Acórdão do FIFA, processo FPSD-22258 CELESTINE_2026-03-16

Data

16/03/2026

Fonte

inside.fifa.com

Labour Disputes

Texto da decisão

REF. FPSD-22258

Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 16 March 2026
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Julien
Celestine

BY:
Michele COLUCCI (Italy)

CLAIMANT:
Julien Celestine, France
Represented by Union Nationale des Footballeurs Professionnels (unfp)

RESPONDENT:
APOLLON LIMASSOL, Cyprus
Represented by Alkis Papantoniou

pg. 2

REF. FPSD-22258

I. Facts of the case
1.

On 24 May 2024, the French player, Julien Celestine (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant)
and the Cypriot club, Apollon Limassol (hereinafter: the Club or the Respondent) entered into
an employment contract (hereinafter: the Contract) valid as from 1 July 2024 until 30 June
2026.

On 31 January 2025, the parties signed a mutual termination agreement (hereinafter: the
Termination Agreement) and agreed on a compensation of EUR 142,000 net payable as
follows:
-

EUR 22,000 payable on 5 February 2025;
EUR 20,000 payable on 1 March 2025;
EUR 20,000 payable on 1 April 2025;
EUR 20,000 payable on 1 May 2025;
EUR 20,000 payable on 1 June 2025;
EUR 20,000 payable on 2 July 2025;
EUR 20,000 payable on 1 August 2025.

According to clause D of the Termination Agreement, the parties agreed as follow:
“In case any of the payment referred above is not made by the Club, strictly within ten (10)
working days from the agreed date of payment, then the Player shall have the right to send a
default notice to the Club for the payment of the due amount. If the Club does not settle the
payment within 5 days it shall pay a penalty of 20% one from the amount of each due late
instalment.”

On 12 February 2025, the Player received the payment of the first instalment of EUR 22,000.

On 24 March 2025, the Player sent a default notice to the Club for the payment of EUR
20,000 due on 1 March 2025 and gave a 5-day deadline to comply with its default. In
addition, the Player reminded the Club that in case of non-payment within the stipulated
deadline the penalty of 20% will be activated.

On 11 April 2025, the Club paid the amount of EUR 20,000 to the Player.

On 18 April 2025, the Player sent a default notice to the Club for the payment of EUR 20,000
due on 1 April 2025 as well as EUR 4,000 corresponding to the 10% late penalty fee of the
instalment due on 1 March 2025. The Player gave a 5-day deadline to the Club to comply
with its default.

On 19 May 2025, the Player sent a default notice to the Club for the following amounts
giving it a 5-day deadline to comply with its default (quoted verbatim):

pg. 3

REF. FPSD-22258

“4 000 EUR corresponding to the 20% late payment interest of 20 000 EUR payable on
01/03/2025 which has already been claimed in the formal notice sent on 18 April 2025;

20 000 EUR corresponding to the third instalment payable on 01/04/2025 which remained
unpaid in the time limit following the formal notice dated 18 April 2025, and 4 000 EUR
corresponding to the 20% interest payable as a result of the non-payment of said amount;

20 000 EUR payable on 01/05/2025.”

On 18 June 2025, the Player sent another default notice to the Club for the following
amounts giving a 5-day deadline to the Club to comply with its default (quoted verbatim):
-

“4 000 EUR corresponding to the 20% late payment interest of 20 000 EUR payable on
01/03/2025 which has already been claimed in the formal notice sent on 18 April 2025;

20 000 EUR corresponding to the third instalment payable on 01/05/2025 which remained
unpaid in the time limit following the formal notice dated 19 May 2025, and 4 000 EUR
corresponding to the 20% interest payable as a result of the non‑payment of said amount;

20 000 EUR payable on 01/06/2025.”

10. On 17 July 2025, the Player sent a new default notice to the Club for the following amounts
giving it a 5-day deadline to comply with its default (quoted verbatim):
-

“4 000 EUR corresponding to the 20% late payment interest of 20 000 EUR payable on
01/03/2025 which has already been claimed in the formal notice sent on 18 April 2025;

20 000 EUR corresponding to the third instalment payable on 01/06/2025 which remained
unpaid in the time limit following the formal notice dated 18 June 2025, and 4 000 EUR
corresponding to the 20% interest payable as a result of the non‑payment of said amount;

20 000 EUR payable on 01/07/2025.”

pg. 4

REF. FPSD-22258

11. On 25 July 2025, the Club paid the amount of EUR 40,000 to the Player.
12. On 14 August 2025, the Player sent a default notice to the Club for the following amounts
giving it a 5-day deadline to comply with its default (quoted verbatim):
“I am still waiting for payment of the following interests:
-

4 000 EUR corresponding to the 20% late payment interest of 20 000 EUR payable on
01/03/2025;

4 000 EUR corresponding to the 20% late payment interest of 20 000 EUR payable on
01/04/2025;

4 000 EUR corresponding to the 20% late payment interest of 20 000 EUR payable on
01/05/2025;

4 000 EUR corresponding to the 20% late payment interest of 20 000 EUR payable on
01/06/2025.

Furthermore, I still did not receive:
-

20 000 EUR corresponding to the sixth instalment payable on 01/07/2025, and 4 000 EUR
corresponding to the 20% interest payable as a result of the non‑payment of said amount;

20 000 EUR payable on 01/08/2025.”

pg. 5

REF. FPSD-22258

II. Proceedings before FIFA
13. On 9 December 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
14. The Player lodged the present claim with FIFA for the payment of penalty fees that arose
from the Termination Agreement.
15. The Player claimed that for every instalment due from 1 March 2025 until 1 August 2025
(i.e. 6 instalments in total), the Club was in default and did not pay timely despite the default
notices sent to it by the Player.
16. In addition, the Player underlined that even if the Club eventually paid the amounts due,
this would not discharge it from its obligation to pay the penalties that arose from the late
payments and stipulated in the Termination Agreement.
17. In particular, the Player alleged that he is entitled to the following amounts:
-

The late-payment penalty of EUR 4,000 related to the non-payment of the March
instalment within five days following receipt of the letter dated 24 March 2025.

The late-payment penalty of EUR 4,000 related to the non-payment of the April
instalment within five days following receipt of the letter dated 18 April 2025.

The late-payment penalty of EUR 4,000 related to the non-payment of the May
instalment within five days following receipt of the letter dated 19 May 2025.

The late-payment penalty of EUR 4,000 related to the non-payment of the June
instalment within five days following receipt of the letter dated 18 June 2025.

The late-payment penalty of EUR 4,000 related to the non-payment of the July
instalment within five days following receipt of the letter dated 17 July 2025.

The late-payment penalty of EUR 4,000 related to the non-payment of the August
instalment within five days following receipt of the letter dated 14 August 2025.

18. Finally, the Player requested the following amounts (quoted verbatim):
« En conséquence des faits et arguments exposés ci‑dessus, le Joueur invite respectueusement
la CRL de la FIFA à ordonner au Club de payer les montants suivants :

pg. 6

REF. FPSD-22258

4000 EUR NET au titre de la pénalité de retard correspondant à l’échéance de mars, + 5% p.a
à compter du 1er avril 2025;
4000 EUR NET au titre de la pénalité de retard correspondant à l’échéance d’avril, + 5% p.a à
compter du 1er mai 2025;
4000 EUR NET au titre de la pénalité de retard correspondant à l’échéance de mai, + 5% p.a
à compter du 1er juin 2025;
4000 EUR NET au titre de la pénalité de retard correspondant à l’échéance de juin, + 5% p.a
à compter du 1er juillet 2025;
4000 EUR NET au titre de la pénalité de retard correspondant à l’échéance de juillet, + 5% p.a
à compter du 1er août 2025;
4000 EUR NET au titre de la pénalité de retard correspondant à l’échéance d’août, + 5% p.a à
compter du 1er septembre 2025;
3000 EUR de frais de justice. »

b. Reply of the Respondent
19. In its reply, the Club clarified that the 3 pre-requisites for the penalty clause to be activated
are the following:
(a) if the club has delayed the payment of the due amount for more than – strictly
– 10 working days;
(b) That the Player sends a default notice to the Club after these 10 working days,
offering the Club 5 days to complete the payment;
(c) That the Club fails to complete the payment after these 5 working days.
20. Having established the above, the Club alleged that the penalty arising from the instalment
of 1 August 2025 shall be rejected.
21. In particular, the Club claimed that the Player sent a default notice to the Club on 14 August
2025 for the non-payment of the instalment that fell due on 1 August 2025.
22. However, the Club alleged that in order to validly activate the penalty clause of the
Termination Agreement, the Player should have sent the relevant default notice at least
and strictly after 10 working days during which the amount was due.

pg. 7

REF. FPSD-22258

23. In this regard, and since Saturday and Sunday are non-working days in Cyprus, from 2
August 2025 (the day that the amount became overdue) until 14 August 2025 (when the
default notice was sent), only 9 working days had passed (4- 8 August & 11- 14 August). In
view of the above, the Club argued that the penalty amount was not activated for the
instalment due on 1 August 2025.
24. Furthermore, the Club contended that since the last default notice sent in August 2025 and
until the day the Club received the claim, the Player had not contacted the Club. In this
regard, the Club considered that it was left with the legitimate expectation that the Player
would not proceed with the claim of the penalties.
25. Specifically, the Club stated the following (quoted verbatim):
“Indeed, the following actions and aspects of the Claimant’s general conduct created the
impression to the Club that the Claimant was satisfied with the complete payment of the
settlement amount by the Club, and would not open proceedings against it:
(a) The fact that the Player – who sent default notices for each and every overdue
instalment – never sent a notice for the penalties, after the payment of the principle
amount by the Club;
(b) The fact that the Player never put the Club in default about the penalty of EUR 4,000 in
connection with the instalment of 01.08.2025 (a penalty which, notably, was never validly
activated by the Claimant).
For the reasons stated above, we request by Your Chamber to determine that the Player’s
claim for EUR 24,000 in connection with allegedly due penalties shall be rejected in its
entirety, or at least shall be reduced by at least 50% considering the conduct of the Player
which violates the principle of venire contra factum proprium.”
26. Furthermore, the Club argued that the penalty amount is excessive and unreasonable and
the fact that the Club, to date, has paid the Player the full amount stipulated in the
Termination Agreement, “makes evident that the interests of the Claimant are not harmed by
the non-payment of the penalties right now, nor jeopardized the future reception of the
instalment by the Claimant.”
27. In view of the foregoing, the Club requested the following relief:
“In view of all the factual and legal arguments presented in the present Response, the
Respondent requests by Your Respectable Chamber:
(a) to determine that the alleged penalty of EUR 4,000 claimed by the
Claimant in connection with the delay in the payment of 01.08.2025
was not validly activated and thus, to reject the claim of the Claimant;

pg. 8

REF. FPSD-22258

(b) to determine that the claim of the Claimant for the amount of EUR
24,000 in connection with penalties violates the principle of venire
contra factum proprium, and thus, to reject the claim in its entirety or,
subsidiarily, to reduce the penalty awarded by at least 50%;
(c) to determine that the requested penalty of EUR 24,000 is excessive and
unreasonable considering the circumstances of the case, and to reduce
the amount by at least 50%.”

pg. 9

REF. FPSD-22258

III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
28. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Single Judge)
analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took
note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 9 December 2025 and submitted
for decision on 16 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.
29. Furthermore, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 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 competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between
a French player and a Cypriot club.
30. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of
the Regulations, the July 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
31. The Single Judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he may
consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
32. Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for assessing the matter at hand.

pg. 10

REF. FPSD-22258

i. Main legal discussion and considerations
33. The Single Judge then moved to the substance of the matter and took note of the fact that
the parties strongly disputed the payment of the penalty fee that allegedly arose from
clause D of the Termination Agreement.
34. In this context, the Single Judge noted that his mandate was to assess whether the penalty
fees had been validly triggered and whether the amounts agreed upon were reasonable
and proportionate.
35. The Single Judge noted that the Player requested the payment of EUR 4,000 corresponding
to 20% of each instalment as penalty for the delayed payment in accordance with clause D
of the Termination Agreement.
36. In this regard, the Single Judge recalled that clause D of the Termination Agreement stated
the following (quoted verbatim):
“In case any of the payment referred above is not made by the Club, strictly within ten (10)
working days from the agreed date of payment, then the Player shall have the right to
send a default notice to the Club for the payment of the due amount. If the Club does not
settle the payment within 5 days, it shall pay a penalty of 20% one from the amount of
each due late instalment.”
37. Therefore, according to the above clause the Single Judge considered that the following 3
requirements had to cumulatively be met in order for the penalty fee to be triggered:
a. Club fails to make the relevant payment by the contractually agreed deadline and
does not remedy this failure within the additional ten (10) working days granted
under the agreement;
b. The Player sends a default notice to the Club after the 10 working days have
passed;
c. The Club fails to pay within 5 days after receiving the default notice.
38. Having established the above, the Single Judge noted that the Club disputed the following:
-

The activation of the penalty amount for the instalment due on 1 August 2025;

The proportionality of the penalty clause;

The severity of the breach that would not justify the payment of the penalty.

pg. 11

REF. FPSD-22258

39. With respect to the triggering of the penalty arising from the instalment due on 1 August
2025, the Single Judge noted that the Player issued the default notice on 14 August 2025.
The Club contended that the ten (10) working‑day grace period should be calculated from
the date on which the instalment became overdue, and therefore the tenth working day
would fall on 15 August 2025. On this basis, the Club argued that the Player’s default notice
was premature.
40. However, based on the wording of clause D of the Termination Agreement, the 10 working
days start counting as from “the agreed date of payment” and not as from the date the
payment becomes overdue. Therefore, the Single Judge considered that the default notice
sent on 14 August 2025 was indeed sent on the 10th working day after the “agreed date of
payment”, i.e. 1, 4-8 and 11-14 August 2025= 10 working days.
41. In addition, the Single Judge noted that the Club did not dispute the triggering of any other
penalty amount for other instalments. Therefore, the Single Judge considered that the Club
had tacitly accepted that the rest of the penalty amounts have been duly triggered.
42. Regarding the proportionality of the penalty, the Single Judge recalled that according to its
longstanding jurisprudence, a penalty clause needs to satisfy the proportionality test on a
case-by-case basis. In particular, the DRC considers that penalties based on a percentage
of the principal amount due are in principle considered proportional if the amount due as
penalty does not exceed 50% of the principal amount due.
43. In the present case, the principal amount due corresponded to EUR 142,000 and the
penalty to EUR 24,000, which represents the 16% of the principal amount due.
44. In addition, taking into account the totality of the circumstances of the case, as well as the
fact that the penalty clause was specifically negotiated and mutually agreed upon between
the parties within the framework of the Termination Agreement and that the Club was late
in the payment of 6 out of 7 instalments and the Player was repeatedly sending default
notices to the Club, the Single Judge deemed that the amount stipulated therein was not
excessive or unreasonable and therefore complied with the principle of proportionality.
45. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the penalty amount was proportionate.
46. Having stated the above, the Single Judge observed that the outstanding amount that arose
from clause D of the Termination Agreement corresponded to EUR 24,000 net (i.e. EUR
4,000 for the instalments that fell due on 1 March, 1 April, 1 May, 1 June, 1 July, 1 August
and 1 September 2025.

pg. 12

REF. FPSD-22258

ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
47. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge referred to art. 24
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
48. In this regard, the Single Judge highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the
failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any
new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The
overall maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and
consecutive registration periods.
49. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must
pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
50. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
51. The Single Judge recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior
to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par.
8 of the Regulations.
d. Costs
52. The Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football agent,
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
53. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
54. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.

pg. 13

REF. FPSD-22258

IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.

The claim of the Claimant, Julien Celestine, is partially accepted.

The Respondent, APOLLON LIMASSOL, must pay the Claimant the following amount:
- EUR 24,000 net as contractual penalty.

Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.

Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.

Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.

The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.

This decision is rendered without costs.

For the Football Tribunal:

Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer

pg. 14

REF. FPSD-22258

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. 15