Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-3611
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 27 October 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Yonathan
Alexander Del Valle Rodríguez
BY:
Jon Newman (USA), Single Judge of the DRC
CLAIMANT:
Yonathan Alexander Del Valle Rodriguez, Venezuela
Represented by Mr Yakub Kizilkaya
RESPONDENT:
Giresunspor, Turkey
Represented by Mr Atahan Sevimli
Page 2
REF FPSD-3611
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The Claimant and the Respondent concluded an employment agreement, valid between 25
July 2019 and 31 May 2020, based on which the Claimant was entitled to receive the
following amounts:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2.
EUR 10,000 ‘when the player signs the contract’;
EUR 25,000 on 31 August 2019;
EUR 40,000 on 30 September 2019;
EUR 25,000 on 31 October 2019;
EUR 25,000 on 30 November 2019;
EUR 25,000 on 31 December 2019;
EUR 25,000 on 31 January 2020;
EUR 25,000 on 28 February 2020;
EUR 25,000 on 31 March 2020;
EUR 25,000 on 3 April 2020;
EUR 25,000 on 31 May 2020.
What is more, on 8 September 2020, the Claimant and Respondent agreed on a protocol,
based on which the outstanding salaries under the contract would be paid as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
EUR 14,000 net on 15 November 2020;
EUR 14,000 net on 15 December 2020;
EUR 14,000 net on 15 January 2021;
EUR 14,000 net on 15 February 2021;
EUR 14,000 net on 15 March 2021;
EUR 14,000 net on 15 April 2021;
EUR 14,000 net on 15 May 2021;
EUR 14,000 net on 15 June 2021;
EUR 14,000 net on 15 July 2021;
EUR 14,000 net on 15 August 2021.
3.
On 14 July 2021, the DRC of FIFA rendered a decision in a case between the Claimant and
the Respondent, based om which the Claimant was ordered to pay the total amount of EUR
112,000, i.e. the instalments of EUR 14,000 each due between 15 November 2020 and 15
June 2021, however not the instalments due on 15 July and 15 August, as they were not yet
due at the time of the decision.
4.
On 5 August 2021, the Claimant put the Respondent in default for the amount of EUR
14,000, providing the Respondent a 10 days’ deadline to remedy its default, however to no
avail.
Page 3
REF FPSD-3611
5.
On 23 August 2021, the Claimant put the Respondent in default for the amount of EUR
28,000, providing the Respondent a 10 days’ deadline to remedy its default, however to no
avail.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
6.
On 8 September 2021, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of
the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
7.
On 8 September 2021, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent, claiming the
total amount of EUR 28,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the respective due dates.
8.
In his claim, the Claimant explains that the Respondent failed to pay him the last two
instalments as per the protocol, without any valid reason.
b. Position of the Respondent
9.
In its reply, the Respondent argued that the claims of the Claimant are ‘false’ and that ‘it
made several payments to the Claimant’.
c. Additional position of the Claimant
10. In reply to the allegations of the Respondent that it made several payments, the Claimant
stated that the payment receipt submitted by the Claimant are dated between 11 November
2019 and 19 June 2020, i.e. before the date of the protocol, which was signed on 8
September 2020.
11. As a result, the Claimant argues that the payment receipts cannot be taken into account as
they are irrelevant.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
12. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to
as Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this
respect, he took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 8 September 2021
and submitted for decision on 27 October 2021. Taking into account the wording of art. 34
of the October 2021 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal
Page 4
REF FPSD-3611
(hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is
applicable to the matter at hand.
13. 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 lit. b) of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players (August 2021 edition) an art. 24 par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules, the Single Judge is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Venezuelan player
and a Turkish club.
14. Subsequently, the Single Judge 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 Players (August 2021 edition and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 8 September 2021, the August 2021 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
15. 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 stressed the
wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he 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
16. HIs 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 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
17. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute that an amount of EUR
28,000 remained outstanding as per the settlement agreement.
18. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it its task was to determine whether or not
the Respondent had complied with its financial obligations as per the settlement agreement.
Page 5
REF FPSD-3611
19. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that – indeed, as explained by the Claimant – the
payment receipt submitted by the Respondent are dated between 11 November 2019 and
19 June 2020, i.e. before the date of the protocol, which was signed on 8 September 2020.
20. Based on the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that such payments receipts have no
effect on the amount which remained outstanding as per the settlement agreement, and
decided to reject the argumentation submitted by the Respondent.
ii. Consequences
21. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned his attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
22. The Single Judge observed that the outstanding remuneration as per the settlement
agreement is equivalent to two outstanding instalments of EUR 14,00 each under the
settlement agreement, amounting to EUR 28,000.
23. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amount
which was outstanding under the settlement agreement until today, i.e. EUR 28,000 (i.e. 2
times EUR 14,000).
24. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant interest at
the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the respective due dates until the
date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge 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
Page 6
REF FPSD-3611
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.
28. 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.
29. 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
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
Page 7
REF FPSD-3611
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Yonathan Alexander Del Valle Rodríguez, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Giresunspor, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount:
- EUR 28,000 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective
payment as follows:
o on the amount of EUR 14,000 as from 16 July 2021;
o on the amount of EUR 14,000 as from 16 August 2021.
▪
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:
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 the ban shall
be 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
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 article 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
Page 8
REF FPSD-3611
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
Page 9