Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 February 2020,
in the following composition:
Om ar Ongaro (Italy ), Chairman
S téphane Burchkalter (France), member
Jérôm e Perlem uter (France), member
on the claim presented by the player,
Is m ael S alim Dunga, Kenya,
represented by Ms Athina Adamakou
as Claimant
against the club,
KS Luftetari, Albania
represented by Mr Konstantinos Zemberis
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties
I.
Facts of the cas e
1.
On 30 August 2018, the player, Ismael Salim Dunga (hereinafter: the player or the
Claimant) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) with the
club, KS Luftetari (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent), valid as from 31 August
2018 until 30 June 2021.
2.
In accordance with art. 3 of the contract “the Club shall pay to the player for in first
four months of the first year of the said contract a monthly salary of one thousand
euro net (1000 euro). For the rest of the first season the player will receive a
monthly salary of two thousand five hundred euro net (2500) Euro. For the second
year of the said contract a monthly salary of three thousand euro net (3000 Euro),
and for the third season of the said contract a monthly salary of four thousand euro
net (4000 Euro). The monthly salary will be paid at maximum at the 10th day of each
month”.
3.
In addition, in art. 4 of the contract the parties agreed that “the club will pay all
taxes and other obligations toward the authorities concerning all amounts of the
said contract”.
4.
Moreover, in accordance with art. 8 of the contract “the club will arrange all
documents to provide to the player permission of stay and work in Albania.”
5.
Finally, art. 18 of the contract stipulated that “in the event of a dispute regarding
the execution of the terms of the present contract, the applicable law will be the
FSHF regulation and the applicable court will be the court of Albanian Football
Association exclusively”.
6.
On 6 May 2019, the player put the club in default for the payment of EUR 8,800,
corresponding to the unpaid part of the salary for January 2019 in the amount of
EUR 1,300 and the full salaries for February, March and April 2019 in the amount of
EUR 2,500 each, setting a deadline of 10 days.
7.
On 25 May 2019, the player unilaterally terminated the contract invoking the club’s
non-compliance with its financial obligations.
8.
On 27 May 2019, Claimant lodged a claim for breach of contract and requested the
payment of the following amounts:
Outstanding remuneration: EUR 11,300, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the respective
due dates, corresponding to the following:
- EUR 1,300, corresponding to the unpaid part for the salary of January 2019;
Player Ismael Salim Dunga, Kenya / Club KS Luftetari, Albania
Page 2 of 14
- EUR 2,500, corresponding to the salary of February 2019;
- EUR 2,500, corresponding to the salary of March 2019;
- EUR 2,500, corresponding to the salary of April 2019;
- EUR 2,500, corresponding to the salary of May 2019.
Compensation: EUR 86,500, “relating to the residual value of the Player’s contract
(2500 EUR for season 2018/2019, EUR 36.000 for season 2019/2020 and EUR 48.000
for season 2020/2021), with an interest rate of 5% p.a. as of May 24th, 2019.”
9.
The Claimant further requested the imposition of sporting sanctions against the
Respondent.
Competence of FIFA and admissibility of the claim
10.
In its reply, the club rejected FIFA’s competence based on the jurisdiction clause in
art. 18 of the contract.
11.
In this regard, the club deemed that “since the parties in the present case have
explicitly agreed that any disputes shall be submitted exclusively to the Albanian
NDRC, FIFA does not have jurisdiction to deal with the present matter”.
12.
According to the club, “the Albanian NDRC is in fact an independent deciding body
that guarantees fair proceedings and respects the principle of equal representation
of players and clubs.”
13.
In support of its position, the club presented a copy of the Articles of Association of
Federata Shqiptare e Futbollit and the Regulations of AFA’s National Dispute
Resolution Chamber, which include, inter alia, the following:
“Article 4 - Composition of the Chamber
1. NDRC members shall serve a four-year mandate. Chamber Members shall be
entitled to re-election for a second mandate.
2. The Chamber shall be composed of:
a) The Chairman and two deputy Chairmen unilaterally elected by the members of
the dispute resolution chamber, based on the proposals of the clubs and player’s
assembly for the Chairman and the Deputy Chairmen;
b) Five members, player representatives elected from a voting session organised by
AFA, with the participation of two players for each professional team, one of which
should be the captain of the team and the other one should be the oldest player.
Player representatives also review coaches’ disputes.
c) Five members, club representatives which are elected or appointed on the
proposal of the clubs of the Albanian Superliga, First Division and Second Division.
Player Ismael Salim Dunga, Kenya / Club KS Luftetari, Albania
Page 3 of 14
3. The Chairman and the two deputy Chairmen, and the player and club
representative members, shall be lawyers with a complete university education,
qualified and if possible according to the following specifications:
a) Professor at university;
b) Magistrate;
c) Judge with five-year experience.
All candidates must have high reputation, they must not have been criminally
convicted and they must present references from personalities, scholars, former HCJ
chairman, etc.”
“Article 8 - Official language of the Chamber
1. The proceedings shall be held in the Albanian language.
2. The chamber may hire a translator during the proceedings, depending on the
respective situation.
3. If Albanian is not the mother tongue of one of the parties involved in the
judgement, then the Chamber must issue a translated version of the corresponding
decision. In the case of any ambiguity, the decision in Albanian language prevails
over the decision in foreign languages.”
“Article 33 - Procedural costs
Application costs in the National Dispute Resolution Chamber are 100,000 (one
hundred thousand) ALL. They cannot incur additional costs, except for the cases
provided for in Article 21 paragraph 5. Expenses at the end of the trial are charged
to the losing party.”
Positions of the parties
14.
In his claim, the player deemed that the club “failed to comply in full with its
obligations deriving from the contract, owning to the Claimant significant amounts
from his revenues”.
15.
Furthermore, the player argued that despite his formal written default notice, the
club never replied or paid he was “facing serious financial problems and had a great
difficulty living in a foreign country”.
16.
In addition, the player highlighted that “the Respondent has not done anything so
far to secure and provide him with the permit of Stay as well as work permit thus
breaching the terms of the Contract (Clause 8) making his living and working in
Albania illegal and setting the Claimant in a state of permanent danger of being
arrested and deported”.
17.
In its reply, the club rejected the player’s claim.
18.
In particular, the club deemed that “the Claimant and his agent Mr. Kostakis, in bad
faith, were reassuring KS Luftetari in all their communications and meetings with
Player Ismael Salim Dunga, Kenya / Club KS Luftetari, Albania
Page 4 of 14
the club that the Claimant just wanted to receive the outstanding amounts but he
had no intention to terminate his contract”.
19.
In this regard, the club referred to the player’s default notice, where the player
mentioned art. 12bis of the RSTP and not art. 14bis.
20.
Furthermore, the club stressed that the player “had actually agreed with KS
Luftetari to sign an agreement providing for a payment plan for the amounts due
and he deliberately used excuses to delay the execution of such agreement,
obviously with the aim to allow enough time to pass so that he terminates his
contract on 25 May 2019”.
21.
Consequently, the club argued that “the claim of the Claimant should not be
accepted and should be rejected on the basis that his termination was abusive,
without just cause and made in bad faith”.
22.
On 1 July 2019, the player signed an employment contract with the Albanian club,
FC Tirana, valid as from 1 August 2019 until 31 May 2020, according to which the
player was entitled to a sign-on fee in the amount of EUR 5,000 and a monthly
salary in the amount of EUR 2,500
II.
Cons iderations of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC or the Chamber)
analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it
took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 27 May 2019 and
decided on 25 February 2020. Consequently, the 2019 edition of the Rules
Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute
Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter
at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the
Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in
combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (January 2020 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber would, in principle,
be competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a Kenyan player and an
Albanian club.
3.
However, the DRC acknowledged that the Respondent contested the competence of
FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of art. 18 of the contract highlighting that the
Player Ismael Salim Dunga, Kenya / Club KS Luftetari, Albania
Page 5 of 14
Albanian Football Association has an independent deciding body to deal with the
matter, i.e. the National Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Albanian Football
Association (hereinafter: Albanian NDRC).
4.
Taking into account all the above, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with
art. 22 lit b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, it is, in
principle, competent to deal with employment-related disputes of an international
dimension; the parties may, however, explicitly opt in writing for any disputes arisen
between them to be decided by an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing
fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of players and
clubs that has been established at national level within the framework of the
association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. Any such arbitration clause
must be included either directly in the contract or in a collective bargaining
agreement applicable on the parties. With regard to the standards to be imposed
on an independent arbitration tribunal existing at national level, the DRC referred
to the FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20 December 2005. Equally, the members of the
DRC referred to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution
Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008.
5.
With the aforementioned in mind, the Chamber first pointed out that, in the
present matter, indeed it would appear that the parties agreed, by means of art. 18
the contract, that the disputes arisen between them in relation to the employment
contract would be resolved by the Albanian NDRC.
6.
Nevertheless, and in accordance with said art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations, the DRC
emphasised that it needed to analyse whether the entire dispute resolution system
within the Albanian Football Association, actually complies with the requirements
as mentioned in point II./4. above. In so doing, the DRC recalled that, in accordance
with art. 12 par. 3 of the Regulations, it is for the Respondent to prove that the
Albanian NDRC is an independent tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings and which
respects the principle of equal representation of players and clubs.
7.
The Chamber further stressed that the principle of equal representation of players
and clubs is one of the very fundamental elements to be fulfilled, in order for a
national dispute resolution chamber to be recognised as such. Indeed, this
prerequisite is mentioned in the Regulations, in the FIFA Circular no. 1010 as well as
in art. 3 par. 1 of the NDRC Regulations, which illustrates the aforementioned
principle as follows: “The NDRC shall be composed of the following members, who
shall serve a four-year renewable mandate: a) a chairman and a deputy chairman
chosen by consensus by the player and club representatives (…); b) between three
and ten player representatives who are elected or appointed either on proposal of
the players’ associations affiliated to FIFPro, or, where no such associations exist, on
the basis of a selection process agreed by FIFA and FIFPro; c) between three and ten
Player Ismael Salim Dunga, Kenya / Club KS Luftetari, Albania
Page 6 of 14
club representatives (…).” In the same vein, the FIFA Circular no. 1010 states the
following: “The parties must have equal influence over the appointment of
arbitrators. This means for example that every party shall have the right to appoint
an arbitrator and the two appointed arbitrators appoint the chairman of the
arbitration tribunal (…). Where arbitrators are to be selected from a predetermined
list, every interest group that is represented must be able to exercise equal influence
over the compilation of the arbitrator list”.
8.
Taking into account the above, the members of the DRC entered into the
examination of the Albanian NDRC Regulations, which were submitted by the
Respondent during the course of the investigation of the matter at stake.
9.
In particular, the DRC judge observed in accordance with article 4 par. 2. lit. b of the
Albanian NDRC Regulations, the 5 members as player representatives are elected
“from a voting session organised by AFA, with the participation of two players from
each professional team, one which should be the captain of the team and the other
one should be the oldest player”.
10.
In this respect, the DRC noted that, from the above mentioned article of the
Albanian NDRC Regulations, the principle of equal representation of players and
clubs is not respected with regard to the appointment of the 5 members as player
representatives, as the election of these members can be heavily influenced by the
Albanian Football Association, which is organising the voting session.
11.
In view of all the above, the DRC established that the Respondent’s objection to the
competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected and that the
DRC is competent, on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players, to consider the present matter as to the substance.
12.
Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to
the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber confirmed that in
accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players (January 2020 edition), and considering that the claim was lodged on 27
May 2019, the June 2018 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter:
the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
13.
The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been
established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect,
the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the
arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. 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
Player Ismael Salim Dunga, Kenya / Club KS Luftetari, Albania
Page 7 of 14
assessment of the matter at hand. In particular, the Chamber recalled that, in
accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 3 of the Regulations, FIFA may use, within
the scope of proceedings pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any
documentation or evidence generated or contained in the TMS.
14.
Having said this, the Chamber proceeded with an analysis of the circumstances
surrounding the present matter, the parties’ arguments as well the documentation
on file.
15.
First of all, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that, on 30 August 2018,
the player and the club had concluded an employment contract valid as from 31
August 2018 until 30 June 2021, pursuant to which the club undertook to pay to the
player the remuneration, as established in point I.2 above.
16.
Furthermore, the members of the DRC took note of the fact that, on 6 May 2019,
the player had put the club in default of payment of the amount of 8,800,
corresponding to the unpaid part of the salary for January 2019 in the amount of
EUR 1,300 and the full salaries for February, March and April 2019 in the amount of
EUR 2,500 each, setting a deadline of 10 days in order to remedy the default.
17.
Moreover, the DRC took note that, according to the player, he had just cause to
unilaterally terminate the employment contract on 25 May 2019, since the club
failed to reply to his default notice sent on 6 May 2019 and since no payment had
been made by the latter in this respect. In this regard, the player affirmed that he
had no alternative but to terminate the contract and deemed that the club should
be held liable for the early termination of said contract.
18.
In continuation, the Chamber observed that the club claimed that the player
terminated the contract without just cause.
19.
Moreover, the DRC noted that the club argued that instead of referring to art. 14bis
of the Regulation in the default notice, the player referred to art. 12bis of the
Regulation, which according to the club was a clear indication that “the Claimant
just wanted to receive the outstanding amounts but he had no intention to
terminate his contract”. The Chamber further observed that the club stressed that
the player “actually agreed with KS Luftetari to sign an agreement providing for a
payment plan for the due amounts”.
20.
In light of the foregoing, the DRC considered that the underlying issue in this
dispute, considering the parties’ position, was to determine as to whether the
player had just cause to terminate the employment contract and to determine the
consequences thereof.
Player Ismael Salim Dunga, Kenya / Club KS Luftetari, Albania
Page 8 of 14
21.
In this context, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to refer to art. 12 par. 3 of the
Procedural Rules, according to which any party claiming a right on the basis of an
alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. The application of the
principle in the present matter led the Chamber to conclude that the player bore
the burden of proving his allegations regarding the work permit. However, in
regards to the outstanding payment, the Chamber pointed out that the Respondent
bore the burden of proving either the payment of the Claimant’s salaries or that it
had a valid reason for not having done so.
22.
Having said that, the Chamber observed that the player did not provide any further
information or any evidence for his allegations that the club did not arrange a “stay
as well as work permit” and therefore, the Chamber concluded that it could not
take these allegations into consideration.
23.
Furthermore, and concerning the club’s allegations that the parties agreed to
conclude an “agreement providing for a payment plan”, the Chamber observed
that the club did not provide any evidence for its arguments.
24.
With the above in mind, the Chamber highlighted that on the basis of the parties’
submissions, it could be noted that the club did not contest that, by the time the
player addressed it with his default letter on 6 May 2019, more than 3 monthly
salaries remained unpaid. Moreover the members of the DRC observed that it also
remained undisputed that the player provided the club with 10 days to remedy its
default and that the club never reacted to the default letter.
25.
On account of the above and taking into consideration the Chamber’s longstanding
jurisprudence in this respect, the Chamber decided that the Claimant had just cause
to unilaterally terminate the contract on 25 May 2019 and that the Respondent is to
be held liable for the early termination of the contract with just cause by the player.
26.
Having established that the club is to be held liable for the early termination of the
employment contract, the DRC focused its attention on the consequences of such
termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the DRC
established that the player is entitled to receive from the club compensation for
breach of contract, in addition to any outstanding payments on the basis of the
relevant employment contract.
27.
Along those lines, the DRC firstly referred to the player’s request regarding the
outstanding remuneration at the time of the unilateral termination of the
employment contract. In this respect, the DRC concurred that the club must fulfil its
obligations as per the employment contract in accordance with the general legal
principle of “pacta sunt servanda”.
Player Ismael Salim Dunga, Kenya / Club KS Luftetari, Albania
Page 9 of 14
28.
Consequently, and bearing in mind that the player terminated his employment
contract on 25 May 2019, the Chamber decided that the club is liable to pay to the
player outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 11,300, corresponding to
the player’s salaries for the months of February until May 2019..
29.
In addition, taking into account the player’s request and the DRC’s well-established
jurisprudence, the Chamber decided that the club must pay to the player 5%
interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
on the amount of EUR 1,300, as from 1 February 2019;
on the amount of EUR 2,500, as from 1 March 2019;
on the amount of EUR 2,500, as from 1 April 2019;
on the amount of EUR 2,500, as from 1 May 2019;
on the amount of EUR 2,500, as from 1 June 2019.
30.
Moreover, and taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the
Chamber decided that the player is entitled to receive compensation for breach of
contract from the club.
31.
In continuation, the DRC focused his attention on the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract due to the Claimant by the Respondent in the
case at stake. In doing so, the DRC 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.
32.
In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to
clarify whether the pertinent employment contract contained any clause, by means
of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon a compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber
observed that the employment contract does not contain any such clause.
33.
As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the club to the player had to be assessed in application of
the parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. Bearing in mind the
foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to
Player Ismael Salim Dunga, Kenya / Club KS Luftetari, Albania
Page 10 of 14
the player under the terms of the employment contract as from its termination and
concluded that the player would have been entitled to receive EUR 86,500 as
remuneration had the employment contract been executed until its regular expiry
date, i.e. 30 June 2021. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of
EUR 86,500 serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.
34.
In continuation, the Chamber assessed 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 able to reduce his loss of income. In this
respect, the DRC deemed it necessary to refer to the first sentence of art. 17 par. 1
lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in case the player signed a new
contract by the time of the decision, the value of the new contract for the period
corresponding to the time remaining on the prematurely terminated contract shall
be deducted from the residual value of the contract that was terminated early (the
”Mitigated Compensation”).
23.
In respect of the above, and according to the information provided by the player,
the Chamber recalled that, on 1 July 2019, the Claimant signed an employment
contract with the Albanian club, FC Tirana, valid as from 1 August 2019 until 31 May
2020 according to which, he was entitled to, inter alia, a sign-on fee in the amount
of EUR 5,000 and a monthly salary in the amount of EUR 2,500. On account of the
above, such amount shall be deducted, leading to a mitigated compensation in the
amount of EUR 56,500.
35.
Subsequently, the Chamber turned its attention to the second sentence of art. 17
par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in addition to the mitigated
compensation, the player shall be entitled to an additional compensation of three
monthly salaries, subject to the early termination of the contract being due to
overdue payables.
36.
Therefore, taking into consideration the player’s monthly salary under the
prematurely terminated contract, which the DRC deemed to be EUR 3,029
calculated as an average amount received per month, the Chamber decided to
award the Claimant an additional compensation in the amount of EUR 9,087, in
accordance with the above-mentioned provision.
37.
Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber
decided that the club must pay the amount of EUR 65,587 as compensation for
breach of contract to the player, which is considered by the Chamber to be a fair
and reasonable amount.
Player Ismael Salim Dunga, Kenya / Club KS Luftetari, Albania
Page 11 of 14
38.
In addition, taking into consideration the player’s claim, the Chamber decided to
award the player interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of the claim, i.e. 27
May 2019, until the date of effective payment.
39.
Therefore, the DRC decided to partially accept the player’s claim and concluded its
deliberations by rejecting any further claim of the player.
40.
Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./12. above, the
Chamber referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis 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.
41.
In this regard, the Chamber pointed out 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 and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
42.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the
Respondent does not pay the amounts due to the Claimant within 45 days as from
the moment in which the Claimant, following the notification of the present
decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the 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 effective
on the Respondent in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
43.
Finally, the Chamber 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. 3 of the Regulations.
Player Ismael Salim Dunga, Kenya / Club KS Luftetari, Albania
Page 12 of 14
III.
Decision of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Ismael Salim Dunga, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, KS Luftetari, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 11,300,
plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
on the amount of EUR 1,300, as from 1 February 2019;
on the amount of EUR 2,500, as from 1 March 2019;
on the amount of EUR 2,500, as from 1 April 2019;
on the amount of EUR 2,500, as from 1 May 2019;
on the amount of EUR 2,500, as from 1 June 2019.
4.
The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant compensation for breach of contract in
the amount of EUR 65,587, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 27 May 2019 until the date
of effective payment.
5.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
6.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent, immediately and directly,
preferably to the email address as indicated on the cover letter of the present
decision, of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the
amounts plus interest mentioned under points 3. and 4. above.
7.
The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amounts in
accordance with points 3. and 4. above to FIFA to the e-mail address
[email protected], duly translated into one of the official FIFA languages (English,
French, German, Spanish).
8.
In the event that the amounts due in accordance with points 3. and 4. above are not
paid by the Respondent w ithin 45 day s as from the notification by the Claimant of
the relevant bank details to the Respondent, the Respondent shall be banned from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due
amounts are paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive
registration periods (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players).
9.
The ban mentioned in point 8. above will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving, once the due amounts are paid.
Player Ismael Salim Dunga, Kenya / Club KS Luftetari, Albania
Page 13 of 14
10.
In the event that the amounts due in accordance with points 3. and 4. above are still
not paid by the end of the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods,
the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary
Committee for consideration and a formal decision.
*****
Note related to the publication:
The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the Players’ Status Committee or
the DRC. Where such decisions contain confidential information, 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 20 of the Rules Governing the
Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).
Note relating to the m otiv ated decision (legal remedy):
According to art. 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against
before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to
the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain
all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS. Within
another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal,
the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the
appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives).
The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
Avenue de Beaumont 2, CH-1012 Lausanne
Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00
e-mail: [email protected]
www.tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Player Ismael Salim Dunga, Kenya / Club KS Luftetari, Albania
Page 14 of 14