Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-19877
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 5 March 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Busra Kenet
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
CLAIMANT:
Busra Kenet, Türkiye
Represented by Muhammed Emin Ozkurt
RESPONDENT:
Klubi i Futbollit Vllaznia, Albania
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-19877
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 3 August 2024, the Turkish player, Busra Kenet (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant)
and the Albanian club, Klubi i Futbollit Vllaznia (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent)
entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid for the 2024/2025
season.
2.
The parties agreed on a monthly net salary of EUR 1,320.
3.
On 8 August 2024, the Player arrived in Albania and joined the team on 9 August 2024,
4.
On 28 August 2024, the parties had the following conversation on WhatsApp:
-
Club: “Hello Busra. I talked to the technical staff about the goalkeepers because we need
2 goalkeepers for the Champions League. They are of the opinion that the level of the
other two goalkeepers is higher than your level and the injury problems may have affected
your form. I can take you with the team in the Champions League only out of respect
because the staff is thinking about the other two goalkeepers for the game. In an hour I
have to close the team ticket list and tell me which is better for you to come for a walk or
return to Istanbul.”
-
Player: “Hello. I would be happy if you would buy my ticket to Istanbul.”
-
Club: “Ok. We will get your ticket to Istanbul. I'm sorry, but this was not in our hands. The
long time you haven't played and the injuries you've had have affected you. We will
terminate your contract so that you are a free agent so that you don't have any
obstacles to signing with another team.”(Emphasis added)
-
Player: “Ok my manager will contact you.”
-
Club: “Based on the contract we made, the contract comes into force when the player
passes the medical tests. The club doctor does not give the ok to continue the contract
because you came after the injury and are not able to continue with the team. Tell me
whether we will take him to the bank or you will take him. The manager should be honest
and should not transfer players who are not in shape and have problems with injuries.”
-
Player: “You have to buy it for me because I can't.”
-
Club: “I’ll prepare the termination of the contract and then we’ll get the ticket. Will we get
it on the plane ticket or will you get it yourself?”
-
Player: “Please contact my agent.”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-19877
-
Club: “I don't care about the manager because he wouldn't bring an injured player and
create problems for us. If you wanted, we could take the ticket and terminate the contract
with Vllaznia. Think about it and tell me what you're going to do because you can stay
until Saturday because then the house will be released.”
-
Player: “As of this season, we have completed a certain period of the contract
between us. However, since you do not fulfill your obligations, it seems impossible for this
union to go through season after season. I recommend the mutual termination of the
contract so that both parties can get through this situation with the least damage.I would
like to inform you that if you give up some of my rights in the contract, I will refrain from
using other legal remedies.I will await your comments on this matter. Good evening.”
[…]
5.
-
Player: “As I mentioned in the previous message. We terminate the contract between
us bilaterally by agreeing on the terms.”
-
Club: “What conditions are we talking about?”
-
Player: “Whatever is necessary. Whatever the conditions.”
-
Club: “We can terminate the contract with you, seeing that it is in your best interest for
you to feel better because, unfortunately, you did not manage to get a place in goal for
the reasons that you and I have discussed. We can take your ticket to Istanbul plus
give you 50% of a monthly salary because the costs for you since the moment you
arrived at the team are around 2,000 euros and the team is suffering from this amount
because you have not contributed to the team having results in the Champions
League. On the contrary, you can continue with the team until the end of the first phase,
as it is also in the contract that one of the parties can terminate the contract. During
this period, you can train with the team and if you reach optimal form, you can become
part of the formation. If you continue with poor performance, you and your players
will be fined and the salary will be based on the contract and the club's regulations which
have been deposited in the FSHF and are mandatory for each player. For the month
of August, the entire team will be fined for not achieving qualification in the
Champions League.”
-
Player: “I suggested a bilateral termination, but not under these conditions. You say you
will pay me half my salary, I have been here for a month and the money I have received
from my family is much more. We agree on the conditions in accordance with half of
my annual fee and my ticket to Istanbul. Thank you for everything in case it does not
happen.”
On 5 September 2024, the Player sent the following letter to the Club:
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-19877
“I am returning to my country on Tuesday 10.09.2024 due to the fact that the problems between
us have not been resolved, the problems we have had in communicating with the president of
the Vllaznia women's football team club, my salary has not been paid despite the fact that a
month has passed from the contract and no information has been given on this issue. I would
like to inform you of this situation with an official document. I would also like to state that I will
apply to the necessary channels and that the law will decide on justice.”
6.
On 10 September 2024, the Player returned to Istanbul.
7.
On 16 September 2024, the Player filed a claim before the National Dispute Resolution
Chamber of Albania (hereinafter: the NDRC Decision).
II. Proceedings before FIFA
8.
On 11 July 2025, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the parties’
respective positions is detailed below.
a. Claim of the Claimant
9.
The Player alleged that the Club failed to provide medical treatment for her injury, explicitly
informed her that she would not play and should leave the country, excluded her from all
team activities and training, and cut off basic support, including housing. The Player argued
that the above conduct constituted a fundamental breach of the Contract.
10. The Player also claimed that she had put the Club in default with her letter of 5 September
2024 and that she terminated the Contract by issuing her flight ticket back to Istanbul.
11. In addition, the Player alleged that no salary payment was ever made to her.
12. In view of the above, the Player requested the following relief:
“Declare that the Claimant had just cause to terminate the Employment Contract on 10
September 2024 due to the Respondent’s breaches, and consequently that the Respondent is
liable for breach of contract without just cause.
Order the Respondent to pay the Claimant compensation for breach of contract in the
amount of 13.200.-EUR, as compensation corresponding to the residual value of the Contract
(10 months × EUR 1,320) that remained unearned by the Claimant due to the early
termination, or such higher amount as the FIFA DRC deems just and proper. This amount
includes the Claimant’s unpaid salary entitlements and is to be paid in full net of any taxes.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-19877
Order the Respondent to pay interest on the above amount of compensation at the rate of
5% per annum, starting from 10 September 2024 until the date of effective payment, in
accordance with the FIFA regulations.
Award the Claimant additional compensation in an amount equivalent to three months of
her salary (3.960.-EUR), in view of the severe emotional distress, humiliation, and reputational
harm she suffered as a result of the Respondent’s conduct. This request is made pursuant to
Article 17(1) of the FIFA RSTP, which permits an award of up to three monthly salaries as
additional compensation (extendable to six months only in truly exceptional cases). The
particularly egregious and abusive nature of the Respondent’s actions warrants an award of
moral damages at the maximum level allowed under the standard FIFA framework. Such an
award would serve to compensate the Claimant for the intangible harm to her person and
career caused by the Respondent’s breach and is consistent with FIFA/CAS jurisprudence in
cases of severe club wrongdoing.
Order the Respondent to reimburse the Claimant for her costs and expenses in the amount
of 2.500.-EUR, or an amount to be determined ex aequo et bono by the Chamber, covering
out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the Claimant (such as medical expenses for
self-treatment, travel costs to return to Turkey after eviction, and other related expenditures
resulting from the Respondent’s breaches).
Impose appropriate sporting sanctions on the Respondent club for breach of contract within
the protected period, in accordance with Article 17 of the FIFA RSTP. In particular, the
Claimant requests that the FIFA DRC impose a transfer ban on the Respondent for two (2)
complete and consecutive registration periods, given the severity of the breach and the clear
evidence of abusive conduct leading to the premature termination of the Contract.
Order that the Respondent shall bear all FIFA procedural costs (if any) and any advance of
costs or legal fees incurred by the Claimant in connection with these proceedings. Although
the procedure is free of charge for the Claimant, to the extent that any administrative or
procedural fees are assessed, the Claimant asks that the Respondent be held solely liable for
such costs.
Provide any other relief the Chamber deems just and proper under the circumstances to
remedy the Claimant’s situation and uphold the principles of fairness and contract stability”.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-19877
b. Reply of the Respondent
13. The Club disputed the admissibility of the claim, alleging that it has been affected by res
judicata or it shall be inadmissible due to forum shopping.
Res judicata
14. In its reply, the Club argued that the present claim shall be declared inadmissible as the
matter has already been adjudicated with res judicata effected by the NDRC of Albania.
15. The Club argued that it was the Player herself who lodged the claim before the NDRC of
Albania requesting compensation for breach of contract.
16. On 11 November 2024, the NDRC of Albania rendered its decision stating the following:
-
“Partial acceptance of the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff Busra Kenet.
-
Obligation of the defendant “Women’s Football Club Vllaznia” to pay the plaintiff Busra
Kenet one month’s salary in the amount of 1,320 (one thousand three hundred and
twenty) Euros gross as unpaid salary.
-
Rejection of the lawsuit for the remaining part of the claim.
-
The parties are charged with the legal expenses proportionally to the accepted and
rejected parts.
-
An appeal against this decision may be filed with the Court of Arbitration for Sport,
recognised by FSHF, CAS in Lausanne, Switzerland, within 21 days from the day after the
notification of the reasoned decision.”
17. In this regard, the Club claimed that the present claim has been affected by res judicata or
forum shopping.
18. Regarding the res judicata, the Club argued that the present claim is identical to the one
presented before the NDRC of Albania and provided the following table:
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-19877
Category
First claim before the AFA
Second claim before FIFA
Parties
Claimant: The Player
Respondent: Vllaznia Femrave
Events of 3 August 2024 – 10
September 2024, from the
conclusion of the employment
contract through until the date
of termination.
The termination of the Contract
by the Player.
The Player terminated the
contract with just cause.
Claimant: The Player
Respondent: Vllaznia Femrave
Events of 3 August 2024 – 10
September 2024, from the
conclusion of the employment
contract through until the date
of termination.
The termination of the
Contract by the Player.
The Player terminated the
contract with just cause.
Factual
matter
Causa
petendi
Legal
argument
19. The Club further argued that “in relation to the Player’s annexes submitted with the FIFA Claim,
the Club finds it important to highlight the notable omission of the letters and emails23
previously submitted to the AFA NDRC. These documents, evidently withheld, would have
revealed the existence of the Player’s earlier claim and the decision already rendered in that
regard. In any event, a direct comparison between the two sets of proceedings confirms that the
Player has submitted materially identical claims before two separate deciding bodies, without
raising any new facts before FIFA that would justify a re-opening or assessment of the matter.”
20. In addition, the Club claimed that the NDRC Decision expressly informed both parties of
their right to appeal to CAS within 21 days, yet the Player chose not to exercise this right,
and the NDRC Decision became final and binding.
21. In view of the above, the Club concluded that all the conditions for res judicata were fulfilled
in order to declare the claim inadmissible.
Forum shopping
22. Subsidiarily, the Club alleged that the present claim shall be declared inadmissible due to
forum shopping.
23. In this regard, the Club argued that the Player after obtaining a favourable decision from
the NDRC of Albania, she turned to FIFA to seek unjust compensation which is a clear
example of forum shopping.
24. The Club claimed that the Player tried to game the system by having the same case heard
before multiple fora, namely the NDRC of Albania as well as the FIFA DRC. In particular, the
Club stated the following:
“First, as demonstrated in the comparison table previously submitted, the Club underlines
once again that the Player’s claims before the AFA NDRC and FIFA are materially identical,
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-19877
based on identical facts and identical legal arguments. The Player initially brought the dispute
to a competent local body and then the very same issue with FIFA.
Second, there is clear evidence of bad faith on the part of the Player. She failed to disclose in
her FIFA Claim that the same dispute had already been brought before the AFA NDRC, omitting
any reference to her prior communications with that body and the AFA Decision.
Therefore, one can only conclude that her failure to mention this earlier proceeding seems
intended to withhold important information from the DRC and avoid the finality of the AFA
Decision, in an effort to claim more compensation than was previously awarded.
Consequently, the Club submits that the DRC should abide by its well‑established
jurisprudence in this matter and declare the Player’s claim inadmissible on the grounds of
unlawful forum shopping.”
25. In view of the above, the Club requested the following relief:
“On account of all the foregoing, KF Vllaznia respectfully requests the FIFA Dispute Resolution
Chamber to issue a decision, establishing that:
I.
Primarily, the claim filed by Player Busra Kenet is inadmissible because it is barred by
res judicata.
II.
Subsidiarily, the claim filed by Player Busra Kenet is inadmissible on grounds of unlawful
forum shopping.
III.
More subsidiarily, should the FIFA DRC consider the claim filed by Player Busra Kenet to
be admissible, the claim should be rejected.”
c. Replica of the Claimant
26. In brief, the Player argued the following:
(i)
FIFA indisputably has jurisdiction over this international employment dispute, as
the parties never agreed to any exclusive national arbitration clause capable of
displacing FIFA’s competence.
(ii)
The Player’s submission of the claim to the FIFA DRC constitutes a legitimate and
necessary pursuit of justice, not forum shopping, particularly in light of the Club’s
bad‑faith conduct and the fundamentally deficient hearing she faced at domestic
level.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-19877
(iii)
The proceedings before the NDRC of Albania were compromised by serious
procedural irregularities, including arbitrary conduct by the decision‑makers and
a failure to safeguard the Player’s right to a fair and impartial process.
(iv)
The Club’s belated payment of EUR 1,320, made only after the FIFA claim was filed,
neither remedies the breaches nor extinguishes the Player’s right to full relief,
including outstanding remuneration and any additional compensation due.
27. The Player argued that according to art. 22 par. 1 al. c) of the Regulations, the DRC has
jurisdiction over the present dispute unless the parties explicitly and in writing opted for a
national dispute forum in the Contract. Considering that in the present case the Contract
does not contain any exclusive arbitration agreement in favour of the NDRC of Albania, the
FIFA DRC is competent to entertain the claim.
28. The Player also claimed that the “without a FIFA-valid arbitration clause, the AFA NDRC was
not an exclusive forum but rather a permissive one at best. The Claimant’s initial resort to the
NDRC does not retroactively supply the missing contractual consent. […] The lesson is clear:
exclusive jurisdiction is never presumes- it must be unequivocally agreed. Here, the Claimant
never agreed to foreclose the jurisdiction of FIFA. To the contrary, by FIFA rule her right to FIFA
DRC adjudication was preserved. Therefore, the AFA NDRC decision cannot attain the status of
a res judicata bar in the FIFA forum, as it was not delivered by a body chosen in the manner that
FIFA regulations and CAS jurisprudence require.”
29. In addition, the Player claimed that the proceedings before the NDRC of Albania were
“fatally flawed in terms of procedural fairness, which further undermines the finality or
enforceability of its outcome.” In particular, the Player argued that the hearing that took
place on 11 November 2024 demonstrated a gross violation of the right to a fair hearing
and cast doubts on the impartiality of the members of the panel. In addition, she claimed
that she did not receive a proper adjudication on the merits in a fair forum in Albania and
“she received only the façade of one”.
30. Regarding the res judicata issue, the Player argued that the requests for relief are not
identical as the one before FIFA seeks full compensation for breach of contract as well as
moral damages for the abuse she suffered, “far exceeding the token amount awarded by the
NDRC of Albania.”
31. In addition, regarding the forum shopping allegations, the Player argued that she did not
act in bad faith. She claims having acted in good faith and that it is not proven that she
deliberately sought to undermine the integrity of the dispute resolution system (hence not
having engaged in “unlawful forum shopping”).
32. The Player argued that her resort to the FIFA DRC came only after it became clear that the
NDRC of Albania had failed to provide her adequate relief or a truly fair consideration. In
particular the Player argued that:
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-19877
-
The NDRC of Albania’s decision was grossly insufficient considering the harm
suffered and it did not compensate her for the termination of her contract and the
harm she suffered;
-
The proceedings in Albania had left her feeling that her voice was not heard and that
“It was reasonable for her to conclude that a neutral international body (FIFA DRC) would
be better positioned to impartially assess her claims.”
-
Appealing the case before CAS would not be viable considering her financial situation
as she was left without an income;
-
She waited 8 months after the NDRC Decision was issued waiting to see whether the
Club would remedy the situation “beyond the bare minimum of a delayed salary
payment”, which shows that her decision to lodge a claim before FIFA was deliberate
and not an opportunistic gamble.
33. Furthermore, the Player argued that she did not explicitly mention the NDRC Decision at
her statement of claim as she considered the present proceeding as a de novo proceeding
on an international dispute that should have been assessed independently. In addition, the
Player argued that “recounting the NDRC saga – with all its distressing details – was not seen
as legally necessary to establish the claim for breach of contract. In hindsight, the Claimant
recognizes that transparency about the prior case would have been preferable to pre-empt the
Respondent’s objections. However, this omission must be viewed in context. It does not evidence
bad faith; it evidences the Claimant’s understanding (albeit legally contested by the Respondent)
that the NDRC decision was not determinative of her rights. The Claimant had nothing to gain
from “hiding” the NDRC matter – the Respondent was obviously aware of it and has raised it
here, so it was inevitable that the FIFA tribunal would consider it.”
34. In essence, the Player argued that there was no deliberate concealment to get ‘two bites’ as
there is a clear absence of bad faith.
35. In view of the above, the Player requested the following reliefs:
“Primarily, to reject the Respondent’s procedural objections and declare that the FIFA DRC has
jurisdiction and that the Claimant’s claim is admissible, not barred by res judicata and not
an instance of forum shopping;
Subsequently, to proceed to adjudicate the merits of the claim, and to uphold the Claimant’s
claim by finding that the Respondent breached the employment contract without just cause
and that the Claimant had just cause to terminate due to the Respondent’s abuses (pursuant
to Articles 14 and 14(2) of the FIFA RSTP);
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-19877
Consequently, to condemn the Respondent to pay the Claimant all amounts claimed as per
the Statement of Claim (outstanding salaries, compensatory damages, moral damages), plus
interest as applicable, and to impose sporting/disciplinary sanctions on the Respondent if
warranted by the FIFA regulations for non-payment within the set deadline;
In any event, to order the Respondent to bear the costs of these proceedings as per the FIFA
Procedural Rules, and to bear its own legal costs, given its conduct necessitated this additional
litigation”.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
36. In its duplica, the Club argued that the Player voluntarily chose to bring the matter before
the NDRC of Albania in September 2024. Contrary to the Player’s arguments, the Club
claimed that once a party seizes the NDRC and its jurisdiction is not contested, the NDRC
may adjudicate the dispute, even in the absence of an exclusive jurisdiction clause.
37. In addition, the Club alleged that the Player’s current attempt to challenge the competence
of the NDRC of Albania before the DRC stands in clear contradiction to her earlier conduct
and violates the principle of venire contra factum propium. Having actively pursued the claim
before the NDRC of Albania without ever objecting the proceedings, the Player cannot now
seek to discredit that forum because she is dissatisfied with the outcome.
38. In conclusion, the Club argued that the Player’s arguments further reinforce the Club’s
position regarding the Player’s increasingly inconsistent procedural strategy. A final and
binding decision by the NDRC of Albania has already resolved the dispute, and the Club has
fully complied with that decision. Therefore, the Club concluded that the DRC shall declare
the claim inadmissible.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-19877
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
39. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the 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 11 July 2025 and submitted for decision on 5
March 2026. Taking into account the wording of arts. 32 and 35 of the January 2026 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.
40. Furthermore, 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 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) (July 2025
edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is in principle competent to deal with the matter
at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension
between an Turkish player and a Albanian club.
b. Admissibility
41. At this point, the Chamber noted that the Respondent objected to the admissibility of the
present claim, alleging that an identical dispute between the parties had already been
decided upon by the NDRC of Albania on 11 November 2024 and, as such, FIFA would no
longer be allowed to deal with the claim at stake by virtue of the application of the legal
principle of res judicata.
42. In view of the above, the Chamber had to establish whether, considering the general
principle of res judicata, it could enter into the substance of the matter and pass a decision.
Accordingly, the Chamber recalled that on the basis of the principle of res judicata, a
decision-making body is not in a position to deal with the substance of a case in the event
that another – competent – deciding body has already dealt with the same matter by
passing a final and binding decision.
43. In this regard, the Chamber went on to analyse the evidence on file regarding the previous
decision allegedly passed in an identical matter. In this respect, the Chamber observed that
indeed a decision had been passed by a competent deciding body, i.e. the NDRC of Albania
on 11 November 2024 and is by now final and binding.
44. Furthermore, the Chamber underlined that the principle of res judicata is applicable if
cumulatively and necessarily the parties to the disputes and the object of the matter in
dispute are identical. In this respect, we recall that the criterion of the identity of the parties
is given if the parties to the disputes are the same. Having said this, the Chamber noted
that both the Claimant and the Respondent were the parties in the proceedings leading to
the decision previously rendered as well as in the dispute at stake. As a consequence,
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-19877
considering that the parties to both disputes are the same, the Chamber concludes that
the condition of the identity of parties is fulfilled.
45. Regarding the criterion of the object of the matter in dispute, the Chamber recalled that
the identity of the subject matter is fulfilled if the reason to claim and the relevant requests
of the two claims are analogous. When comparing the claim previously lodged in front of
the NDRC of Albania and the one at hand, the Chamber noted that both claims derived
from the Contract and contained a request for relief for an outstanding salary and
compensation for breach of contract. However, the 2 requests for relief do have some
differences as in the claim lodged before FIFA, the Player also requested moral damages.
Below a comparison of the two requests for relief:
NDRC of Albania
FIFA DRC
EUR 13,200 as compensation for breach of
contract.
EUR 13,200 as compensation for breach of
contract plus 5% interest.
EUR 1,300 as reimbursement of expenses
EUR 3,960 for moral damages
EUR 2,500 as reimbursement of expenses
Sporting sanctions
46. However, the Chamber considered that the mere fact that the Player introduced a slightly
broader request for relief in the proceedings before FIFA, by adding a claim for moral
damages, does not alter the essential nature of the dispute nor the core purpose of her
claim. In line with well-established jurisprudence, the identity of the object of two claims is
not necessarily affected when the claimant supplements or adjusts the scope of the
request for relief, provided that the factual basis and the substantive rights invoked remain
the same. The Chaber deemed that the request for moral damages does not transform the
character of the original claim, which fundamentally concerns the alleged non-payment of
salary and the alleged breach of the employment contract by the Club.
47. In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that the object of the dispute remained
identical in both sets of proceedings. In both cases, the Player sought redress arising from
the same contractual relationship, relied on the same alleged breach by the Club, and
requested compensation for the same breach. The additional request for moral damages,
as mentioned above, does not affect this assessment. Thus, the claims share an identical
object for the purposes of the res judicata analysis. As a result, the Chamber decided that
the criterion of identity of objects is fully satisfied.
48. Consequently, the Chamber considered that the object of the claim was the same in both
proceedings, namely both claims were based on the same employment relationship, same
breach and same requests and therefore the criteria of identity of objects had also been
fulfilled.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-19877
49. Therefore, as an a priori competent deciding body has already dealt with the exact same
matter, passing a final and binding decision, the present case was affected by res judicata
and FIFA is not in a position to deal again with the substance of the dispute. The claim is
thus inadmissible.
c. Costs
50. 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.
51. 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.
52. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-19877
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Busra Kenet, is inadmissible.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-19877
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to art. 50 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., art. 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 17