Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-3308
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 16 February 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Haris
Hajdarevic
BY:
Frans de Weger (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Khalid Awad Al-Thebity (Saudi Arabia), member
Stefano Sartori (Italy), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Haris Hajdarevic, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Represented by SPFBiH
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Boluspor, Turkey
Represented by Mr Ismet Bumin
INTERVENING PARTY:
FK Zeljeznicar, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Represented by Mr Feda Dupovac
Page 2
Document Sensitivity: Internal
REF FPSD-3308
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 14 January 2021, the Bosnian player, Haris Hajdarevic (hereinafter: “the player” or “the
Claimant” or “the Claimant/Counter-Respondent”), and the Turkish club, Boluspor
(hereinafter: “the club” or “the Respondent” or “the Counter-Claimant”) signed an
employment contract (hereinafter: “the contract”) valid from the date of signing until 31 May
2023.
2.
According to article III of the contract, the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant (hereinafter: “the
club”) agreed to pay the Claimant/ counter-Respondent (hereinafter: the player”) as follows:
Season 2020/2021 (EUR 30,000)
-EUR 6,000 on 31 January 2021;
-EUR 6,000 on 28 February 2021;
-EUR 6,000 on 31 March 2021;
-EUR 6,000 on 30 April 2021;
-EUR 6,000 on 31 May 2021;
-A bonus of EUR 10,000 within 60 days following the registration of the season by the TFF, if
the club is promoted to the upper league by the end of the season 2021/2022 and is
competing in the Super League in the 2021/2022 season.
Season 2021/2022( EUR 80,000)
-EUR 8,000 on 31 August 2021;
-EUR 8,000 on 30 September 2021;
-EUR 8,000 on 31 October 2021;
-EUR 8,000 on 3 November 2021;
-EUR 8,000 on 31 December 2021;
-EUR 8,000 on 31 January 2022;
-EUR 8,000 on 28 February 2022;
-EUR 8,000 on 31 March 2022;
-EUR 8,000 on 30 April 2022;
-EUR 8,000 on 31 May 2022;
A bonus of EUR 20,000 within 60 days following the registration of the season by the TFF, if
the club is promoted to the upper league by the end of the 2021/2022 season and is
competing in the super League in the 2022/2023 season.
Season 2022/2023:
EUR 100,000 in total (payable in 10 instalments of EUR 10,000 each at the end of each month)
and a bonus of EUR 20,000 if the club is promoted to the upper league by the end of the
2022/2023 season.
3.
Article IV of the contract provides for other benefits to the player like a house and bill inclusive,
a car (including all expenses) and 2 return economy class flight tickets (Istanbul-Sarajevo).
4.
On 28 July 2021, the player sent a default notice to the club requesting payment of EUR
22,000 as outstanding salaries for February 2021 (partial salary) and full salaries for March to
Page 3
Document Sensitivity: Internal
REF FPSD-3308
May 2021, granting it 15 days to comply with its obligations (cf. art. 14bis of the RSTP), to
no avail. 6.
5.
On 12 August 2021, the player terminated the contract with the club with just case due to
almost four unpaid monthly salaries, to no avail.
6.
On 25 August 2021, the player and the Bosnian club FK Zeljeznicar Sarajevo (hereinafter:
“the new club” or “the intervening party” signed a contract, valid from the date of signing
until 31 May 2022 for a monthly salary of BAM 2,000 (approx. EUR 1,022.58 x 4 months) for
August to December 2021 and BAM 3,000 (approx. EUR 1,533.88 x 5 months) for January
2022 to May 2022, a total of EUR 11’759.72.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 13 August 2021, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of
the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant/Counter- Respondent
8.
According to the Claimant, the Respondent did not pay his salaries for the months of March,
April and May 2021 and that the player only received 1/3 of the February 2021 salary.
9.
The player however confirmed having received his full salary for January 2021 but that he
received EUR 2,000 for February 2021 and that both payments were made in cash.
10. According to the player, after his default notice dates 28 July 2021, the club immediately
“started activities against him” as he was orally informed that he will not be registered for
the new season nor will he be part of the first team squad.
11. In view of the above and taking into account that the club did not respect his default notice,
the player claimed that he terminated the contract with just cause on 12 August 2021.
12. In conclusion, the player held being entitled to receive outstanding remuneration and
compensation for breach of contract as follows:
a) EUR 25,096 as outstanding salaries corresponding to the months from March to May 2021,
partial salary for February 2021 and 12 days in August 2021 (i.e. date of termination) plus
an annual interest at a rate of 5%;
b) Turkish Lira (TRY) 3,830 as flight ticket;
c) EUR 216,904 (residual value from 12 August 2021 until 31 May 2023) as compensation
for breach of contract by the club plus an annual interest at a rate of 5%. Said amount is
composed by: EUR 76,904 (12 days of August 2021); EUR 100,000 (salaries related to the
season 2022/2023); EUR 20,000 (bonus related to the season 2021/2022) and EUR 20,000
(bonus related to the season 2022/2023) and
Page 4
Document Sensitivity: Internal
REF FPSD-3308
d) To order the Respondent to pay all legal costs incurred by him.
b. Reply and counter-claim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant
13. According to the Respondent, on 14 January 2021, the three parties to the present dispute
signed a transfer agreement for the definitive transfer of the player from the intervening party
to it and that on the same day, the Respondent signed a contract with the Claimant.
14. The Respondent further stated that the player “vaguely argues” that the club, upon receipt
of his default notice allegedly “started activities against him” but fails to elaborate on and
support such argument with any evidence. The club rejected this allegation and maintained
that the player was always integrated with the A team and was a valued member of the team.
The club also noted that the player did not raise the above argument in his termination notice.
15. Furthermore, the club argued that the player did not respect art.12bis as his default notice
was sent on 28 July 2021 and the 15 days granted to it to comply expired on 12 August
2021, which was the day that it made payment of the total overdue amount.
16. The club added that upon the receipt of the notification dated 28 July 2021, it arranged the
payment and intended to deliver the requested payment in cash, as it did before. However,
when the player was invited to its accounting department on 12 August 2021 to collect his
overdue remuneration, he refused to receive the payment in cash and declared that he “might
terminate the contract in any case, regardless of receiving the payment of the requested
amount”.
17. According to the club, as a result of the above, it proceeded to make payment to the player’s
account on 12 August 2021.
18. As a result of the above, the club claims that it made payment within the given deadline but
that despite being informed about the payment, the player adhered to the termination and
left Turkey on 13 August 2021.
19. For the sake of completeness, the club states that at the date of termination, the player was
entitled to EUR 30,000 and that it made payment of EUR 30,345.21.
20. Consequently, the club states that at the date of termination, there were no amounts overdue
to the player and he therefore did not have a just cause to terminate the contract and his
claim must be rejected.
21. Lastly, the club argues not being obliged to reimburse the amount requested as flight ticket
since it was purchased after the player unilaterally terminated the contract.
Page 5
Document Sensitivity: Internal
REF FPSD-3308
22. The club therefore submits a counterclaim against the player for the amount of EUR 246,800
(EUR 176,800 as the residual value of the contract and EUR 70,000 as replacement costs-as
the player had to be replaced by another player).
23. Additionally, the club alleges that after the termination, the player signed a contract with the
intervening party and this indicates that the termination was predetermined. The club adds
that despite it contesting the ITC request submitted to the TFF on ground of the unilateral
termination, the player nevertheless registered with the new club.
24. In conclusion, the club requests that the intervening party be held jointly and severally liable
for the compensation payable to it by the player.
25. The requests for relief of the Respondent, were the following:
• To order the player to pay EUR 246,800 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5%
interest p.a. as of the date of the contract termination until the date of effective payment;
• To declare the intervening party jointly and severally liable for the payment of the
compensation above requested and
• To impose sporting sanctions on the player and the intervening party.
c. Claimant/Counter-Respondent´s reply to the counter-claim
25. As a preliminary remark, the player contests ever signing the payment receipts as provided by
the club and submits that they should be disregarded.
26. In reply to the counterclaim, the player submits that it must be underlined that he did wait
for 15 days before terminating the contract. Indeed, a default notice was sent to the club on
28 July 2021, at exactly 13:44. It is important to note that the club never replied to said letter,
hence demonstrating their lack of interest in swiftly and timely resolving the breach.
27. The player adds that the termination letter was subsequently sent on Thursday 12 August
2021, 16:25:00, that is, 15 days, 2 hours, 41 minutes passed between the two periods.
According to the player, the club however informed him about the payment of obligations
on 13 August 2021 at 17:38, which is actually 16 days and a few hours extra after he initially
sent his warning.
28. With the above in mind, the player states that the allegations of the club are unfounded.
29. Furthermore, the player states that the 15-days’ notice is not an absolute pre-requisite for a
party to terminate a contract with just cause. Indeed, article 14bis only refers to a specific
situation whereby monthly payments are outstanding, but is without incidence on the
possibility to even immediately terminate a contract without a default notice should the
breach of contract be of such severity. In addition, the player underlines that he did not
Page 6
Document Sensitivity: Internal
REF FPSD-3308
terminate the contract solely based on art. 14bis of the FIFA RSTP and that the termination
letter clearly refers to art. 14 of the RSTP.
30. It must be noted according to the player that the amount outstanding at the time of the
default notice and termination letter was significant, as he had not received a salary for more
than 5 months at that time, given that the last salary received was for the month of February
2021. In addition, and contrary to the club´s assertion, the player reiterates that he was
pressured throughout the contractual relationship and was sent to train alone repeatedly for
no objective reason and fined without any justification.
31. According to the player, he visited the club´s offices on 12 August 2021 where he proposed
an amicable solution. However, he submits that at that moment the club representatives
insulted him, (in the period between 17.55 and 18.10 on 12 August 2021). According to the
player, by letter dated 16 August 2021, he informed the club of said incident.
32. With the above in mind, the player argues that the 15-days deadline did not and does not
constitute a pre-requisite such as to question the existence of a just cause in the present case
as the club´s breaches were multiple and severe enough throughout a significant period of
time (i.e. they began at least in February, 6 months before the termination). The player
deemed that the club had thus no interest in maintaining the contractual relationship and
considering otherwise based on an allegedly too short deadline would amount to a situation
of excessive formalism.
33. Consequently, the player reiterates that he terminated the contract with just cause.
34. With regard to the counterclaim for compensation, the player states that if by the impossible
the FIFA DRC was to find that he did not terminate his contract with just cause, the club’s
counterclaim shall not be granted since the club was in breach of its essential obligation of
payment at the time of the termination.
35. The player claims that no compensation should be granted to the club since it was in default
at the time of the termination, and as a consequence, it cannot benefit from a situation
triggered by itself, as per the established jurisprudence of the FIFA DRC and CAS. In this
respect, a party in default cannot demand the execution of the other party’s obligation nor
unduly enrich itself out of a situation having arisen from the club’s repeated breaches. Such
counterclaim demonstrates the contradicting attitude of the club, as the latter displayed a
clear lack of interest in honouring its contractual obligations while now attempting to receive
a financial compensation.
36. In conclusion, the player requests that the club´s counterclaim should be rejected in its entirety
and that the compensation due to him maybe mitigated as he signed a new contract with the
intervening party. The player however requests to be awarded additional compensation
equivalent to 6 monthly salaries due to the egregious circumstances.
Page 7
Document Sensitivity: Internal
REF FPSD-3308
d. Comments of the intervening party
37. The intervening party rejects the counterclaim.
38. According to the intervening party, the Respondent did not respect its contractual obligations
towards the player. In addition, it alleged that it did not induce in any way the player to
terminate his contract.
39. The intervening party states that after insight into the entire documentation on file, it is clearly
visible that the claim of the club is unfounded and there are no grounds to accept such
request.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
40. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as “the Chamber” or
“the 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 13 August 2021 and submitted
for decision on 16 February 2022. 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.
41. 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 Bosnian player, a
Turkish club and a Bosnian club.
42. 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 13 August 2021, the February 2021 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: “the Regulations”) is applicable to the matter at hand as to
the substance.
Page 8
Document Sensitivity: Internal
REF FPSD-3308
a. Burden of proof
43. 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).
a. Merits of the dispute
44. 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
45. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute the justice of the early termination
of the contract by the Claimant, based on the alleged non-payment of certain financial
obligations by the Respondent as per the contract, in accordance with art. 14bis of the
Regulations.
46. On the one hand, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant argued having terminated
the contract on 12 August 2021 with just cause taking into account that the Respondent did
not comply with its contractual obligations.
47. On the other hand, the DRC noted that the Respondent argued that the player terminated
the contract without just cause since on the date of termination (i.e. 12 August 2021) there
were no amounts overdue to him. In addition, the Chamber acknowledged that the
Respondent lodged a counterclaim against the Claimant for compensation due to the alleged
unlawful termination of the contract by the player.
48. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that their task was to determine, based on the
evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained unpaid
by the Respondent and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the
Regulations had in fact been fulfilled.
49. The Chamber then referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, in
accordance with which, if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two monthly salaries
on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate his contract,
Page 9
Document Sensitivity: Internal
REF FPSD-3308
provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline of
at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligations.
50. The Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant claims not having received his remuneration
in full for the total amount of EUR 25,096 corresponding to part of his salary of February
2021; full salaries of March 2021, April 2021 and May 2021 and 12 days of August 2021.
51. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Claimant has provided written evidence of having
put the Respondent in default on 28 July 2021 (at 13:44), i.e. at least 15 days before
unilaterally terminating the contract on 12 August 2021 (at 16:25).
52. The Chamber further noted that in the case at hand the Respondent bore the burden of
proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between
the parties.
53. In this respect, the DRC took note that based on the evidence at disposal on 12 August 2021
(at. 18:54) the Respondent made a bank transfer to the Claimant for an amount of EUR
22,345.21.
54. In this context, the Chamber observed that on 13 August 2021 (at. 17:38) the Respondent
informed the Claimant via email about the relevant bank transfer.
55. Nonetheless, the DRC concluded that the above-mentioned evidence provided by the
Respondent does not prove beyond doubt the payment of the total amount claimed as
outstanding by the Claimant (i.e. EUR 25,096) at the moment of the termination of the
contract, i.e. 12 August 2021 (at 16:25).
56. Thus, the Chamber decided that the Claimant had a just cause to unilaterally terminate the
contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations.
i. 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.
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 approximately
four months as salaries under the contract, amounting to EUR 25,096.
59. In this context, the Chamber reiterated that the Respondent paid the amount of EUR
22,345.21 to the Claimant.
Page 10
Document Sensitivity: Internal
REF FPSD-3308
60. Therefore, the DRC pointed out that an amount of EUR 2,750.79 remains outstanding by the
Respondent as monthly salaries.
61. With regard to the Claimant’s request for TRY 3,830 as reimbursement of the flight ticket,
the DRC highlighted that article IV of the contract established the Respondent’s obligation to
provide the Claimant with two return flight tickets.
62. What is more, the DRC pointed out that the Claimant provided evidence of having paid the
amount of TRY 3,830 as flight ticket.
63. Consequently, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts, which
were outstanding under the contract, i.e. EUR 2,750.79 and TRY 3,830.
64. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate
of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 12 August 2021 until the date of effective
payment.
65. 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.
66. 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, the Chamber established that no
such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter
at stake.
67. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the club to the player 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.
Page 11
Document Sensitivity: Internal
REF FPSD-3308
68. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract from
the date of its unilateral termination until its end date.
69. In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that the following remuneration integrated the
residual value of the contract:
1) Balance of the month of August 2021: EUR 5,067 [i.e. EUR 8,000 X 19/30];
2) Rest of the season 2021/2022: EUR 72,000 [i.e. EUR 8,000 x 9);
3) Season 2022/2023: EUR 100,000
70. In this context, the DRC held that the bonuses for a total amount of EUR 40,000 (i.e. EUR
20,000 for season 2021/2022 and EUR 20,000 for season 2022/2023) requested by Claimant
as part of the residual value of the contract should be rejected since they were conditional to
the accomplishment of future objectives.
71. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 177,067 (i.e. the residual
value of the contract) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
72. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would
have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the
DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, 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.
73. Indeed, the player found employment with the intervening party. In accordance with the
pertinent employment contract, the player was entitled to BAM 2,000 (approx. EUR 1,022.58
x 4 months) from 25 August to December 2021 and BAM 3,000 (approx. EUR 1,533.88 x 5
months) from January 2022 to May 2022. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the player
mitigated his damages in the total amount of EUR 11,759.72 that is, 4 times EUR 1,022.58
(i.e. EUR 4,090.32) plus 5 times EUR 1,533.88 (i.e. EUR 7,699.40).
74. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to
which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as additional
compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be due to overdue
payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract termination took
place due to said reason i.e. overdue payables by the club, and therefore decided that the
player shall receive additional compensation.
75. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of EUR
24,000, i.e. three times the monthly remuneration of the player.
Page 12
Document Sensitivity: Internal
REF FPSD-3308
76. The Chamber reminded the parties that, as per the last sentence of art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the
Regulations, the overall compensation may never exceed the rest value of the prematurely
terminated contract.
77. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount of EUR 177,067
to the player (i.e. EUR 177,067 minus EUR 11,759.72 plus EUR 11,759.72 limited to a
maximum of EUR 177,067), which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount
of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
78. 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 of the date of lodging the claim (i.e. 13 August 2021 until the date
of effective payment.
i. Compliance with monetary decisions
79. 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.
80. 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.
81. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of
three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on the
Respondent in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
82. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
83. 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.
Page 13
Document Sensitivity: Internal
REF FPSD-3308
a. Costs
84. 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.
85. 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.
86. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
Page 14
Document Sensitivity: Internal
REF FPSD-3308
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent,Haris Hajdarevic, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Boluspor, has to pay to the Claimant/CounterRespondent, the following amounts:
- EUR 2,750.79 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 12 August 2021
until the date of effective payment;
- TRY 3,830 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 12 August 2021
until the date of effective payment and
- EUR 177,067 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 13 August 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.
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
Page 15
Document Sensitivity: Internal
REF FPSD-3308
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
Document Sensitivity: Internal