Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-4276
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 24 March 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Brice Dja
Djedje
BY:
Frans de Weger (Netherlands), Chairperson
Stijn Boeykens (Belgium), member
Elvis Chetty (Seychelles), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Brice Dja Djedje, France
Represented by Bora Imadoglu
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Samsunspor, Turkey
Represented by Mehmet Gokturk Aslan
INTERVENING PARTY:
Denizlispor, Turkey
Haga clic o pulse aquí para escribir texto.
Page 2
REF FPSD-4276
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 13 November 2020, the French player Brice Dja Djedje (hereinafter: the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent) and the Turkish club Samsunspor (hereinafter: the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant) concluded a so-called pre-contract, to arrange the financial conditions of
a future employment agreement.
2.
On 13 January 2021, the parties signed an employment agreement (hereinafter: the contract),
valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2021 (with an extension option until the
season 2021-2022), based on which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was entitled to the
following amounts:
•
•
•
EUR 10,000 net per match ‘for the official matches played only in the TFF first
league including playoff rounds’, to be paid on the 15th of the month after the
matches which the player is entitled to receive, are played;
EUR 100,000 net ‘if the player plays in at least eight official matches in the TFF first
league including playoff rounds‘;
EUR 1,000 net as accommodation and car expenses.
3.
Article 4 of the contract holds the following clause: ‘The parties agree that the term of this
contract shall be automatically extended for one more football season of 2021-2022 with the
conditions specified in this article. In case, player plays in the first 11 in 13 or more official
matches that the club plays in 2020-2021 TFF First League, this contract is automatically
extended for one more football season of 2021-2022‘.
4.
What is more, after the alleged extension of the contract for the season 2021-2022, the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent was entitled to the following amounts:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5.
EUR 30,000 on 17 August 2021;
EUR 30,000 on 15 September 2021;
EUR 30,000 on 15 October 2021;
EUR 30,000 on 16 November 2021;
EUR 30,000 on 15 December 2021;
EUR 30,000 on 18 January 2022;
EUR 30,000 on 15 February 2022;
EUR 30,000 on 15 March 2022;
EUR 30,000 on 15 April 2022;
EUR 30,000 on 17 May 2022;
EUR 1,000 net as accommodation and car expenses from August 2021 to May
2022.
On 21 July 2021, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant informed the Claimant / CounterRespondent that he was given permission until 2 August 2021 to make transfer negotiations
Page 3
REF FPSD-4276
with other clubs, however, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent did not manage to find new
employment and requested for an extended period in which he could find new employment.
6.
Moreover, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent explains that the president of the Respondent
/ Counter-Claimant made some public statements, in which he accused the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent of being the one that decided to ‘finalize the employment relationship’.
7.
On 2 September 2021, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant requested the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent to issue a defense, as it alleged that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
had acted without discipline in the trainings that took place in the preparatory camp held in
Kayseri between 6 and 18 July 2021, that he had left the WhatsApp group and that he no
longer attended training sessions after 20 August 2021.
8.
On 2 September 2021, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent replied that he was busy finding
a new club and that he had technical issues with his cellphone. Also, the Claimant / CounterRespondent denied the incidents in the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s letter dated 2
September 2021 and explicitly declared that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant requested
EUR 100,000 from him ‘otherwise he does not have to return to the club anymore’. Finally,
the Claimant / Counter-Respondent remarked that he will be ready for training and present
at the club on 4 September 2021.
9.
On 3 September 2021, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant imposed a fine of EUR 200,000
on the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, for his undisciplined behavior and his absence
without permission from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s first team.
10. On 4 September 2021, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant unilaterally terminated the
contract with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent.
11. On 24 September 2021, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant sent a letter to the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent, declaring that he was given a monetary fine in the amount of EUR
200,000 for violating disciplinary instructions, for unsportsmanlike behavior and for absence
of training without any excuse after 20 August 2021, however the Respondent / CounterClaimant also informed him that said decision would not be ‘processed for now’.
12. On 7 September 2021, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent signed a new contract with the
Turkish club Denizlispor (hereinafter: the Intervening Party), valid for the period between 7
September 2021 and 31 May 2023, based on which he was entitled to EUR 115,000 in the
period between 30 September 2021 and 30 June 2022.
13. According to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, he was thus entitled to the total amount
of EUR 150,000 in the overlapping period.
Page 4
REF FPSD-4276
II. Proceedings before FIFA
14. On 12 November 2021, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 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 / Counter-Respondent
15. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent explains that since he played in the first 11 in 18 official
matches of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s first team, the contract was automatically
extended for the 2021-2022 season.
16. What is more, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent argues that the salary in the amount of
EUR 30,000, which was due on 17 August 2021, remained unpaid until today.
17. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent explains that he deems the alleged fine of EUR 200,000
‘unjust and against the law’, as well as excessive, as his yearly salary was EUR 300,000, and
also pointed out that the fine did not meet certain formal requirements under Turkish law.
18. Also, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent argued that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
‘requested EUR 100,000 from him otherwise he does not have to return back to club
anymore’.
19. In conclusion, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent deems that the Respondent / CounterClaimant terminated the contract without just cause and that as a result, he is entitled to
outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract.
20. The requests for relief of the Claimant, as amended, were the following:
-
-
To be awarded EUR 30,000 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. as
from 17 August 2021;
To be awarded EUR 120,000 as compensation for breach of contract, plus 5% interest
p.a. as rom 4 September 2021 (the residual value of the contract in the amount of
EUR 270,000 -/- EUR 150,000 as mitigation with Denizlispor);
To be awarded EUR 180,000 as additional compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. as
from 4 September 2021:
To annul the monetary fine of EUR 200,000.
b. Position of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
21. In its reply to the claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the Respondent / CounterClaimant argued that it terminated the contract with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
with just cause and that therefore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s requests should be
dismissed.
Page 5
REF FPSD-4276
22. In this respect, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant argues that it paid the Claimant / CounterRespondent all amounts related to the 2020/2021 season, however that the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent at the end of said season expressed his intention to leave the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s club and behaved unprofessionally in the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant’s preparatory training camp held in Kayseri.
23. According to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent left
without any excuse the WhatsApp group of its first team on 26 July 2021.
24. Furthermore, Respondent / Counter-Claimant confirms that the Claimant / CounterRespondent was given permission to search for a new club in the period between 21 July and
20 August 2021, however never showed up for training sessions and team gatherings
anymore after said date, despite the matches for the Respondent / Counter-Claimant starting
as from 13 August 2021.
25. As a result of the foregoing, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant sent a letter to the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant on 2 September 2021, in which it informed that the Claimant
/ Counter-Respondent’s behaviour was to be considered a breach of contract. The
Respondent / Counter-Claimant further explains that due to the Claimant / CounterRespondent’s absence (also from the WhatsApp-group), it could not send its Disciplinary
Regulations to his address.
26. What is more, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is of the opinion that it terminated the
contract with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent with just cause, due to:
-
-
-
-
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s undisciplined behaviour during the preparatory
training camp and his arguments with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s head coach
(Note: witness statements from a teammate, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s
former head coach and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s former General Manager
are on file, confirming said circumstances).
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent wanting to leave the Respondent / CounterClaimant’s team on his own initiative (Note: the Respondent / Counter-Claimant refers
to a WhatsApp-message of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent dated 17 July 2021, in
which such circumstance is allegedly confirmed);
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent no longer showing up for training sessions
anymore as from 21 August 2021. In this respect, the Respondent argues that the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent never requested for an extension of the period to
search for a new club. Also, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant argues that based on
these circumstances, it validly assumed the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was no
longer interested in continuing his employment relationship with the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant;
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent refusing to talk to the Head Coach;
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent did not prove that he was ready to return from
Brussels to Samson on 4 September 2021.
Page 6
REF FPSD-4276
27. What is more, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant denies that it ever requested EUR 100,000
from the Claimant.
28. Also, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant explains that, die to the fact that it validly imposed
a fine of EUR 200,000 on the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, it does not owe at all the
claimed amount of EUR 30,000. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant argues that this fine is
valid and proportional in light of the contents of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s
Disciplinary Regulations, as well as because the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was asked to
present his defence. In addition, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant states that it was the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s own mistake that he did not receive the Disciplinary
Regulations, as he left the team’s WhatsApp-group.
29. What is more, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant explains that for the season 2020-2021,
it owed the Claimant / Counter-Respondent a total amount of EUR 185,000, but if effectively
paid an amount of EUR 185,500 and an amount of TRY 115,596 as bonuses for said season.
30. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant states that – would the Chamber decide to award
outstanding remuneration and/or compensation for breach of contract – it requests that the
bonus payment of TRY 115,596 to be deducted from the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s
receivables, as it voluntarily paid these bonuses to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, in
order to ‘keep him motivated’.
31. The requests for relief of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, as amended, were the
following:
Primary:
- EUR 200,000 as monetary fine (or to reduce said amount to an amount the DRC
deems appropriate);
- The residual value of the contract in the amount of EUR 360,000;
- To impose a 4 months’ restriction on playing in official matches.
Subsidiary:
- To reject the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim for mitigated and additional
compensation;
- To set-off the fine of EUR 200,000 from the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s
receivables (or to reduce the penalty amount to an amount the DRC deems
appropriate).
c. Reply Claimant / Counter-Respondent to counterclaim
32. In reply to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim, the Claimant / CounterRespondent argued that it was effectively the president of the Respondent / CounterClaimant which decided to part ways with him and gave him permission to search for a new
club, however who also asked for the payment of EUR 100,000.
Page 7
REF FPSD-4276
33. Moreover, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent explains that after the expiry of the period in
which he could search for a new club, i.e. 20 August 2021, he was never contacted again by
the Respondent / Counter-Claimant until 2 September 2021, when he was asked to return
to the training sessions in Samsun.
34. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent explains that he informed the Respondent / CounterClaimant that he would return to Samsun on 4 September 2021 and would buy a flight ticket
on 3 September 2021.
35. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent also explains that he did a PCR-test and that he received
a stamp in his passport, based on which it could be proven that he arrived in Istanbul, Turkey,
on 3 September 2021. As a result, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent concludes that the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not prove that he was absent from the RespondentCounter-Claimant’s training facilities.
36. In addition, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent denies the allegations that he did not contact
the Respondent / Counter-Claimant without valid reason at all in the period between 21 July
2021 and 2 September 2021 and explains that at least in the period between 21 July and 20
August 2021, he had permission to search for a new club. Moreover, the Claimant / CounterRespondent explains that he immediately replied when he was contacted on 2 September
2021.
37. What is more, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent explains that the declarations regarding
his alleged behaviour are ‘justified but within boundaries’, as the persons providing these
declarations are still connected to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant.
38. As to the bonuses in the amount of TRZ 115,596, allegedly paid by the Respondent / CounterClaimant as ‘charity’, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent explains that these are math
premiums/bonuses he was validly entitled to.
39. As to the discussion on the receipt of the Internal Club’s Regulations, the Claimant / CounterRespondent explains that these were never notified by email or public notary, as is requested
by the Turkish law.
40. In conclusion, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent insists on its initial claim.
d. Position of the Intervening Party
41. In its submission, the Intervening Party argued that it was never warned by the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant on a termination without just cause and that it never induced the Claimant
/ Counter-Respondent to breach his contract with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant.
Page 8
REF FPSD-4276
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
42. 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 12 November 2021 and submitted for
decision on 24 March 2022. 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.
43. 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 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (March 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 French player and a
Turkish club, with the involvement of another Turkish club.
44. Subsequently, 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 Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (March 2022 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 12 November 2021, the August 2021
edition in force on the date of claim edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations)
is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
45. 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 Transfer
Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
46. 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 the assessment of
the matter at hand.
Page 9
REF FPSD-4276
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
47. 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 consequences of the unilateral
termination of the contract by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant on 4 September 2021,
based on the alleged fact that the alleged fact that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was
no longer interested in rendering his services to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, since
after some incidents that allegedly took place during the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s
training camp, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was allegedly absent without valid reason
as from 20 August 2021.
48. The members of the Chamber also noted that these allegations are explicitly denied by the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent, which argued that he was granted permission for the
biggest part of the month August 2021 to look out for a new club, as well as that in the
period between 20 August and 2 September 2021, several invalid fines were imposed on
him.
49. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it its task was to determine whether the
circumstances of the matter at hand gave the Respondent / Counter-Claimant a just cause to
terminate the contract with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent on 4 September 2021 with
just cause.
50. Having analysed the documentation on file, as well as the statements of the parties, the
members of the Chamber first of all deemed it important to establish that the parties explicitly
agreed that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was granted permission to try to find a new
club in the period between 21 July and 20 August 2021. Said circumstances had remained
uncontested between the parties.
51. Having established the above, the Chamber went on to analyse the allegations of the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant – disputed by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent – that the
absence of the latter in the period between 21 August and 2 September 2021, without
authorisation or justification, in combination with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent alleged
undisciplined behaviour during a training camp and during his interactions with the coach,
consisted of a breach of contract on his part.
52. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber referred to art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules
(October 2021 edition), according to which a party that asserts a fact has the burden of
proving it, and went on to analyse the documentation provided by the parties in support of
their allegations. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
provided some witness statements as to the incidents which allegedly happened during the
training camp of its club. However, the members of the Chamber noted that said witness
statements are all made by people connected to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and can
therefore not be considered impartial.
Page 10
REF FPSD-4276
53. Furthermore, and before entering into the analysis of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
alleged unauthorised absence, the Chamber deemed it important to recall its long-standing
jurisprudence, according to which only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity
justifies the termination of a contract without prior warning. In other words, only when there
are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect the continuation of the
employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely.
Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken in order for an employer to
assure the employee’s fulfilment of his contractual duties, such measures must be taken
before terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of an employment
contract can only be an ultima ratio.
54. With the above in mind and after having carefully analysed the parties’ submissions, the
Chamber noted that in the period between 21 August (when the Claimant / CounterRespondent should in theory have reported back for duty) and 2 September 2021 (when the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent confirmed that he was still trying to find a new club and also
announced that he would be ready for returning to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant on 4
September 2021), there does not appear to have been any contact between the parties. The
members of the Chamber noted that, based on the information on file, it could not be
established that Respondent / Counter-Claimant had actively reached out to the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent and requested him to rejoin its team.
55. What is more, the members of the Chamber noted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant,
after it had informed the Claimant / Counter-Respondent that he had acted without discipline
during the training camp in July 2021, on 3 September 2021 imposed a fine in the amount
of EUR 200,000 on the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, for his alleged undisciplined
behaviour and alleged unauthorized absence.
56. In this context, the Chamber concurred that the fine imposed on the Claimant / CounterRespondent by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall be disregarded, since a) the fine was
imposed without following a due process and/or granting the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
the chance to provide its comments as to the fines, b) there is no evidence on file that the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent had duly received the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s
internal disciplinary regulations and c) a fine for the absence of the Claimant / CounterRespondent for the total amount of EUR 200,000, representing more than half of the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s yearly remuneration and must be considered
disproportionate.
57. Furthermore, and irrespective of the foregoing consideration, the Chamber wished to point
out that the imposition of a fine, or any other available financial sanction in general, shall not
be used by clubs as a means to set off outstanding financial obligations towards players.
Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject the Respondent / Counter-Respondent’s
argument in this connection.
Page 11
REF FPSD-4276
58. What is more, the members of the Chamber deemed it important to note that – if proven at
all - a short absence in the period between 21 August and 2 September 2021, during which
period there was not contact with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and/or some
disciplinary incidents at a training camp under the circumstances of the present case, namely
a situation in which the parties were already aiming at terminating their contractual
relationship, cannot be deemed as a substantial breach of an employment contract, capable
of triggering the consequences of an unlawful termination.
59. Finally, the members of the Chamber noted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, by
imposing a fine of EUR 200,000 on the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and not actively
reaching out to hm to rejoin its club, also contributed to terminating of the contract between
the parties and that it attempted to create circumstances under which it could terminate the
contract, by even trying to offset its debts.
60. In conclusion, and based on all the foregoing circumstances, the Chamber deemed the
unilateral termination of the contract on 4 September 2021 cannot be considered an ultima
ratio.
61. On account of the aforementioned, the Chamber decided that the Respondent / CounterClaimant had unlawfully terminated the employment contract with the Claimant / CounterRespondent and should be held liable for the consequences of such breach.
62. Along those lines, the Chamber concluded that the counterclaim of the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant had to be rejected and that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is entitled
to outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract.
ii. Consequences
63. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the question
of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant.
64. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, are
equivalent to one monthly salary under the contract, amounting to EUR 30,000.
65. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is liable to pay to the Claimant
/ Counter-Respondent the amount which was outstanding under the contract at the moment
of the termination, i.e. EUR 30,000.
66. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s request as well as
the constant practice of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant
Page 12
REF FPSD-4276
/ Counter-Respondent interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amount of EUR
30,000 as from 17 August 2021 until the date of effective payment.
67. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to the Claimant / CounterRespondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber 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.
68. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it 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 Chamber established that no
such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter
at stake.
69. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to the Claimant / CounterRespondent had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par.
1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive
enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of
compensation payable.
70. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent,
the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent under the terms of the contract from the date of its unilateral
termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of
EUR 270,000 (i.e. the salaries of EUR 30,000 each in the period between 15 September 2021
and 17 May 2022) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation
for breach of contract.
71. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 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 DRC 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 Claimant /
Counter-Respondent’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.
Page 13
REF FPSD-4276
72. Indeed, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent found employment with the Turkish club
Denizlispor, i.e. the Intervening Party. In accordance with the pertinent employment contract,
which was valid between 7 September 2021 and 31 May 2023, the Claimant / CounterRespondent explains that he was entitled to the total amount of EUR 150,000 for the
contractual duration. Therefore, the Chamber – after having examined the contract
concluded between the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Intervening Party concluded that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent mitigated his damages in the total
amount of EUR 150,000.
73. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as additional
compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be due to overdue
payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber however noted that it was the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant which had terminated the contract, due to the alleged unauthorized
absence of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, and therefore decided that the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent is not entitled receive additional compensation.
74. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay
the amount of EUR 120,000 to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent (i.e. EUR 270,000 minus
EUR 150,000), which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
75. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
interest on said compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 12 November 2021 until the date
of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
76. 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.
77. 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.
78. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent / CounterClaimant must pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent within 45 days of notification of the decision, failing which, at the
Page 14
REF FPSD-4276
request of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, a ban from registering any new players, either
nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive
registration periods shall become immediately effective on the Respondent / CounterClaimant in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
79. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall make full payment (including all applicable interest)
to the bank account provided by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in the Bank Account
Registration Form, which is attached to the present decision.
80. 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
81. 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.
82. 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.
83. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
Page 15
REF FPSD-4276
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Brice Dja Djedje, is partially accepted.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Samsunspor, is rejected.
3.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Samsunspor, has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent, the following amount(s):
- EUR 30,000 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 17 August 2021
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 120,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause, plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 12 November 2021 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 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. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (August 2021
edition), if full payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of
notification of this decision, the following consequences shall apply:
1.
2.
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.
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.
7.
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.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 16
REF FPSD-4276
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 17