Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-2944
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 10 December 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Nicolas
Jean Pierre Diguiny
BY:
Roy Vermeer, The Netherlands
CLAIMANT:
Nicolas Jean Pierre Diguiny, France
Represented by Alkiviadis Papantoniou
RESPONDENT:
Aris FC, Greece
Represented by Konstantinos Zemberis
Page 2
REF FPSD-2944
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 10 August 2018, the French player Jean Pierre Diguiny (the Claimant) and the Greek club
Aris FC (the Respondent) concluded an employment contract , valid as from the date of
signature until 30 June 2020 (the Contract).
2.
On the same date, the Parties signed an “Appendix of Professional Football Player's Contract”
(the Appendix), which further specified the obligations of the parties and constituted an
"integral part of the Contract without which the Contract would not have been signed".
3.
Pursuant to art. 4 of the Contract, the Player was entitled to receive, inter alia, a monthly
salary of EUR 654.50 plus an additional remuneration of EUR 314,800 net, to be paid in eight
instalments.
4.
Furthermore, pursuant to Section A of the Appendix, the Player was entitled to several
bonuses, expressed in net amounts and depending on the latter’s personal performance or
on the Respondent’s performance.
5.
Under Section B.1 of the Appendix of the Contract it was agreed that:
"The amounts agreed in the Contract and this appendix will be paid to the Player net of any
taxes, totally free of any charge, regular and I or extraordinary taxation, taxes {including but
not limited to income tax etc.], extra/ special solidarity levy or deductions in favour of any
third party, for any reason even if all of the above have been confirmed on the Player's VAT
Number and whenever and if they are confirmed. As net amount is therefore agreed and is
considered the amount that will remain in any case in the possession of the Player, even if
the final settlement occurs after the passing of months (and/ or years)."
6.
On 31 July 2020, i.e., after the expiration of the Contract, the Claimant and the Respondent
signed a "Private Agreement - Conciliation Agreement" (the Conciliation Agreement).
7.
The recitals of said Conciliation Agreement state the following:
“(…) After taking into consideration: -The consequences of Coronavirus in professional
football.-The debt of Aris to the football player.-The intention of the parties to settle the
abovementioned amount, under the terms hereof.-The parties have signed a contract from
10/08/2018 (“the Contract”)-Today, 31.07.2020, a payment of EUR 15,000 has taken place
from Aris to the Player therefore the amount due has been formed as described below”
8.
Under clause 1 of the Conciliation Agreement, the Parties agreed to the following:
"1. The parties agree that the overdue and claimable remunerations of the PLAYER are equal
to the NET amount of 79.174,36€, equivalent to: 67.174,36€ as instalments and contract
salaries and 12.000€ as goal scoring bonuses for the 2019/20 season.
Page 3
REF FPSD-2944
2. THE CLUB and THE PLAYER have reached an agreement to adjust the amount due to
70.000€ net of taxes (as stated in the contract), provided that the terms of this agreement
are met. Namely THE PLAYER reduced his claim by 9.174,36€. It Is explicitly and unreservedly
agreed that the said amounts of 9.174,36€ will not be due only in case of a timely payment
of the following, under 3, instalments.
3. The abovementioned amounts will be paid in two (2) instalments as follows:
A) 35.000€ net is agreed to be paid on 11 August 2020.
B) 35.000€ net is agreed to be paid on 21 August 2020.”
9.
Moreover, under art. 5, the Conciliation Agreement prescribed that:
"5. In addition, the parties agree that in the event of a delay in the payment of any due
instalment, THE club will pay the player as a reasonable and fair penalty 18% pa of the total
amount due and they expressly and unreservedly waive any objection against this clause.”
10. Lastly, the Conciliation Agreement established that:
"7. All the above-mentioned amounts will be paid to the Player net, completely and fully free
from any kind of burden regular and/or extraordinary taxation, taxes (indicatively income tax
etc.), extraordinary/special solidarity contribution or reservations in favour of any third party,
even if all the above were confirmed in the VAT number of the Footballer. It is also explicitly
agreed that the Club has taken over since the signing of the Contract and continues to have
the full responsibility regarding all tax obligations that have arisen and will arise from the
Contract even if these are imposed on the VAT number of the Player. It is expressly agreed,
in case the Club does not pay the corresponding tax, either from the Contract or from this
Agreement, the Footballer is entitled to claim it by appealing to the agreed jurisdiction,
without being obliged to pay it first and then claim it."
11. On 11 February 2021, the Claimant contacted the Respondent via e-mail, in order to remind
the latter of its contractual obligation to pay the Claimant's taxes, while contextually granting
a deadline of 7 days in order to provide evidence of the club’s compliance.
12. On 17 February 2021, the Respondent replied to the Claimant, asking for further information
as deemed “necessary in case of taxes”.
13. On 25 February 2021, the Claimant objected to the Respondent’s last communication,
arguing that it was the latter’s responsibility to calculate and pay the taxes accordingly.
14. On 10 March 2021, through the fiscal platform denominated “Taxis”, the Hellenic Tax
Authority emitted two distinct payment notes concerning the taxable Claimant’s incomes,
respectively in connection with the financial year 2019 and 2020 (in the original document in
Greek referred to as Οικ. Έτος).
Page 4
REF FPSD-2944
15. On the note referring to the financial year 2018, the Claimant’s total overdue as taxes was
estimated in the amount of EUR 46,125.42.
16. On the second note dated 10 March 2021 and referring to the financial year 2019, the total
overdue as taxes was calculated in the sum of EUR 66,212.72.
17. On 23 March 2021, the Claimant sent once again a reminder to the Respondent, requesting
to pay the Claimant’s income taxes as per the Respondent’s obligation under the Contract
and Conciliation Agreement.
18. On 15 June 2021, a third payment note has been emitted by the Greek Tax Authority, namely
in connection with the financial year 2021, and for a total overdue amount of EUR 20,419.42.
19. Accordingly, on 17 June 2021, the Claimant requested that the Respondent complied with
its financial obligations, further adding the latter’s liability for the fiscal year 2021 (Claimant’s
income of 2020).
20. On 18 June 2021, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of the above referred taxes
without specifying the due amount to be paid to the Claimant’s bank account but granting
the Respondent 10 days in order to remedy its alleged breach.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
21. On 30 June 2021, the Claimant filed a claim against the Respondent for overdue payables. A
brief summary of the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
22. According to the Claimant, the Respondent failed to comply with its financial obligations
deriving from the Conciliation Agreement.
23. In particular, the Claimant alleged that the Respondent shall remit him the taxable incomes
in connection with the fiscal years 2019, 2020 and 2021 plus the penalties charged by the
Hellenic Tax Authority for the delay, broken down as follows:
EUR 12,207.6 – Fiscal year 2019 – Payment note on 10 March 2021;
EUR 66,212.72 – Fiscal year 2020 - Payment note on 10 March 2021;
EUR 20,419.42 – Fiscal year 2021 - Payment note on 15 June 2021.
Page 5
REF FPSD-2944
24. Furthermore, the Claimant requested the application of the 18% penalty clause contained
under art. 5 of the Conciliation Agreement to the above overdues, stating that said clause
would refer to any amount due by the Respondent and not only to the two instalments of
EUR 35,000 as thereto mentioned.
25. Accordingly, the request for relief of the Claimant was of EUR 98,839.74 to be paid by the
Respondent as outstanding taxes plus 18% interest per annum as of the relevant due dates.
b. Position of the Respondent
26. First of all, the Respondent averred that the FIFA shall decline its jurisdiction and consequently
refrain from deciding the present matter as “it is a purely fiscal dispute concerning solely fiscal
claims, therefore involving Greek tax laws and regulations with very complexed provisions.”
27. In this context, the Respondent argued that it would be extremely difficult for FIFA to calculate
appropriately and/or verify the calculation of the amount of taxes that need to be paid by the
Respondent and the surcharges/interests that need to be paid by the Claimant himself
pursuant to the Greek tax laws and rules as well as the agreement of the parties.
28. Given the above, the Respondent affirmed that in line with its constant practice concerning
purely fiscal disputes, the FIFA DRC shall consider the present claim inadmissible and shall
decline jurisdiction to hear the matter, which could only be correctly assessed and decided by
the Greek Civil Courts that hold a better knowledge of the said laws and regulations.
29. As to the substance, the Respondent argued the following with respect to the outstanding
taxes allegedly due to the Claimant:
Fiscal year 2019
30. In this respect the Respondent argued that no amounts shall be due to the Claimant as the
latter have already paid all amounts of taxes that were payable in connection to the
employment agreement.
31. In fact, according to the Respondent, the amounts exceeding the payments made by the
Respondent in this regard would be ascribable to “other” sources of income of the Claimant
and as such these shall be deemed irrelevant for the calculation of the sums due by the
Respondent, who shall be liable only for the Claimant’s incomes connected with the
employment agreement.
Fiscal year 2020
32. The Respondent argued as follows:
Page 6
REF FPSD-2944
“according to the tax laws and regulations in Greece, in 2019 football clubs were withholding
all taxes on the monthly wages payable to the players in accordance with para. 4.1. of the
Superleague employment contracts and 20% tax on the instalments of the contracts payable
to the players in accordance with para. 4.4. of the Superleague contracts).
Subsequently, the players needed to file their tax returns in the summer of the following year
(that is, in the summer of 2020) and the remaining payable taxes and solidarity contribution
on the amounts of the instalments and on any other payment related to the contract was
calculated and was mentioned in the notice of tax assessment (“Ekkatharistiko” in Greek and
translated as “The Administration Tax Assessment Certificate” in the claim).
Then, players like the Claimant that have agreed with clubs that the amounts of their
contracts are paid net, needed to notify such notice of tax assessment to the club, so that the
club verify and pay any taxes and/or solidarity contribution related to the income from the
contract and payable by the club.
However, the Claimant failed to respect his fiscal obligation and to duly submit in time his tax
return for the income of the year 2019 and only proceeded with the said filing of the tax
return on 9 March 2021 as one can see from the date of filing mentioned on the tax return
and the notice of tax assessment attached as exhibits 10 & 11 to the claim.”
33. Therefore, in the Respondent’s view, the amount of EUR 2,049.23 that concerns the
surcharges imposed due to the failure of the Claimant to respect his fiscal obligations and file
on time his tax return, does not constitute an obligation of the Respondent and shall be paid
by the Claimant himself.
34. In light of the above, the Respondent acknowledged to be liable to pay the amount of EUR
64,163.49, but only to the Greek competent authority.
Fiscal year 2021
35. In this respect, the Respondent argued that the amount of EUR 20,419.42 claimed by the
Claimant with regard to the taxes and solidarity contribution due for his income from Aris FC
in 2020, the said amount is not yet outstanding and due.
36. In fact, according to the Respondent, the amount of EUR 20,149.42 in the Claimant’s case is
payable in 8 instalments of EUR 2,552.43 each, of which the first two would be payable
together on 31 August 2021 (EUR 5,104.86 in total), the third one on 30 September 2021,
the fourth one on 29 October 2021, the fifth one on 30 November 2021, the sixth one on
31 December 2021, the seventh one on 31 January 2022 and the last one on 28 February
2022.
37. In light of the above, the Respondent promised that it will proceed with the payment of each
due instalment in due time, but such payments will have to be made directly to the Greek
State on behalf of the Claimant and are not payable to the latter as requested in the claim.
Page 7
REF FPSD-2944
38. Furthermore, with regard to the penalty fee claimed on the basis of art. 5 of the Conciliation
Agreement, the Respondent contested that said provision would be clearly not applicable to
the sums claimed by the Claimant but only to the two instalments mentioned in the same
Conciliation Agreement (i.e. EUR 35,000 each), especially considered that at the time of
stipulating said agreement the aforementioned amounts, being connected with the
Claimant’s taxable incomes, were not even outstanding nor quantifiable.
39. In conclusion, the Respondent rejected the claim in its entirety, objecting that all the sums
due to the Claimant shall be paid by the Respondent directly to the Greek state.
c. Claimant’s rejoinder
40. In response to the club’s objection regarding FIFA’s competence, the Claimant asserted that
such competence would stem from the dispute at hand being connected with the
employment contract signed by the Claimant as a player with the Respondent as Greek club.
41. In fact, according to the Claimant, the above-mentioned employment contract imposed on
the Respondent to pay all the sums due to the Claimant net of any taxes, hence the
Respondent would be still responsible to pay the amounts claim which constitute “mutatis
mutandis” the same Claimant remuneration.
42. As to the substance, the Claimant rebutted the Respondent’s arguments by underlining that
the latter has never denied its liability for the Claimant’s taxable incomes, nor it has provided
any explanation regarding the delay of the amounts for which it declared itself responsible.
43. The player further made the following allegations
Fiscal year 2019
44. In particular, with reference to the taxes due in connection with the fiscal year 2019, the
Claimant stressed that if the Respondent had really intended to exclude other sources of
income or other sums ascribable to the Claimant’s previous employment contract with
another football club, this concern should have been properly expressed inside the
Conciliation Agreement (and the Employment Contract) but it was not. Therefore, the
Claimant shall be still entitled to the aforementioned amount of EUR 12,207.6 for the year
2018.
Fiscal year 2020
45. In this respect, the Claimant imputed the Respondent also for the disputed surcharge of EUR
2,049.23, as such penalty would be anyway under the latter’s liability due art. 7 of the
Conciliation Agreement, stating that the Respondent “undertook any kind of burden regular
Page 8
REF FPSD-2944
and/or extraordinary taxation, taxes, extraordinary/special solidarity contribution or
reservation in favour of any third party, including any penalty for the late payment of the
taxes.”
Fiscal year 2021
46. With regard to the Respondent’s objection that the income taxes related to 2020 would be
still not outstanding, the Claimant argued that, conversely, such amounts did not become
outstanding towards the Player when the respective instalments become due, but since the
day the amount was verified in the name and VAT number of the Player and demanded by
the tax authorities.
47. In this context, the Claimant highlighted that pursuant to art. 7 of the Conciliation Agreement
“it is expressly agreed, in case the Club does not pay the corresponding tax, either from the
Contract or from this Agreement, the Footballer is entitled to claim it by appealing to the
agreed jurisdiction, without being obliged to pay it first and then claim it.”
48. In view of the above provision, the Claimant is of the opinion that the Respondent shall pay
the disputed amounts to the Claimant and not to the Greek authority, as he failed to comply
with its financial obligations and the aforementioned article would represent a safety net for
the Claimant, preventing him from being obliged to pay the due taxes before receiving any
amount from the Respondent.
49. For the same purposes of safeguarding the Claimant from untimely payments by the
Respondent, the Claimant reiterates his extensive interpretation of art. 5 under the
Conciliation Agreement, i.e. including any amount due by the Respondent to the Claimant
and not only the two instalments of EUR 35,000.
50. Moreover, the Claimant accused the Respondent of acting in bad faith, namely by not
replying to the several Claimant’s notices as well as by accepting its liability to pay a great
part of the claimed amount without however making any attempt to solve the issue since
March 2021 - when the Claimant notified the Respondent about its tax obligations
51. The Claimant reiterated his previous requests for relief, adding that in case of non-application
of the penalty fee agreed under art. 5 of the Conciliation Agreement, a reduced interest fee
of 5% per annum shall at least apply over the requested sums.
d. Respondent’s final comments
52. In its final submission, the Respondent replicated his arguments, reaffirming the objection to
the competence of the FIFA as well as the Claimant’s lack of entitlement to receive the
questioned sums.
Page 9
REF FPSD-2944
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
53. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to
as Single Judge) 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 30 June 2021 and
submitted for decision on 10 December 2021. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of
the October 2021 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.
54. 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), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is,
in principle, competent to deal with the matter at stake, since it would pertain to an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a French player and a
Greek club.
55. However, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent contested the competence of FIFA’s
deciding bodies in favour of the Greek Civil Court, alleging that the latter would be in a better
position to decide on the dispute at hand given its deeper knowledge and understanding of
the national fiscal legislation. The Respondent also raised the point that the claim is not
employment-related.
56. The Single Judge also noted that, conversely, the Claimant insisted on the competence of
FIFA to adjudicate the present claim, sustaining that FIFA’s jurisdiction over the matter would
derive from the international dimension of the dispute which is directly connected with the
employment relationship between the parties.
57. Taking into account all the above, the Single Judge emphasised that in accordance with art.
22 par. 1 of the Regulations, FIFA is competent to hear employment-related disputes between
a player and a club with an international dimension “without prejudice to the right of any
player (…) or club to seek redress before a civil court for employment related disputes”.
58. In this context, Single Judge pointed out that he should first analyse whether the contract at
the basis of the present dispute contained a clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour
of the Greek Civil Court.
59. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the Conciliation Agreement, namely under art. 8
par. I and II, expressly foresees (i) FIFA’s competence in case of any dispute arising from it and
(ii) that in case of conflict with the former employment contract “the Conciliation Agreement
shall supersede the latter”.
Page 10
REF FPSD-2944
60. Accordingly, the Singly Judge concluded that the parties to the dispute did not agree to seek
redress before the Greek Civil Court (nor any other court) for any disputes potentially arising
in connection with their employment relationship.
61. Having stated the above, the Single Judge then highlighted that according to art. 22 letter b)
of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Football Tribunal has in principle
competence to deal with the dispute in question, but that he had also to examine, in light of
the objection raised by the Respondent, whether the dispute at hand was employmentrelated.
62. Given the particular constellation of the case and the evidence in the file, the Single Judge
was observed the following: (a) the wording of the Conciliation Agreement explained the
circumstances of its execution, thus linking the Conciliation Agreement to the recruitment of
the player under the Contract (which is undisputedly a labour agreement); (b) the Conciliation
Agreement is nothing more than a continuation of Contract, according to which the parties
further established the - then new - conditions for the payment of the amounts owed to the
player, and arising from his time at the club as a footballer; (c) the particular and clear wording
of the “recitals” section of Conciliation Agreement clarified the conditions under which the
said contract had been concluded, and specifically named the execution of the Conciliation
Agreement as occurring in the framework of the player's employment.
63. Consequently, although the matter at hand concerns issues related to national fiscal matters,
the Single Judge confirmed nonetheless it is an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension.
64. Therefore, the Single Judge established that the Respondent’s objection to the competence
of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected and that the Dispute Resolution
Chamber is competent, on the basis of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations, to consider the
present matter as to the substance.
65. Subsequently, the Single 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 Player (August 2021 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 30 June 2021, the February 2021 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
66. 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 it may consider evidence
Page 11
REF FPSD-2944
not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or within the
Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
67. 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 he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
68. The Single Judge moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that the
parties strongly dispute the Respondent’s financial liability towards the Claimant and, in part,
towards the Greek Tax Authority, as well as their quantification.
69. In this context, the Single Judge recalled that the Claimant asserted his right to be fully
covered by the Respondent with regard to all his taxable incomes in relation to the financial
years 2019, 2020 and 2021, namely on the basis of art. 7 of the Conciliation Agreement,
whereas the Respondent argued that in that respect whatsoever amount related to the
Claimant’s income taxes shall be paid by the Respondent directly to the competent Greek
authority, in compliance with the Greek law.
70. In this respect, the Single Judge reverted to the content of the Conciliation Agreement
binding the Respondent with regard to its financial liabilities towards the Claimant as the
latter’s former employer, and observed that according to the above-mentioned art. 7 “(…) It
is also explicitly agreed that the Club has taken over since the signing of the Contract and
continues to have the full responsibility regarding all tax obligations that have arisen and will
arise from the Contract even if these are imposed on the VAT number of the Player”.
71. With the above wording in mind, the Single Judge held that it results clear the Respondent’s
liability with regard to the entire spectre of sums taxable, regardless of the different source
of income and regardless of the addressee of the payment notes emitted by the competent
tax authority (in claris non fit interpretatio).
72. Therefore, the sole consequence of having said payment notes been addressed by the Greek
Tax Authority directly to the Claimant, would be, in the Single Judge’s view, that the
Respondent should have and (now) shall pay instead the relevant amounts to the Claimant
itself, in strict compliance with the Conciliation Agreement.
73. In fact, the Single Judge recalled that pursuant to the same art. 7, “It is expressly agreed, in
case the Club does not pay the corresponding tax, either from the Contract or from this
Page 12
REF FPSD-2944
Agreement, the Footballer is entitled to claim it by appealing to the agreed jurisdiction,
without being obliged to pay it first and then claim it."
74. Equally, in the Single Judge’s view, the Conciliation Agreement would leave no alternative
interpretation but to deem the Respondent now responsible for paying the aforementioned
sums to the same Claimant, as it appears evident that it did not previously pay the questioned
sums to the Greek Tax Authority.
75. Furthermore, and within said perspective, the Single Judge wished to point out that the
documentation at his disposal, in particular the exchange of correspondence occurred
between the parties as documented by the Claimant in combination with the reluctance
manifested by the Respondent with regards to the payment of the Claimant’s income taxes,
would clearly suggest the Respondent’s disinclination to adhere to the terms and conditions
agreed in the Conciliation Agreement.
76. Accordingly, the Single Judge concluded that pursuant to the principle of “pacta sunt
servanda” the Respondent shall be held financially liable towards the Claimant for the
payment of the income taxes connected with the financial years 2019, 2020 and 2021.
77. Nevertheless, the Single Judge remarked that each fiscal year shall be analysed individually as
it inevitably carries different issues.
78. With the above in mind, the Single Judge turned its attention to the quantum of the financial
liabilities held by the Respondent towards the Claimant in connection with the financial year
2019 and noted that, although the Respondent argued that no further financial obligations
shall derive from the Claimant’s taxable incomes in connection with the year 2018 as part of
said incomes were ascribable to the Claimant’s previous employment relationship with
another club in Greece, yet it results clear from the Conciliation Agreement (in particular
under art. 7) that the Respondent had committed itself to correspond to the Claimant a
specific remuneration net of any taxes and free of any charge, therefore regardless of the
different sources of income.
79. As such provision appears clear and unequivocal and, thus, does not need any interpretation
(once again in claris non fit interpretatio), the Single Judge is of the opinion that, with regard
to the fiscal year 2019, the Respondent shall still be liable to pay the Claimant the amount of
EUR 12,207.60.
80. In continuation, and with regard to the financial year 2020, the Single Judge noted that the
Respondent acknowledged to be liable to pay the amount of EUR 64,163.49 as calculated by
the competent Greek authority and contested only the additional sum of EUR 2,049.23
charged as penalty for the delay.
81. Similarly to what has been remarked above, the Single Judge is of the opinion that the
Respondent shall be held liable for said penalty as well, since also in such cases the
Page 13
REF FPSD-2944
aforementioned article 7 of the Conciliation Agreement appears clear in its wording: “(The
Respondent) undertook any kind of burden regular and/or extraordinary taxation, taxes,
extraordinary/special solidarity contribution or reservation in favour of any third party,
including any penalty for the late payment of the taxes.”
82. Moreover, the Single Judge recalled that the Respondent did not show any proactive attitude
in the perspective of avoiding delays by the Claimant (which eventually led to the penalties),
nor it has ever replied meaningfully to his default notices.
83. As a consequence, the Single Judge is of the opinion that, with regard to the fiscal year 2020,
the Respondent shall be liable for the amount of EUR 66,212.72.
84. Finally, in respect to the fiscal year 2021, the Single Judge recalled the per the evidence of
file, the relevant national law regulating the “Extension of the deadline for submission of
declarations and arrangements for the payment of the personal income tax of the tax year
2020”, according to which the payment of taxes in connection with the year of reference
shall be made in eight equal instalments among which the first two are paid until the last
working day of August 2021 and each of the following ones until the last working day of the
six next months (i.e. until 28 February 2022). The single Judge remarked that this specific
question in not disputed by the parties.
85. As a consequence, the Single Judge acknowledged that in principle, only the first 5 (five)
instalments result due by the Claimant to the Greek Tax Authority at the time of this decision,
whereas the instalments having due dates on 31 December 2021 (6), 31 January 2022 (7)
and 28 February 2022 (8) could be paid in a later moment.
86. Nevertheless, the Single Judge remarked that (i) the overall amount due to the Claimant by
the Respondent results already certain as well as quantifiable (determined) and that (ii) the
Respondent did not contest said amount in absolute terms but rather promised to pay each
of the aforementioned instalments to the Greek Tax Authority within the respective due
dates.
87. Therefore, having once again remarked that the Respondent shall pay the Claimant and not
the Greek Tax Authority, the Single Judge established that for reasons of procedural economy,
it appears reasonable and lawful to grant the Claimant the full amount connected with the
fiscal year 2021, i.e. EUR 20,419.42.
88. Finally, with regard to the 18% penalty fee requested by the Claimant to be applied to the
above-mentioned sums on the basis of art. 5 of the Conciliation Agreement, the Single Judge
held that such clause de facto corresponds to a hidden year interest, having it been agreed
by the Parties as penalty for the delay in the payment of any of the instalments due as
outstanding remuneration under clause 1 of the Conciliation Agreement. Hence, the Single
Judge is of the opinion that it shall not be applicable to different amounts calculated a
Page 14
REF FPSD-2944
posteriori and not effectively stipulated by the Parties but rather established by the relevant
tax authority.
89. Nevertheless, in line with the constant practice of the Football Tribunal as well as coherently
with the Claimant’s subsidiary request for relief, the Single Judge decided to apply a 5%
interest p.a. over the awarded amounts, running as from the respective due dates.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
90. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge referred to art. 24bis
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.
91. 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.
92. 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
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. 24bis par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
93. 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.
94. 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. 24bis par.
8 of the Regulations.
d. Costs
95. 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 Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to
be imposed on the parties.
Page 15
REF FPSD-2944
96. 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.
97. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
Page 16
REF FPSD-2944
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Nicolas Jean Pierre Diguiny, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Aris FC, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount:
EUR 12,207.6 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 10 March 2021 until
the date of effective payment.
EUR 66,212.72 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 10 March 2021 until
the date of effective payment.
EUR 20,419.42 as outstanding amount plus 5% interest p.a. as from 15 June 2021 until
the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
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 art. 24bis 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.
Page 17
REF FPSD-2944
7. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24bis par. 7 and 8 and art. 24ter of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players.
8. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 18
REF FPSD-2944
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 19