Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-764
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 3 November 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Fabien
Ceddy Farnolle
BY:
Omar Ongaro (Italy), Chairperson
Peter Lukasek (Slovakia), member
Yuriy Zapisotskiy (Ukraine), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Fabien Ceddy Farnolle, France
Represented by Mr Selçuk Demir
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Buyuksehir Belediye Erzurumspor, Turkey
Represented by 14 Sports Law
INTERVENING PARTY:
Club Sidama Coffee, Ethiopia
Page 2
REF FPSD-764
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 4 September, the French player, Fabien Ceddy Farnolle (hereinafter: the Claimant /
Counter Respondent or the player) and the Turkish club, Buyuksehir Belediye Erzurumspor
(hereinafter: the Respondent / Counter-Claimant or the club) concluded an employment
contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from the date of its signature until 31 May 2021.
2.
In accordance with clause 3 of the contract, the club undertook to pay to the player, inter
alia, the following remuneration:
EUR 22,500 by 30 September 2020 as “down payment”;
EUR 22,500 as monthly salary, payable by the 30th day of each month, except for
the month of February 2021, which due date is the 28th of the said month.
3.
Clause 23 of the contract (hereinafter: the compensation clause) provides that, in case of
unilateral termination of the contract due to a breach of contract, the “prejudiced party”
shall be entitled to a compensation for breach of contract in the fixed amount of EUR 20,000,
without being entitled to any further amount in this regard.
4.
On 16 September 2020, the T.C. Malatya Debt Collection and Enforcement Office informed
the club about a seizure imposed on 8 September 2020 on the player’s receivables in the
amount of TL 937,796 - approximately EUR 106,000 on the date on which the contract was
concluded (reference no. 2020/12648 E).
5.
By means of its correspondence dated 19 September 2020, the club informed the player
about the content of the official communication issued by the T.C. Malatya Debt Collection
and Enforcement Office and communicated to the player that, given the “biding nature of
the seizure imposed on his receivables by the Turkish authorities on 8 September 2020, the
Club was obliged to pay the amounts due to the Player directly to the Enforcement Office
until the Player’s debt was entirely satisfied”, meaning that the player would not receive his
remuneration until the final settlement of the total amount of the player’s debt, unless the
player provided any sort of evidence of having satisfied the amounts due to T.C. Malatya Debt
Collection and Enforcement Office; however, no reply from the player was received by the
club in this regard.
6.
Subsequently, by means of its letter dated 6 October 2020, the club referred to the content
of its previous letter and informed the player that it had proceeded with the payment of the
amount of EUR 41,000 (corresponding to the down payment and the salary of September
2020 in the amount of EUR 22,500 and EUR 18,500, respectively) to the bank account of the
T.C. Malatya Debt Collection and Enforcement Office.
7.
On 1 December 2020, the club proceeded with the payment of the amount of EUR 5,000 to
the bank account of the T.C. Malatya Debt Collection and Enforcement Office.
Page 3
REF FPSD-764
8.
By means of his letter dated 5 January 2021 –delivered to the club on 6 January 2021–, the
player put the club in default of payment in the amount of EUR 112,500 corresponding to
the down payment as well as the salaries of September, October, November and December
2020, i.e. 5 instalments of EUR 22,500 each, thereby granting the club a 15 days’ deadline
to remedy the default; however, to no avail.
9.
By means of its correspondence dated 9 January 2021, the club replied thereto, stating that
it “was prohibited to make payments towards [the player]” and that it had proceeded with
the payment of the amounts due to the player, but that it made those payments “towards
the debtor of your creditor” and not to the player himself. The club further warned the player
that, should he terminate the contract, it would be a termination without just cause.
10. On the same date, the player replied thereto, emphasizing that -contrary to the allegations
of the club- neither him nor any eventual creditor of the player has received the outstanding
amount of EUR 112,500 and thereby requested the club to provide evidence of having
proceeded with the said payment. Furthermore, the player referred to the deadline provided
in his previous notice and reminded the club that, should it not pay the outstanding amounts
claimed within the deadline previously granted, he would terminate the contract.
11. By means of its letter dated 12 January 2021, the club informed the player that he had been
granted a leave between 12 January and 21 January 2021 to “negotiate a future transfer”
with “third clubs in Turkey and in other countries” and that “in case of a lack of a future
transfer of the Player to third clubs between the aforementioned time-frame, [the player] is
requested and instructed to resume the trainings of [the club] as of 22.1.2021”.
12. On 15 January 2021, the player sent a report to the club, where it was stated that, following
a pain on his knee and after clinical examination, he seemed to have a “medial collateral
ligament” and an “MCL propture” and he was advised by a Sports Medicine Specialist not to
train during a period of 10 days (as from 16 January until 25 January 2021.
13. On 27 January 2021, the player sent a new report to the club, with the same content as the
previous one, where the player was advised to avoid training sessions during the following
10 days.
14. In this context, the club, by means of its correspondence dated 28 January 2021, requested
the player to return to Erzurum in order to “undergo an urgent medical examination
supervised by the Club’s licensed medical advisor on 29 January 2021, in accordance with
Articles 9.1 and 9.4 of the Contract”.
15. On the same date, the club sent a letter to the player, informing the latter hat he had missed
the training session of 26 January 2021. In the said letter, the club states that, in accordance
with the first medical report of 15 January 2021, the player needed to be absent for a period
of 10 days but, after that, the player did not retain any valid reason in order not to participate
Page 4
REF FPSD-764
in the training scheduled for 26 January 2021. In this context, the club informed the player
that a disciplinary proceeding would be initiated in order to investigate a possible
infringements of the club’s Disciplinary Regulations and requested the player to resume his
professional activities within the following 7 days.
16. By means of his letter dated 28 January 2021, the player informed the club that it not only
failed to pay the outstanding amounts due to him, but also excluded him from the rest of the
team and, on the said grounds, unilaterally terminated the contract.
17. On 17 March 2021, the player concluded a new contract with the Ethiopian club, Sidama
Coffee, valid as from the date of its signature until 16 March 2022 and in accordance with
which the player is entitled to receive, inter alia, a monthly salary of ETB 50,000 (approx.: EUR
1,154).
II. Proceedings before FIFA
18. On 16 February 2021, the player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the player
19. In his claim, the player requests to be awarded outstanding remuneration and compensation
for breach of contract in the total amount of EUR 337,500, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the
30th day after the notification of the decision issued by FIFA, as follows:
Outstanding remuneration: EUR 112,500
EUR 22,500 corresponding to the down payment due by 30 September 2020;
EUR 22,500 as salary of September 2020;
EUR 22,500 as salary of October 2020;
EUR 22,500 as salary of November 2020;
EUR 22,500 as salary of December 2020.
Compensation for breach of contract: EUR 112,500
EUR 22,500 as salary of January 2021;
EUR 22,500 as salary of February 2021;
EUR 22,500 as salary of March 2021;
EUR 22,500 as salary of April 2021;
EUR 22,500 as salary of May 2021.
Additional compensation: EUR 112,500
EUR 112,500 corresponding to 6 times his salary as additional compensation ex. art.
17.1 of the RSTP.
Page 5
REF FPSD-764
20. The player argued that, despite having been put the club in default of payment on several
occasions and granted it a 15 days’ deadline to remedy the default, the club failed to do so.
In this context, the player held that he terminated the contract with just cause on 28 January
2020 and, therefore, he is entitled to receive not only the outstanding remuneration due at
the date of termination, but also a compensation for breach of contract and an additional
compensation in the amounts requested ex. art. 17 of the RSTP.
b. Reply and counter-claim from the club
21. In its reply to the claim, the club firstly pointed out that the player knew about the possible
seizure of his salaries when signing the contract, “since he was acutely aware of the pending
proceedings before the T.C. Malatya Debt Collection and Enforcement Office, as well as the
existence of his debt towards a third party”.
22. However, explained the club, the player “failed to mention such an important detail to the
club” and, what is more, the player omitted the said information in his statement of claim.
23. In this context, the club held that, following the notice notified to the club on 16 September
2020, the club was “obliged to pay the player’s debt to the bank account of the Enforcement
Office until said debt was entirely and duly collected, whilst any payment towards the player
would not be effectual”. In this respect, the club referred to the Enforcement and Execution
Law Article 89, which states that, in case of seizure, the player (the club) shall pay directly to
the relevant execution office.
24. In this context, the club explained that, following the payment made by the latter on 1
December 2020 on behalf of the player, the club “initiated negotiations with the Player’s
creditor in order to either settle the credit or arrange a more effective payment plan”.
25. Moreover, the club wished to highlight that, according to Turkish Law, “by being notified
about the seizure of the Player’s receivables and, consequently, by initiating the payment of
the Player’s debt, the Respondent assumed the Player’s position as the official debtor. In fact,
the Player’s creditor -which is, by the turning of events, the Club’s creditor now- is entitled
and very likely to file a lawsuit before the national courts requesting the payment of several
amounts”.
26. Furthermore, the club argued that the player started missing training sessions and stopped
fulfilling with his contractual obligations as from November or December 2020.
27. As to its letter dated 12 January 2021 (cf. point 11 supra), the club explained that, at that
moment in time, the relationship of confidence between the player and the club broke down,
which led the player to request the club to allow him to search for a new club and the
consequent issuance of a “Permission Letter”, by means of which the Club granted 10 days
to the player to seek for a new club and negotiate a future transfer.
Page 6
REF FPSD-764
28. According to the club, this was “mutually agreed between the parties and responded to the
concealed intention of the Player to leave the club although he was fielded 13 times during
the 2020 – 2021 season”.
29. In relation to the above-mentioned, the club stressed that “the Player’s intention actually
materialized into a contract with a new club, namely the Ethiopian club Sidana Coffee, on 18
March 2021”.
30. As to the unilateral termination of the contract made by the player on 28 January 2021, the
club held that it was made without just cause, insofar as the player was very much aware of
the salary seizure being imposed, meaning that he would not have -in any case- directly
received the now claimed salaries. In addition, the club argued that the alleged injuries
suffered by the player and his absence from the training session on 26 January 2021 only
show the bad faith of the player.
31. What is more, the club maintained that it was never in default towards the player with regards
to the payment of his salaries, because -following the seizure imposed on the player-, the
club was mandated by an official order from the Turkish competent authorities to proceed
with the payment of the entire debt directly to the T.C. Malatya Debt Collection and
Enforcement Office and, hence, “the allegations included therein have nothing to do with
the contractual reality of the parties’ relationship”.
32. Thus, deeming that the player terminated the contract without just cause, the club lodged a
counter-claim against the player before FIFA, requesting to be awarded the total amount of
EUR 20,000 in accordance with the compensation clause (cf. point 3 supra), plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 29 January 2021.
33. In this regard, the club referred to art. 14 para. 2 of the RSTP and argued that the abusive
conduct of the player, i.e. the player allegedly not giving any notice to the club to remedy its
breaches and only sending an inaccurate default letter threatening the club to terminate the
contract and the absence of the player in the training session of 26 January 2021, led to the
situation desired by the player: the termination of the contract; which, as per the club, was
made without just cause.
34. Subsidiarily, should the DRC decide that the club breached the contract, the club argued that
the player shall also be considered as “co-responsible for the termination of the Employment
Contract pursuant to Article 44 par. 1 SCO, and therefore, no compensation shall be paid by
the Respondent to the Claimant”. In this respect, it must be noted that art. 44.1 SCO reads
as follows: “Where the person suffering damage consented to the harmful act or
circumstances attributable to him helped give rise to or compound the damage or otherwise
exacerbated the position of the party liable for it, the court may reduce the compensation
due or even dispense with it entirely”.
Page 7
REF FPSD-764
c. Player’s reply to the counter-claim
35. In his reply to the counter-claim, the player rejected the arguments of the club, reiterated his
previous arguments and stressed, inter alia, the following:
That the player never opposed to the club paying his monthly salaries directly to the T.C.
Malatya Debt Collection and Enforcement Office, since he was aware of the said seizure;
That only the amount of EUR 45,000, which corresponds to the amounts due for the
month of September 2021 (down-payment and monthly salary) was paid by the club to
the T.C. Malatya Debt Collection and Enforcement Office;
That, following the notification of his letter dated 9 January 2021, he requested the club
to provide evidence of having paid the amounts due to him, i.e. the salaries due as from
October until December 2020, and it failed to do so, thereby confirming that it failed to
pay the player’s remuneration for the said time-frame;
That the fact that a seizure had been imposed on the player and the T.C. Malatya Debt
Collection and Enforcement Office was the beneficiary of the income received by the player
does not affect the degree of liability in which the club incurred by failing to pay his
monthly salaries due as from October 2020 either to him or to the said office;
That neither him nor the T.C. Malatya Debt Collection and Enforcement Office have
received any payment from the club beyond the payment of the amount of EUR 45,000;
That the correspondence dated 12 January 2021 that the club sent to the player, inviting
the player to sing a new contract with another club for the rest of the season clearly
demonstrates that the club was no longer in the player’s services;
That the player terminated the contract with just cause, ex art. 14bis of the RSTP, on 28
January 2021.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
36. 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 16 February 2021 and submitted for
decision on. 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.
Page 8
REF FPSD-764
37. 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 (August 2021 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 intervention of an Ethiopian club.
38. 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 Player (August 2021 edition) and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 16 February 2021, the February 2021
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
39. 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
40. 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.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
41. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and recalled that the player requested to be awarded outstanding remuneration and
compensation for breach of contract in the total amount of EUR 337,500, plus 5% interest
p.a. as from the 30th day after the notification of the decision issued by the DRC; whereas
the club lodged a counter-claim against the player, requesting to be awarded the amount of
EUR 20,000 as compensation for breach of contract in accordance with the compensation
clause contained in the contract.
Page 9
REF FPSD-764
42. In this context, the DRC noted that the player -after acknowledging that the club paid an
amount of EUR 45,000, corresponding to the down-payment and salary of September 2020,
to the T.C. Malatya Debt Collection and Enforcement Office as a consequence of a seizure
imposed on him due to a debt not related to the present case; financial subrogation to which
the player seems to have agreed- argued that the club failed to pay any further moneys to
him nor to the aforesaid office, meaning that the club did not pay the salaries of October,
November and December 2020, which led the player to terminate the contract on 28 January
2021 after having put the club in default of payment on 5 January 2021 (delivered to the
club on 6 January 2021), notice whereby the player granted the club a 15 days’ deadline to
remedy the default; however, to no avail.
43. Furthermore, observed the DRC, the player argued that he was excluded from training
sessions and that the club itself lost its interest in the player’s services, evidence of which is
the letter dated 12 January 2021, by means of which the club informed the player that he
had been granted a leave between 12 January and 21 January 2021 to negotiate a future
transfer with third clubs in Turkey and in other countries. In this context, the player stated
that he terminated the contract with just cause on 28 January 2021 ex. art. 14bis of the RSTP.
44. On its part, noted the Chamber, the club held that -contrary to the allegations of the playerit did not commit any breach of contract, since, as agreed between the parties, the creditor
of the amounts payable by the club as per the contract was the T.C. Malatya Debt Collection
and Enforcement Office and not the player.
45. Moreover, the club argued that the player acted in bad faith, only putting the club in default
of payment via his notice dated 5 January 2021, whereby the player requested to be awarded
amounts that had been already paid (albeit partially), i.e. the amounts due for the months of
September 2020; and that the player aimed at terminating the contractual relationship,
reason why the club allegedly agreed to grant the player a 10 days’ period to enter into
negotiations with potential engaging clubs.
46. Finally, observed the DRC, the club maintained that the player acted in bad faith, insofar as
the player alleged that he was suffering from an injury that prevented him from participating
in training sessions, but failed to appear at the training session that took place on 26 January
2021, once the first medical leave had come to an end and before the player notified the club
about the second medical leave. In this context, the club explained that the player intended
the club to proceed with the early termination of the contract in order to sign with a new
club, which he eventually did when signing a new contract with the Ethiopian club, Sidama
Coffee, with which he entered into a contract on 17 March 2021.
47. In this context, the Chamber formulated the following questions, which it deemed vital in
order to assess the present case:
Page 10
REF FPSD-764
Did the club comply with its contractual obligations towards the player when paying his salary
and further monetary entitlements to the creditor of the player, i.e. the T.C. Malatya Debt
Collection and Enforcement Office, in connection with a seizure imposed on him?
48. this respect, the Chamber recalled that the club was informed, on 16 September 2020, of
the fact that, on 8 September 2020, the T.C. Malatya Debt Collection and Enforcement Office
had imposed a seizure on the player’s receivables in the amount of TL 937,796 (approximately
EUR 106,000) in connection with a debt of the player. Upon having received the said notice,
continued the Chamber, the club informed the player, by means of its letter dated 19
September 2020, that it would pay the player’s financial entitlements to the T.C. Malatya
Debt Collection and Enforcement Office until the said debt was fully paid; decision that was
not challenged by the player.
49. What is more, underscored the Chamber, as acknowledged by the player himself, he did not
oppose to the financial subrogation of the aforementioned office as creditor of the financial
entitlements derived from the contract.
50. Thus, the DRC unanimously determined that, since the player granted his acquiescence (tacitly
when failing to reply to the letter sent by the club on 16 September 2020 and expressly during
the course of the present proceedings) to the above-mentioned financial subrogation until
the debt was fully satisfied, the DRC determined that the cession of the credit in casu was
legit and the club is to be deemed as having paid the amount of EUR 45,000 to the player,
i.e. the only sum that the club seems to have paid to the player – since there is no further
evidence on file as to the payment of the salaries due to the player as from October 2020
onwards.
Did the player terminate the contract with just cause on 28 January 2021?
51. After having carefully analysed the documentation on file, underscored the DRC, it seems
that the first communication sent by any of the parties to the other regarding a breach of the
contract was the default notice sent by the player to the club on 5 January 2021 (delivered
to the club on 6 January 2021), whereby the player requested the club to proceed with the
payment of the amounts due as from September until December 2020 in the total amount
of EUR 112,500 (down-payment and monthly salaries) within the following 15 days.
52. In this respect, continued the DRC, the club argues that it had partially complied with the
payment of the amounts thereunder claimed by the player, i.e. the club paid the amount of
EUR 45,000; extent that was confirmed by the player in his statement of reply to the counterclaim.
53. In this context, explained the Chamber, the club seems to be arguing that, since the player,
by means of the said notice, requested amounts that were already partially paid, the said
notice cannot trigger the effects of a default notice in the sense of art. 14bis of the
Regulations.
Page 11
REF FPSD-764
54. In this respect, the DRC determined that the said argument of the club cannot be followed,
insofar as the partial payment of the amounts due, as pointed out by the player, does not
alter the fact that the club failed to pay the salaries due for the months of October, November
and December 2020. Thus, since the default notice was sent to the club on 6 January, once
more than 2 monthly salaries were outstanding; and given that the player thereby granted
the club a 15 days’ deadline to remedy the default without the latter doing so, the DRC
unanimously concluded that the player did terminate the contract with just cause on 28
January 2021 ex. art. 14bis of the RSTP and is, therefore, entitled to receive not only the
outstanding remuneration due to him at the date of termination, but also the corresponding
compensation for breach of contract.
55. In connection with the argumentation of the club relating to an alleged agreement reached
between the parties concerning the grant of a 10 days’ leave to the player for the latter to
seek for new employment opportunities, which would demonstrate that both parties
mutually lost their interest in the continuation of the contractual relationship, the Chamber
wished to highlight that the club failed to provide any evidence of having concluded any such
agreement with the player, the leave authorization not sufficing in order to prove that such
understanding was reached, insofar as it was unilaterally issued by the club.
56. Concerning the argument of the club that the player was acting in bad faith when failing to
show up for the training session that took place on 26 January 2021, the DRC observed that
the club failed to provide documentary evidence in support of its allegation that it summoned
the player for the said training; and as to the argument of the club that the player ignored
the club’s request to undergo a medical examination at the club, the DRC observed that the
said request was made by the club on 28 January 2021, i.e. on same date on which the player
terminated the contract with just cause, meaning that -at that moment in time- the player
had lost his trust in the club’s performance of its contractual obligations, reason why the
continuation in the rendering of his professional services could not be further expected.
ii. Consequences
57. 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.
58. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent to 4 salaries under
the contract, i.e. the salaries of October 2020, November 2020, December 2020 and January
2021 amounting to EUR 90,000 in total.
59. 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
Page 12
REF FPSD-764
/ Counter-Respondent the amounts which were outstanding under the contract at the
moment of the termination, i.e. EUR 90,000.
60. In addition, 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 at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the 30th day after the
notification of the decision issued by the DRC until the date of effective payment, as
requested by the player.
61. In this respect, the Chamber wished to highlight that, even though the practice of the DRC,
which goes in line with its jurisprudence and the limits provided by Swiss law, is to grant a
default interest of 5% p.a. on the amounts outstanding, to be calculated as from their
respective due dates, the player requested to be granted interest as from the 30th day
following the notification of the decision rendered by the DRC. In this regard, considering
that the findings of the decision were to be notified to the parties and indeed were notified
to them on 8 November 2021, the Chamber decided to upheld the request of the Claimant
/ Counter-Respondent and only grant interest as from 8 December 2021, should the
outstanding amount hereby granted be still overdue at that moment in time, in order not to
incur in ultra petita.
62. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the player by the club 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.
63. 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, after a careful analysis of the clauses
of the contract, the Chamber observed that clause 23 thereof is a compensation clause,
meaning that the parties -thereunder- agreed on a compensation for breach of contract
payable by the party in breach to the prejudiced party. The compensation clause in casu
provides that the party in breach shall pay to the other party an amount of EUR 20,000 as
compensation for the early termination of the contract.
64. In order to determine whether the said compensation clause is valid, explained the Chamber,
it must be analysed whether the said clause is reciprocal. As per its wording, it seems that the
amount of EUR 20,000 is to be paid by the party in breach to the other party, meaning that
the financial burden thereby imposed on the parties was equal.
Page 13
REF FPSD-764
65. Thus, the DRC determined that the compensation clause is to be considered legit and,
therefore, the player shall be awarded a compensation for breach of contract in the amount
of EUR 20,000 and no further compensation for breach of contract shall be awarded to the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent. For the sake of clarity, the Chamber wished to highlight
that, considering that the parties agreed on a concrete amount to be payable as
compensation, the said compensation shall not be subject to any sort of mitigation,
considering any eventual income received by the player following the termination of the
contract, since the principle pacta sunt servanda shall prevail in this specific scenario, in
accordance with the jurisprudence of the DRC.
66. 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 player interest on said compensation
at the rate of 5% p.a. as from 8 December 2021, i.e. as from the 30th day after the
notification of the decision issued by the DRC, until the date of effective payment, also
following the above-mentioned reasoning (cf. point 61 supra) and in view of the request for
relief of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent concerning the default interest requested in
connection with the compensation for breach of contract claimed.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
67. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24bis
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the concerned
party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or compensation in due
time.
68. 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.
69. 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
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. 24bis par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
Page 14
REF FPSD-764
70. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant 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.
71. 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. 24bis par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
72. 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.
73. 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.
74. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Fabien Ceddy Farnolle, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Buyuksehir Belediye Erzurumspor, has to pay to the
Claimant, the following amounts:
- EUR 90,000 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 8 December
2021 until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 20,000 as compensation for breach of contract, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 8
December 2021 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
4.
The counter-claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in
the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
Page 15
REF FPSD-764
6.
Pursuant to art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall be banned from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum
duration the ban shall be of three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not
made by the end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
7. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant / CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 24bis par. 7 and 8 and art. 24ter of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players.
8. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
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 16