not need to examine
the player’s alternative request and / or Samsunspor’s standing to be a party to these
proceedings, and makes no finding in connection thereto.
B. What are the consequences that follow?
50. As the player terminated the Denizlispor Contract (and the loan agreement) with just
cause, the Single Judge determined that he is entitled to outstanding remuneration and
compensation for breach of contract.
51. In this regard, the Single Judge firstly observed that the outstanding remuneration at the
time of termination, coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, is
equivalent to the salaries from December 2021 until March 2022, being EUR 15,000 net
each.
52. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt
servanda, the Single Judge decided that Denizlispor is liable to pay to the player the
amounts sought, totalling EUR 120,000 net.
53. In addition, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the
player interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the due date
of each instalment until the date of effective payment.
REF FPSD-6119
54. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the player by the club in the case at stake. In doing so, the
Single Judge 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.
55. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that she 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 Single
Judge established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment
contract at the basis of the matter at stake.
56. As a consequence, the Single Judge determined that the amount of compensation
payable by the club to the player had to be assessed in application of the other
parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Single 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.
57. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Single Judge
proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of
the Denizlispor Contract (in combination with the loan agreement) from the date of the
unilateral termination until the end date. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that
the amount of EUR 30,000 net (i.e. the salaries of April and May 2022) serves as the basis
for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
58. In continuation, the Single Judge verified as to whether the player had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the
constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the
Regulations, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into
account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in
connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.
59. Indeed, following the termination of the Denizlispor Contract and for the overlapping
period, the player informed that he could not mitigate his damages.
60. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the Denizlispor must pay
REF FPSD-6119
the amount of EUR 30,000 net to the player, which was to be considered a reasonable
and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
61. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the
player interest on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of the claim
(i.e. 20 May 2022) until the date of effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
62. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge 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.
63. In this regard, the Single Judge 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.
64. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the Denizlispor 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 Denizlispor in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
65. Denizlispor 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.
66. The Single 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.
24 par. 8 of the Regulations.
d. Costs
67. The Single Judge 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 Single Judge decided that no procedural costs
were to be imposed on the parties.
REF FPSD-6119
68. Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall
be awarded in these proceedings.
69. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded the deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
REF FPSD-6119
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Brahim Darri, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent 1, Denizlispor Kulubu, has to pay to the Claimant the following
amount(s):
- EUR 15,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 January
2022 until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 15,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February
2022 until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 15,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 March
2022 until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 15,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2022
until the date of effective payment; and
- EUR 30,000 net as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 20 May 2022 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account
indicated in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
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:
REF FPSD-6119
1. The Respondent 1 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.
6.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in
accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
REF FPSD-6119
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).
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