Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-18442
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 27 June 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player
Nazmi Gripshi
COMPOSITION:
Martín AULETTA (Argentina), Deputy Chairperson
Alejandro ATILIO TARABORELLI (Argentina & Italy), Member
Gonzalo DE MEDINILLA (Spain), Member
CLAIMANT:
Nazmi Gripshi, Albania
Represented by Viola Kollcinaku
RESPONDENT:
FC Ballkani, Kosovo
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-18442
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 11 May 2022, the Albanian player Nazmi Gripshi (hereinafter, the Player or the Claimant)
and the Kosovar club FC Ballkani (hereinafter, the Club or the Respondent) concluded an
employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract) valid as from 1 July 2022 until 30 June 2024.
2.
Pursuant to Clause 10 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player (hereinafter,
jointly referred to as the Parties) a bonus of EUR 10,000 “In case that [the Club] wins the title
of champion”.
3.
On 28 May 2023, the Club won the 2022/2023 national championship.
4.
On 25 May 2024, the Club won the 2023/2024 national championship.
5.
On 20 September 2024, the Player lodged a claim against the Club before the Football
Tribunal, with reference FPSD-16167.
6.
In his claim, the Player argued that the Club had failed to remit his remuneration in full,
thereby requesting the alleged remaining amount. In addition, the Player claimed to be
entitled to EUR 20,000 as sign-on fee and EUR 20,000 the bonus under Clause 10 of the
Contract, after the Club allegedly won the national championship in the 2022/2023 and
2023/2024 seasons.
7.
The Player requested the following relief in FPSD-16167:
I. The present claim filed by Claimant is admissible
II. Respondent is ordered to pay to Claimant outstanding remuneration and salaries of EUR
56,046.28, plus 5% interest p.a. from the due dates until the date of full and effective
payment as defined in the breakdown.
III. Respondent shall bear any and all the possible costs of this procedure.
IV. Respondent shall contribute towards the legal expenses of Claimant in an amount of not
less than CHF 2,500.
8.
The Club failed to reply to the aforementioned claim despite having been invited to do so.
9.
On 4 December 2024, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the
Chamber or the DRC) passed a decision in the aforementioned proceeding (hereinafter, the
Decision FPSD-16167), the findings of which were notified to the Parties on 6 December
2024. The operative part of the Decision reads as follows:
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-18442
“Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. The claim of the Claimant (…) is partially accepted insofar as it is admissible.
2. The Respondent (…) must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
EUR 20,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum as from 1 October
2022 until the date of effective payment.
3. Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4. A warning is imposed on the Respondent.
5. Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account
indicated in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. This decision is rendered without costs”.
10. On 9 December 2024, the Player requested the grounds of the Decision FPSD-16167.
11. On 20 December 2024, the grounds of the Decision FPSD-16167 were notified to the
Parties.
12. After having analysed the arguments and evidence submitted by the Player, the Single
Judge of the DRC accepted the Player’s claim regarding the sign-on fee of EUR 20,000, but
he rejected the Player’s claim regarding the outstanding remuneration and the claim
related to the bonus.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-18442
13. In particular, the Single Judge of the DRC stressed the following:
“In this respect, and bearing in mind art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules and the general
principle of the burden of proof, the Single Judge noted that the Player did not advance any
supporting evidence to demonstrate that the Club had indeed won the championship.
Consequently, and in the absence of any corroborating evidence, the Single Judge decided
to reject the Player’s claim relating to the bonus”.
14. On 7 January 2025, the Player put the Club in default, granting it a deadline of 10 days to
pay, inter alia, EUR 20,000 as bonus corresponding to the Club’s national titles in the
2022/2023 and 2023/2024 seasons.
15. On 19 January 2025, the Club replied to the aforementioned default notice, denying the
Player’s entitlement to the requested amounts based on the Decision FPSD-16167 and the
legal principle of non bis in idem.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
16. On 4 March 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
17. In his claim, the Player argued that the Club won the national championship in the
2022/2023 and the 20233/2024 seasons. In this regard, the Player contended that the Club
has not paid the bonus agreed under Clause 10 of the Contract, in the amount of EUR
10,000 per season.
18. According to the Player, this claim does not violate the principle of non bis in idem, since
the Decision FPSD-16167 only rejected the Player’s claim to one bonus. In addition, the
Player asserted that he has found evidence to support his new claim, “evidence that was not
presented and consequently never addressed in the first trial by the FIFA DRC”
19. The Player also submitted that this claim is not affected by res judicata, arguing that “(…)
apart from the parties being the same, the claims are not identical from a substantive point of
view and the issue has not been resolved based on the same facts and evidence, since referring
to the FIFA DRC decision [the Decision FPSD-16167], it is emphasized that the Player has not
presented a single piece of evidence to support his claim”.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-18442
20. Moreover, the Player asserted that this claim is not identical to the one decided in the
Decision FPSD-16167, as it concerns a different amount from the total amount claimed in
the first judgement.
21. The Player requested the following relief:
“On account of all the foregoing, the Player respectfully requests the FIFA Dispute Resolution
Chamber to issue a decision ruling that:
I.
The present claim filed by the Player is admissible.
II.
[The Club] is ordered to pay to the Player the bonuses in the total value of EUR 20,000,
plus 5% interest p.a. from the due dates until the date of full and effective payment as
defined in the breakdown.
In the alternative
III. [The Club] is ordered to pay to the Player the bonus in the total value of EUR 10,000, plus
5% interest p.a. from the due date until the date of full and effective payment as defined
in the breakdown.
In all cases
IV. [The Club] shall bear any and all the possible costs of this procedure.
V.
[The Club] shall contribute towards the legal expenses of the Player in an amount of
not less than CHF 3,000”.
b. Reply of the Respondent
22. In its reply, the Club initially submitted that the Player had already claimed the bonus for
winning the championships, respectively for the seasons 2022/2023 and 2023/2024, in his
first claim, which was rejected in the absence of any evidence. The Club added that the
Player did not appeal the Decision FPSD-16167, and therefore this decision is final and
binding. As such, the Club considered that this new claim of the Player is inadmissible, as
it is affected by res judicata.
23. According to the Club, the “triple identity check” is met in the case at hand, as the parties
the subject and the object of the two claims are identical and have the same basis.
24. In particular, the Club contended that the Player’s request in this claim is identical to the
one related to the bonus in his first claim, and is based on facts that occurred before the
Player filed his first claim.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-18442
25. The Club contended that the Decision FPSD-16167 expressly considered that the bonus
requested by the Player for the two seasons had not been proved. In this regard, “the
Claimant’s allegation that the Single Judge of the DRC has addressed only the issue of one bonus
of 10,000 €, thus, entailing this party’s right to claim at least one other bonus of 10,000 € is
utterly baseless”.
26. The Club requested that the claim of the Player be considered inadmissible or, in the
alternative, quad non, that the claim of the Player is fully rejected.
c. Replica of the Claimant
27. In his replica, the Player argued that the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has full
discretion to exclude any evidence produced by the parties that was available to them or
could reasonably have been discovered by them before the appealed decision was passed.
28. Accordingly, the Player asserted that appealing the Decision FPSD-16167 to the CAS would
lead to the exclusion of evidence dated before the Decision FPSD-16167, however, “(…) this
does not mean that the Player is barred from raising an exception to res judicata because this
party did not appeal the part of the FIFA DRC decision for which no evidence was presented”.
29. The Player reiterated that the Decision FPSD-16167 only accepted a sign-on fee in the
amount of EUR 20,000, while the Player is currently requesting the amount of EUR 20,000
in connection with two bonuses. In this regard, it was the lack of evidence that forced the
Single Judge of the DRC to reject the Player’s request for the championship bonus.
Nonetheless, in the present claim he has submitted evidence to support his claim, “evidence
that was not presented and consequently never addressed in the first trial by the FIFA DRC”.
30. Based on this, the Player contended that this claim is different from his first claim and has
not yet taken a final form.
31. Furthermore, the Player argued that the Club did not dispute the facts in dispute, namely
that they won the national championship in the 2022/2023 and 2023/2024 season, but
rather attempted to take advantage of the procedures to avoid paying the bonuses.
32. The Player submitted that the Single Judge of the DRC never reviewed the facts presented
in this claim, as they were not part of the file administrated by the DRC. According to the
Player, “The Club's request to consider the case as res judicata violates the material public order
since to consider the decision as res judicata when the parties have not presented any evidence
during the first trial would be contrary to the fundamental sense of justice and morality, to an
extent that is incompatible with the legal order and the value system in Switzerland. Therefore,
the request that the FIFA DRC decision be considered res judicata, in the absence of any concrete
evidence, for the amount of EUR 20,000 claimed by the Player, would seriously violate the
fundamental sense of justice”.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-18442
33. The Player asserted that his request for relief in the two claims is not identical and, as a
consequence, this claim must be considered as a new claim, for a different amount from
the total amount claimed in the first proceeding.
34. The Player reiterated his request for relief.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
35. In its duplica, the Club argued that the CAS has the power to decide a dispute de novo.
Therefore, the Club contended that the Player’s arguments regarding the exclusion of
evidence before the CAS were unfounded.
36. The Club reiterated that the claim of the Player is affected by res judicata and that the
evidence submitted by the Player regarding the bonus does not constitute new facts, given
the Player could have presented it in his first claim.
37. The Club also reiterated its request for relief.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
38. First of all, the Chamber analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand.
In this respect, it took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 4 March 2025
and submitted for decision on 27 June 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 and
34 of the January 2025 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.
39. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed
that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter, the Regulations) (January
2025 edition), the DRC is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an Albanian player
and a Kosovar club.
40. 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. 29 of the
Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-18442
b. Admissibility of the claim
41. At this point, the members of the Chamber noted that the Club challenged the admissibility
of the claim based on the legal principle of res judicata, arguing that the Decision FPSD16167, which has become final and binding, concerned the same parties, the same object,
and the same cause.
42. The DRC also noted that, conversely, the Player rejected the Club’s challenge to the
admissibility of his claim, asserting that the two claims are not identical and that, in the
Decision FPSD-16167, the Single Judge of the DRC only rejected his request regarding the
bonus due to a lack of evidence, which has now been submitted. According to the Player,
the Single Judge of the DRC did not review the facts presented in this claim because they
were not presented in his previous claim.
43. In this context, the Chamber held that it had to establish whether, considering the general
principle of res judicata, it could enter the substance of the matter and pass a decision.
44. Accordingly, the Chamber began its analysis by recalling that, according to the legal
principle of res judicata, a decision-making body is not in a position to decide on the
substance of a case in the even that another –competent– deciding body has already dealt
with the same matter by passing a final and binding decision. In this regard, the principle
of res judicata ensures that whenever a dispute has been defined and decided upon, it
becomes irrevocable, confirmed, and deemed to be just – res judicata pro veritate habetur.
45. In this regard, the Chamber went on to analyse the evidence on file regarding the previous
proceedings and noted that, indeed, a decision has been passed by a competent deciding
body on 4 December 2024 (i.e., the Decision FPSD-16167 passed by the Single Judge of the
DRC).
46. The Chamber also noted that it remained undisputed between the Parties that the Player
did not file an appeal against the Decision FPSD-16167 within the regulatory time limit. As
a consequence, the DRC underscored that the Decision FPSD-16167 is final and binding on
the Parties and, therefore, the main requisite for the existence or applicability of the
principle of res judicata (i.e., a final and binding decision) is met in the present case.
47. The above having been established, the Chamber further underlined that the principle of
res judicata is applicable if cumulatively and necessarily the parties to both disputes, the
object of the matter and the cause are identical. As confirmed in the well-established
jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal and the CAS, the principle of res judicata applies
when the following three elements are cumulatively present:
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-18442
o The same persons – eadem personae;
o The same object – eadem res; and
o The same cause – eadem causa petendi.
48. The legal principle of res judicata has a positive and a negative effect with regard to a
previous decision. While the positive effect implies that the parties can rely on the findings
of the previous decision, the negative effect implies that a decision-making body is
prevented to reconsider or to re-enter the merits of an issue previously decided (in this
regard, inter alia, CAS 2021/A/7915 Javier González López v. Hapoel Tel Aviv FC & FIFA).
49. The Chamber also recalled that, according to the jurisprudence of the Swiss Federal
Tribunal, “the res judicata effect extends to all the facts existing at the time of the first
judgement, whether or not they were known to the parties, stated by them, or considered by the
first [decision-making body]”.
50. With the above in mind, the members of the DRC went on to examine whether the criterion
of the identity of parties is met in the present case. In this regard, the Chamber noted that
both the Player and the Club were the parties in the proceedings leading to the Decision
FPSD-16167, and they are also the parties to the dispute at stake.
51. As a consequence, the Chamber concluded that the requirement of identity of parties was
fulfilled in casu.
52. In continuation, the DRC proceeded to analyse whether the criterion of the object of the
matter is also met. In this regard, the Chamber recalled that the identity of the subject
matter is fulfilled if the reason to claim and the relevant requests of the two claims are
similar.
53. In this regard, the Chamber noted that, in his first claim, the Player requested, inter alia,
EUR 20,000 as a bonus under Clause 10 of the Contract after the Club had allegedly won
the national championship in the 2022/2023 and 2023/2024 seasons (i.e., EUR 10,000 per
season). The DRC underscored that the Player’s claim for the bonus stems not only from
the Decision FPSD-16167, but also from the Player’s own submissions in the present
proceedings, in which he confirmed having requested this amount in his previous claim.
54. The Chamber also noted that, in the case at stake, the Player requested the payment of
EUR 20,000 based on Clause 10 of the Contract, after the Club won the national
championship in the 2022/2023 and 2023/2024 seasons.
55. When comparing the claim previously lodged in front of the Football Tribunal and the one
at hand, the Chamber noted that both of them derived from non-payment of the bonus
agreed under Clause 10 of the Contract for the 2022/2023 and 2023/2024 seasons.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-18442
56. While in the first case, the EUR 20,000 claimed was part of a larger sum in the Player’s
request for relief –which included other amounts and concepts as detailed ut supra–, in this
case, the Player is claiming the payment of EUR 20,000 under the same concept, i.e., the
bonus under Clause 10 of the Contract for the aforementioned two seasons.
57. Therefore, and after having carefully compared the Player’s first claim in FPSD-16167 and
the one at hand, the Chamber unanimously confirmed that both claims address, inter alia,
the Player’s entitlement to the bonus under Clause 10 of the Contract after it was allegedly
triggered on the 2022/2023 and 2023/2024 seasons.
58. Furthermore, the members of the DRC underscored that the fact that the Player’s requests
for relief are different from a grammatical point of view does not affect the identity of the
two claims. In other words, both legal actions were based on the Club’s non-payment of
the bonus claimed, and therefore both legal actions not only concern identical parties to
the dispute, but also identic object (i.e., the bonus under Clause 10 after the Club allegedly
won the 2022/2023 and 2023/2024 national championships) and (partial) request for relief.
59. As stressed in CAS 2019/A/6483 Wydad Athletic Club v. CAF & Espérance Sportive de Tunis,
with reference to the Swiss Federal Tribunal:
“(…) there is res judicata when the claim in dispute is identical to that which was already the
subject of an enforceable judgement (identity of the subject matter of the dispute). This is
the case when both proceedings involve the same parties and the same matter in dispute.
The identity must be understood from a substantive and not grammatical point of view, so
that a new claim, not matter how is formulated, will have the same object as the claim
already adjudicated (ATF 140 III 278 at 3.3; ATF 139 III 126 at 3.2.3.).”
60. In light of the foregoing, the DRC concluded that, as a competent deciding body has already
dealt with the exact same matter, passing a final and binding decision, the present case is
affected by res judicata, and the Football Tribunal is not in a position to deal again with the
substance of the dispute. The claim is this inadmissible.
61. For the sake of completeness, and as opposed to the Player’s arguments, the members of
the Chamber outlined that in the Decision FPSD-16167, the Single Judge of the DRC did
reject the Player’s entitlement to any further claims other than the one regarding the signon fee, as clearly determined in the reasoning and in par. 3 of the operative part of the
Decision FPSD-16167, according to which:
“3. Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected”.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-18442
c. Costs
62. 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.
63. 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.
64. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the Parties.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-18442
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Nazmi Gripshi, is inadmissible.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-18442
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. 14