Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 17 January 2020,
in the following composition:
Om ar Ongaro (Italy ), Deputy Chairman
S tefano S artori (Italy), member
Jos é Luis Andrade (Portugal), member
on the claim presented by the player,
Lukas z Gikiew icz, Poland,
represented by Mr Georgi Gradev
as Claimant
against the club,
Football Club FCS B, Romania
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties
I.
Facts of the cas e
1.
On 31 July 2019, the Polish player, Lukasz Gikiewicz (hereinafter : the Claimant or the player),
and the Romanian club, Football Club FCSB (hereinafter: the Respondent or the club), signed
an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from 1 August 2019 until 30 June
2020.
2.
According to art. IV.5 of the contract, the club undertook, in particular, to :
“e) To create the right professional conditions for training for the football activity;
l) To provide the player with a service car during the contract period;
m) To provide the player with 3 airplane tickets / competitive season for the player on
Bucharest Varsovia-Bucharest route and 3 airplane tickets/competitive season for the player
on route Bucharest-Split-Bucharest”.
3.
Art. 7 of the contract, which sets out the causes for termination of the contract, stipulated
“the findings of termination of the contractual relationship is made by the FRF/LPF through
the competent bodies and in accordance with the sporting regulations.”
4.
Art. 8 of the contract provided “Settlement of disputes: The parties will, in good faith, make
every effort to resolve amicably any dispute, controversy or misunderstanding arising out of
or in connection with this agreement. Conflict in connection with the conclusion, execution,
modification, suspension or termination of this contract will be settled by judicial bodies of
FIFA, with appeal to the CAS, the parties agree to such appeal shall be decided by the Single
Arbitrator, in accordance with the CAS Regulations.”
5.
On 31 July 2019, the parties also signed a Financial Annex to the contract (hereinafter: the
financial annex), according to which the club undertook to pay the player EUR 8,500 net per
month as salary “in the current month for the previous month”.
6.
According to the player, the parties also signed an addendum to the contract on 31 July 2019
(hereinafter: the addendum), providing for a potential termination of the contract. As
evidence, the player submitted a draft of the addendum, not signed by the parties. In his
claim, the player alleges that the club did not provide him with a counter-signed copy of the
addendum.
7.
Allegedly, the addendum provided that “Art. 2 By signing this addendum parties understand
that extinguished all liabilities of any nature such as:
FOTBAL CLUB FCSB S.A. has no obligation and no financial claims and I or material,
past, present or future face of the player GIKIEWICZ LUKASZ, arising from Sporting
activity contract No ………………………….. (such as, but not limited to: contractual
rights, bonuses, premiums, damages etc.), and regardless of their source (contract,
sportive activity contract, sporting regulations and I or law);
Professional Footballer GIKIEWICZ LUKASZ no longer has any financial obligation
and any claims and I or material past, present or future against FOTBAL CLUB
FCSB S.A. arising from the Sporting activity contract No.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Player Lukasz Gikiewicz, Poland / Football Club FCSB, Romania
Page 2 of 14
. . . . .. (such as, but not limited to: contractual rights, bonuses, premiums, damages,
sportive activity contract etc.), and regardless of their source (contract, sportive activity
contract, sporting regulations and I or law)”
8.
According to the documentation on file, between 1st and 18 August 2019, the player played
in four official matches.
9.
On 6 September 2019, the player put the club in default, requesting the payment of his salary
for August 2019, and his immediate reintegration to the club’s first team, as well as
explanations regarding the reasons and duration of his relegation to the second team.
10. On 9 September 2019, the club replied that the “technical staff of our club, coordinated by
the main coach, Mr Bogdan Arges Vintila, has decided that in the period 16.09.2019 –
22.09.2019 you shall attend the weekly training and preparation cycle along with other
players (…)” and that the player “shall also participate in the club’s second team matches that
will be played in this period”.
11. On the same day, the player contested the club’s decision, claiming that it was abusive, in
breach of the contract and of his personality rights. In these circumstances, the player
reiterated his demand to be reintegrated to the first team and asked for the immediate
payment of his salary of August 2019.
12. The club replied on the same day, informing the player that the payment of his salary was
still “within the legal payment term”.
13. In his reply, the player however emphasized that the club was in default of payment, invoking
the FIFA DRC jurisprudence, according to which salaries are to be paid “at the latest on the
first day of the respective month”.
14. In an email dated 10 September 2019, the player accused the club of disclosing confidential
information regarding the player’s situation to the press. To support his allegations, the
player stated that the press had access to the correspondence between the parties. In this
respect, the player asked for explanations from the club.
15. It appears from the player’s claim that a certain number of press articles covered the
precarious situation of the player at the club, in particular the fact that the club did not count
the player as part of its plans (including interviews with members of the club’s management).
In this regard, it is worth noting that a press article dated 10 September 2019 mentions,
among other information, that the player was forced to train alone, was removed from the
team’s WhatsApp group, and that his car was taken back from him by the club.
16. By a letter dated 11 September 2019, the player expressed his dissatisfaction from training
with the club’s second team, mainly composed of U17 and U19 players, and coached by a
person without a “UEFA Pro License”. Moreover, the player raised the fact that the trainings
of the second team were conducted on artificial grass, which caused him pain in the knees
Player Lukasz Gikiewicz, Poland / Football Club FCSB, Romania
Page 3 of 14
and ankles. In these circumstances, the player informed the club that he would no longer
train with the second team and requested to be reintegrated to the first team.
17. The player also took note of the club’s statements in the press, according to which the club
no longer counted on the player as he did not fit in the club’s plans.
18. Finally, the player complained that the club took away his new car, allegedly for maintenance,
only to later hand him an older car, different from the car given to the other players.
19. On the same day, i.e. 11 September 2019, the club informed the player that he would have
to leave the accommodation provided by the club by 12 September 2019 at the latest. The
club emphasized that it had no contractual obligation to provide the player with
accommodation. The club added that “we have repeatedly requested you, with a reasonable
deadline, to return the room at our disposal, and you asked for permission to leave on
10.09.2019, which we accepted, but you did not comply with your own deadline”.
20. On the next day, the player informed the club that he had handed in the keys of the
apartment and requested the payment of his August salary.
21. In a letter dated 13 September 2019, the club held that it had no contractual obligation to
provide an accommodation to the player, gave a car to him, did not disclose any confidential
information to the press and that the payment of the salary of August would occur “at the
due date stipulated in the contract”. The club reaffirmed that the player was to train with
the second team and that he was an important member of the club and the club wished to
continue the contractual relationship with him.
22. In his reply of the same day, the player contested all the points raised above by the club and
granted the club a 15-day deadline to reintegrate him to the first team and to pay his salary
for August 2019.
23. On the same day, the club informed the player that disciplinary proceedings would be
initiated against him as he refused to train with the second team.
24. In an interview given on 14 September 2019, the club’s head coach, Mr Vintila, stated that he
no longer counted on the player.
25. On 16 September 2019, the player granted an ultimate deadline of 20 September 2019 to the
club, failing which he would terminate the contract. The club did not answer.
26. On 20 September 2019, the player unilaterally terminated the contract arguing that by
relegating him in the second team for an undetermined term without justification, not paying
him his salary for August 2019, taking away his car, giving it to another player and giving him
an older car, taking away his accommodation, the club had made it very clear that it was no
longer interested in the player.
Player Lukasz Gikiewicz, Poland / Football Club FCSB, Romania
Page 4 of 14
27. On 25 September 2019, the club contested the termination of the player and requested the
return of the player to training.
28. On 30 September 2019, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA for
outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of the contract, requesting the total
amount of EUR 93,961.31 corresponding to:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
EUR 8,500 net as outstanding salary for August 2019, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from
2 September 2019 until the date of payment;
EUR 85,461.31 net as compensation, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 20 September
2019 until the date of payment, corresponding to:
EUR 85,000 as the residual value of the contract, i.e. 1st September 2019 to 30
June 2020 (EUR 8,500 x 10 months);
EUR 461.31 as expenses for the player’s return trip from Bucharest to Split on
21 September 2019 (art. IV. 5. par. m) of the contract).
The imposition of sporting sanctions on the club.
29. In his claim, the player held that between 19 August to 20 September 2019, he did not play
any of the 5 official matches of the club and that as from 5 September he was forced to train
alone without any indications.
30. He held that he was isolated from the professional team, removed from the team Whats’App
group, relegated to the second team due to poor performance. The player deemed that the
Respondent was trying to push him to leave the club by terminating the contract.
31. It is the player’s opinion that not allowing him to play in the first division constitutes a breach
of his personality rights. According to him, for a professional player to play with an amateur
team, competing in the third tier of amateur football in Romania constitutes a breach of his
personality rights and of the contract. And that there is no provision in the contract allowing
the club to force him to play in the second team.
32. The Claimant further held that at the time of termination, the Respondent had overdue
payables toward him in the form of the August 2019’s salary, and considered that on the
absence of any precise due date for salaries, each salary had to be paid on the first day of the
following month.
33. In view of the above, the player is of the opinion that the newly introduced art. 14 par. 2 of
the RSTP, according to which the “stance of a party (either a player or a club) is intended to
force the counterparty to terminate or change the terms of the contract” is applicable in the
present case, thus allowing him to terminate the contract with just cause.
34. In reply to the claim of the player, the Respondent held that FIFA was not competent to hear
the matter at hand and considered that the Romanian Football Association was competent in
virtue of art. 7 of the contract which stated that “(t)he finding of termination of the
Player Lukasz Gikiewicz, Poland / Football Club FCSB, Romania
Page 5 of 14
contractual relationship is made by the FRF / LPF through the competent bodies and in
accordance with the sporting regulations”.
35. In support of his argumentation, the club relied on the Statutes and the Regulations for the
Status and Transfer of the Football Player of the Romanian Football Association, as well as
the FIFA RSTP.
36. On the substance, the Respondent argued that the player being put in the second team was
a sporting decision of the staff of the club, based on the physical fitness and training level of
the player and that the coach of the second team had a pro license. Moreover, the
Respondent added that such placement in the second team was only temporary.
37. The club considered that the player was himself in breach of the contract since he missed
trainings and did not comply with the training schedule.
38. On the August 2019’s salary, the club held that it had been paid according to the schedule of
the contract.
39. The club alleges that the objective of the player was not to terminate the contract in order
to sign a new contract with another professional club to get his chance to play in a first team,
but to “get damages by circumventing the rules of art. 14, para. 2” of the RSTP. Moreover,
the club is of the opinion that the player “did not to abide by the obligations undertaken by
contract, but only to create a possible dispute to receive damages”.
40. Regarding the accommodation, the club held that it had no contractual obligation to provide
one to the player, that it had only provided one temporarily to the player out of goodness.
As to the car issue, the Respondent underlined that the contract did not provide for a type of
car and that by providing one, of any type or quality, it had respected its contractual
obligations.
41. After being requested, the player informed FIFA that he remained unemployed during the
relevant period.
II.
Cons iderations of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1.
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 submitted to FIFA on 30 September 2019. Consequently,
the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute
Resolution Chamber (edition 2018; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the
matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules).
Player Lukasz Gikiewicz, Poland / Football Club FCSB, Romania
Page 6 of 14
2.
With regard to the competence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, art. 3 par. 1 of the
Procedural Rules states that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall examine its jurisdiction in
the light of art. 22 to 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition
2020). In accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the
aforementioned Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber would, in principle, be
competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute
with an international dimension between a Polish player and a Romanian club.
3.
However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent contested the competence of
FIFA’s deciding bodies stating that an independent arbitration tribunal in line with art. 22
lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, in fine, exists within the
Romanian Football Federation (RFF). In addition, the Respondent referred to art. 7 of the
contract which stipulates that “(t)he finding of termination of the contractual relationship
is made by the FRF / LPF through the competent bodies and in accordance with the sporting
regulations”. On the basis thereof, the Respondent argue that the National Dispute
Resolution Chamber of the FRF is competent to adjudicate the present dispute.
4.
In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Claimant rejected such position and insisted that
FIFA has jurisdiction to deal with the present matter.
5.
While analysing whether it was competent to hear the present matter, the Chamber deemed
it vital to outline that one of the basic condition that needs to be met in order to establish
that another organ than the DRC is competence to settle an employment-related dispute
between a club and a player of an international dimension, is that the jurisdiction of the
relevant national arbitration tribunal or national court derives from a clear reference in the
employment contract.
6.
Therefore, while analysing whether it was competent to hear the present matter, the
Dispute Resolution Chamber considered that it should, first and foremost, analyse whether
the employment contract at the basis of the present dispute contained a clear jurisdiction
clause.
7.
Having examined the relevant provision, the Chamber came to the unanimous
conclusion that art. 7 does not constitute a clear jurisdiction clause in favour of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber of the FRF, since it only referred to the issue of contract
termination so per se does not constitutes a jurisdiction clause. Moreover, the DRC
observed that the contract contained, in its art. 8, a jurisdiction clause clear and in favour
or FIFA since it stipulates that “conflicts in connection with the conclusion, execution,
modification, suspension or termination of this contract will be settled by judicial bodies
of FIFA”.
8.
On account of all the above, the Chamber did not consider art. 7 to be a clear and specific
jurisdiction clause in favour of a national dispute resolution chamber, while art. 8
granted competence to FIFA. Consequently, it established that the Respondent’s
objection towards the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be
rejected, and that the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent, on the basis of art. 22
Player Lukasz Gikiewicz, Poland / Football Club FCSB, Romania
Page 7 of 14
lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, to consider the present
matter as to the substance.
9.
Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect,
the Chamber referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2020) and, on the other hand, to the fact that the
present claim was lodged on 30 September 2019. The Dispute Resolution Chamber
concluded that the June 2019 version of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
10.
The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established,
and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber started by acknowledging the
above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the 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.
11.
In this respect, the Chamber observed that the parties had signed an employment contract
on 31 July 2019 valid as from 1 August 2019 until 30 June 2020, in accordance with which
the player was entitled to receive, inter alia, EUR 8,500 as monthly salary, as well as a car
and 3 round trip airplane tickets for the Claimant from Bucharest to Split.
12.
In continuation, the Chamber took note that it is undisputed by the parties involved that
the employment relationship had been terminated by the Claimant, in writing, on 20
September 2019.
13.
In continuation, the Chamber then reviewed the claim of the player and noted that he held
that the Respondent failed to pay the alleged outstanding amount of EUR 8,500
corresponding to the salary of August 2019 and further argued that by its attitude toward
him, the Respondent was trying to push him to unilaterally terminate the contract before
its term. The Claimant relied on art 14.2 of the Regulations to deem that the termination
was with just cause.
14.
In particular, the DRC took note that the Claimant held that he was forced out of the
accommodation provided by the Respondent since the beginning of the contract, asked to
return his car to be then given another car of a lower quality, put in the second team under
the pretence of alleged poor performances, and that the Respondent made some statements
to the press in which it put forward its lack of interest in the player.
15.
Consequently, the Claimant asked to be awarded the payment of the total amount of EUR
93,961.31 as outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of the contract plus
5% interest as from the respective due dates.
16.
Equally, the Chamber took note of the reply of the Respondent, which asserted that it had
paid the Claimant the salary of August 2019. Moreover, the DRC also took note that the
Player Lukasz Gikiewicz, Poland / Football Club FCSB, Romania
Page 8 of 14
Respondent held that the accommodation provided to the player was not a contractual
obligation. On the car issues, the Respondent held that the contract only provided for an
obligation to furnish a car to the player, without any specification on which car. As to the
relegation of the player in the second team, the Respondent held that this was a sporting
decision.
17.
With regard to the payment of the salary of August 2019, the DRC took note that the
Respondent alleged having attached to its reply to the claim a proof of the relevant payment
having been made. However, the DRC could only conclude that such evidence had not been
provided by the Respondent, making it impossible to assess with certainty that this payment
had been duly made.
18.
In view of the above, the Chamber emphasized that in accordance with the legal principle
of the burden of proof, which is a basic principle in every legal system, a party deriving a
right from an asserted fact has the obligation to prove the relevant fact (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of
the Procedural Rules). Therefore, due to the lack of evidence with regard to the assertion
made by the Respondent, the DRC rejected the argument raised by the Respondent and
concluded that the payment of EUR 8,500 corresponding to the salary of August 2019 had
not been made and that consequently, that amount was overdue.
19.
As to the alleged abusive conduct of the Respondent toward the Claimant, the DRC took
note of the different elements brought forward by the Claimant to justify his early and
unilateral termination of the contract in application of art. 14 par. 2 of the Regulations. For
instance, the relegation of the Claimant to the second team.
20.
In this regard, the Chamber took note that the Claimant considered such relegation as a
breach of his personality rights as a professional player that was forced to play with an
amateur team. Especially since he was hired as a professional player. The DRC took note that
the Claimant requested on several occasions more information on his status within the
professional team.
21.
The DRC noticed that on its end, the Respondent held that the relegation of the player was
only temporary and based on sporting decision and was exclusively due to the poor
performance of the player.
22.
In this regard, the Chamber was eager to point out that art.12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules
provided that a party deriving a right from an asserted fact had to the obligation to prove
the relevant fact. This being said, the DRC was of the opinion that the argumentation of the
Respondent as to the relegation of the Claimant, a professional player, to an amateur team
justified by an element as subjective as the performance of a player could not be accepted.
23.
As to the other benefit that the Claimant considered were either taken away from him,
such as the accommodation, or downgraded, such as the car, the DRC took note that the
Respondent does not deny those allegations, but considered that the accommodation was
Player Lukasz Gikiewicz, Poland / Football Club FCSB, Romania
Page 9 of 14
not provided in the contract and the contract only provided for an obligation to grant a car
to the player without further indications.
24.
The DRC analysed all of the abovementioned facts and documentations of the case at hand,
and determined that in view of the diverging opinions of the parties, it had to determine
whether the Claimant had terminated the contract on 20 September 2019 with or without
just cause.
25.
Taking all of the above in consideration, the Chamber recalled the content of art. 14 par. 2
of the Regulations, in particular “any abusive conduct of a party aiming at forcing the
counterparty to terminate or change the terms of the contract shall entitled the
counterparty (a player or a club) to terminate the contract with just cause”.
26.
In particular, the Chamber took note that the Claimant considered that he had been pushed,
by the attitude of the Respondent, to unilaterally terminate the contract with just cause,
while the Respondent held that the elements brought forward by the Claimant could not
justified the termination of the Claimant as being with just cause.
27.
In this regard, the Chamber was of the firm belief that the following elements were key in
its determination of the termination of the Claimant:
The Claimant being sent to the second team;
The change of the car of the Claimant;
The accommodation being taken away from the Claimant;
The salary of August 2019 not being paid;
Statements in the press from the Respondent with regards to the Claimant.
28.
All of the above elements having been established as uncontested facts, the DRC was of the
opinion that all those elements could definitely show a lack of interest toward the Claimant,
especially with the press declaration of the coach of the Respondent. Overall, the DRC
analysed those elements as a whole and was of the firm impression that taken all together,
those elements demonstrated an abusive tactic of the Respondent to drive the Claimant to
unilaterally terminate the contract.
29.
In light of all of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC came to the conclusion that
the player had terminated the contract on 20 September 2019, with just cause.
30.
Having established that the Respondent was to be held liable for the early termination of
the employment contract, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequence of such
termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber
decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent an amount of money
as compensation for breach of the contract in addition to any outstanding payments on the
basis of the relevant employment contract.
31.
First of all, the Chamber reverted to the Claimant’s claim, which included the outstanding
amount of EUR 8,500 relating to the salary of August 2019.
Player Lukasz Gikiewicz, Poland / Football Club FCSB, Romania
Page 10 of 14
32.
At this stage, the Chamber considered relevant to recall that the Respondent although
arguing that it had proceeded with the payment of that amount in due course, had been
unable to provide consistent evidence in this regard.
33.
Consequently, taking into account that the contract was terminated on 20 September 2019,
and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber
decided that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 8,500 corresponding to the
salary of August 2019, plus 5 % interest as of 2 September 2019 following the claim for
interest of the Claimant.
34.
In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of 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.
35.
In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as
to whether the pertinent 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 his regard, the Chamber found that the contract did not
provide for such provision.
36.
As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in application of
the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that
said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into
consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
37.
Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the contract
until 30 June 2020. Consequently, the Chamber took into account the salaries for the period
as from the termination of the contract until 31 June 2020 which amounts to EUR 85,000.
And following the request of the Claimant which was documented with sufficient evidence
in this regard, the DRC decided to also take into account EUR 461.31 corresponding to the
Claimant’s return flight from Bucharest to Split. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that
the amount of EUR 85,461.31 serve as a basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
38.
In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
Player Lukasz Gikiewicz, Poland / Football Club FCSB, Romania
Page 11 of 14
which he would have been able to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant
practice of the DRC, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken
into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in
connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.
39.
In this context, the Chamber noted that the Claimant remained unemployed during the
relevant period, making it impossible for him to reduce his loss of income
40.
Consequently and on account of all of the above-mentioned consideration and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the
amount of EUR 85,461.31 to the Claimant which was considered reasonable and
proportionate as compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.
41.
In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Chamber decided that the Respondent
must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of compensation, i.e. EUR
85,461.31 as of 20 September 2019 until the date of effective payment.
42.
Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./9. above, the DRC
judge referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its
decision, the pertinent FIFA deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from
the failure of the concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration
and/or compensation in due time.
43.
In this regard, the DRC pointed out that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to
pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid and for the maximum
duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.
44.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the
Respondent does not pay the amounts due to the Claimant within 45 days as from the
moment in which the Claimant, following the notification of the present decision,
communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent, a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and
consecutive registration periods shall become effective on the Respondent in accordance
with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
45.
Finally, 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.
3 of the Regulations.
Player Lukasz Gikiewicz, Poland / Football Club FCSB, Romania
Page 12 of 14
II.
Decision of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Lukasz Gikiewicz, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Football Club FCSB, has to pay to the Claimant outstanding
remuneration in the amount of EUR 8,500, plus 5% interest p.a. as from
2 September 2019 until the date of effective payment.
4.
The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant compensation for breach of contract in the
amount of EUR 85,461.31, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 20 September 2019 until the
date of effective payment.
5.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent, immediately and directly, preferably
to the e-mail address as indicated on the cover letter of the present decision, of the
relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the amounts mentioned
under points 3. and 4. above.
6.
The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amounts in accordance
with points 3. and 4. above to FIFA to the e-mail address [email protected], duly
translated, if need be, into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, German,
Spanish).
7.
In the event that the amounts due plus interest in accordance with points 3. and 4. above
are not paid by the Respondent w ithin 45 day s as from the notification by the Claimant
of the relevant bank details to the Respondent, the Respondent shall be banned from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due
amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive
registration periods (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players).
8.
The ban mentioned in point 7 above will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete
serving, once the due amounts are paid.
Player Lukasz Gikiewicz, Poland / Football Club FCSB, Romania
Page 13 of 14
9.
In the event that the aforementioned sums plus interest are still not paid by the end of
the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a
formal decision.
*****
Note related to the publication:
The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the Players’ Status Committee or the DRC.
Where such decisions contain confidential information, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party
within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a
redacted version (cf. article 20 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status
Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).
Note related to the appeal procedure:
According to article 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly
within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in
accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS. Within another 10 days following the
expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating
the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives).
The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:
Court of Arbitration for Sport
Avenue de Beaumont 2
1012 Lausanne
Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00
Fax: +41 21 613 50 01
e-mail: [email protected]
www.tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio Garcia Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Player Lukasz Gikiewicz, Poland / Football Club FCSB, Romania
Page 14 of 14