Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-5378
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 6 July 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Faris
Handzic
BY:
Jorge GUTIERREZ (Costa Rica)
CLAIMANT/COUNTER-RESPONDENT 1:
Faris Handzic, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Represented by SPFBiH
RESPONDENT/COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
FK Novi Pazar, Serbia
COUNTER-RESPONDENT 2:
HNK Orasje, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Page 2
REF FPSD-5378
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 22 June 2021, the Bosnian player Faris Handzic (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant
/ Counter-Respondent 1) and the Serbian club FK Novi Pazar (hereinafter: the club or the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant) concluded an employment contract valid as from 1 July
2021 until 31 May 2023 (hereinafter: the contract).
2.
Under clause 3 (1) of the contract, the player was entitled to RSD 35,000 as monthly salary.
3.
On the same day, the parties signed an amendment to the contract (hereinafter: the
amendment) titled “Annex” by means of which the contract was modified. It reads inter
alia as follows:
“The Introductory Provisions
Between Contracting Parties is indisputably determined:
- That the Professional Playing Agreement no. 124/12 of 01.07.2021. was signed until
31.05.2021.
- That during the duration of the basic Agreement the need for correction of the same has
been
determined, and Contracting Parties conclude this Annex in all the following:
Article 1.
Article 3 of the Agreement amends point 1) in its entirety to read as follows:
“For the obligations that the Player is obliged to fulfil to the Club, the Contracting Parties
agree to pay the Player an amount on behalf of compensation which does not have the
character of earnings of EUR 30,000 for the period from 01.07.2021. to 31.05.2023. (20
monthly fees per EUR 1,500).
-The first monthly fee of EUR 1,500 will be paid at the time of signing Agreement No. 124/12
and the Annex to the Agreement.
The Club will also pay the Player bonuses during the duration of the Agreement:
150,000 RSD will receive per 8 points per season 2021/22 (8 goals or assists)
After the eventual 3fulfilment of the bonus of 8 points, the player will receive another 150,000
RSD for the next 6 points in the 2021/22 season (14 goals or assists)
After the eventual 3fulfilment of the bonus of 14 points, the player will receive another
300,000 RSD for the next 3 points in the 2021/22 season (17 goals or assists)”
Article 2.
In the rest of the Agreement remains unchanged.”
4.
On 20 January 2022, the player (via the Players’ Union of Bosnia and Herzegovina –
SPFBiH) put the club in default. He claimed to have been unpaid since November 2021 as
Page 3
REF FPSD-5378
well as that he was forced to train alone. Equally, he highlighted to have been excluded
from the training camp to take place in Turkey as of the following day. Lastly, the player
denounced that the club had failed to procure his work visa. The player requested that
the club remedied its breaches.
5.
On 24 January 2022, the player again wrote via the SPFBiH to the club and reiterated his
requests. In particular, he added that the club owed him EUR 5,100 corresponding to
“salaries for July, August, September, October, November, December and part of January
salary”. The player granted 72h for the club to remedy its default.
6.
On 30 January 2022, the player sent a letter to the club via the SPFBiH whereby he
reiterated his previous notice. In particular, the player referred to art. 14bis of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) and granted the club 10 days to
pay its dues.
7.
On 5 February 2022, the club wrote to the player and asked him to avail himself at the
club’s premises to receive his salary of December 2021. The club alleges that the letter
contained a typo and should have referred to November 2021.
8.
On 9 February 2022, the club fined the player 30% of his remuneration for the salary of
November 2021 due to an alleged absence of 10 days.
9.
On 10 February 2022, the player terminated the contract in writing arguing just cause and
referring to art. 14 of the RSTP.
10. On the same date, the club wrote to the SPFBiH and argued that it could not identify the
connection between said body and the player. It requested a power of attorney to address
any issues regarding the player and argued that he had been absent for 2 weeks.
11. On 2 March 2022, the Bosnian and Herzegovinian Football Association (FFBH) on behalf
of its affiliate, HNK Orasje (hereinafter: the New Club or the Counter-Respondent 2), entered
a transfer instruction to engage the player as an amateur, subsequently requesting the
player’s International Transfer Certificate (ITC) on the same day. The Respondent /
Counter-Claimant is listed in such instruction as the player’s former club.
12. Failing any response from the Football Association of Serbia (FSS), the player’s ITC was
delivered to the FFBH on 10 March 2022 and the player registered with the New Club as
an amateur.
13. On 18 March 2022, on the grounds that the player was still under contract with the club,
the FSS wrote to FIFA requesting the cancellation of the cited transfer instruction.
Page 4
REF FPSD-5378
14. On 21 March 2022, FIFA wrote to the FSS and informed that since the ITC had already
been delivered, their request was moot.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
15. By correspondence dated 23 February 2022 but submitted on 8 March 2022, 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 player
16. On 15 March 2022, the FIFA general secretariat inter alia requested the player to provide
“a recently issued, duly signed and specific power of attorney authorising SPFBiH to act on
behalf of [the player] in the present matter”.
17. On 16 March 2021, the player provided a power of attorney in favour of the SPFBiH where
the player is listed as Serbian. Said power of attorney is dated 1 January 2022.
18. On 17 March 2022, the FIFA general secretariat inter alia requested the player to confirm
his nationality.
19. On 18 March 2022, the player provided a power of attorney in favour of the SPFBiH where
the player is listed as Bosnian. Said power of attorney is dated 1 January 2022.
20. With regards to his merits of his claim, the latest version of the player’s statement of claim
is summarized as follows.
21. The player admits in his claim that he shall not receive salaries “in the months of winter or
summer breaks where no official matches are played. For example, the months of January
2022, June 2022 and January 2023”.
22. He argued nonetheless that he had just cause to terminate the contract on the grounds
of art. 14 of the RSTP. In particular, he referred to the (a) outstanding salaries, (b) the fact
that he was training alone and excluded from the club’s training camp.
23. In support of the above, the player filed an undated Facebook post from an unspecified
web page, with the following text:
“Football players and the expert headquarters of Novi Pazar have arrived in Antalya, where in
the next two weeks they will perform the main part of the preparations for the spring part of
the season. Blue will play four control matches at the Turkish resort, the first on Sunday against
Pandev Academy, then duels against Polish Gornik 27. January, Russian Arsenal from Tula three
Page 5
REF FPSD-5378
days later and 3. february against b team Spartak from Moscow. On the list of passengers for
the two-week preparations are players: Nikola Vujanac, Almin Kahrimanovic, Vahid Zimonjić,
Dejan Paraina, Nikola Vlajković, Stefan Lončar, Stefan Dimić, Sead Islamović, Luka Ratković,
Filip Pavišić, Slobodan Rubežić, Milan Joksimović, Danko Kikovic, Almir Aganspahic, Filip Jovic,
Jasmin Trtovac, Lazar Mihailovic, Mirza Delime koac, Bojan Čecarić, Igor Maksimović, Bojica
Nikčević, Milan Jokic and Semir Alic. In addition to Dragan Radojičić, in the expert headquarters
of the blue are assistant coach Semir Hadžibulić, goalkeeper coach Damir Beširović,
conditioning coach Marko Prentović, physiotherapist Jasmin Džogović and economist Muamer
Durević.
In addition to players and members of the expert staff, the delegation also includes Secretary
General Fikret Medjedović, Sports Director Kenan Kolašinac and Secretary of the expert staff
Emir Bihorac. Footballers will have phenomenal conditions at the Miracle Hotel as part of which
is an excellent complex of fields where footballers will train and play control matches”.
24. The player seeks the following payments:
a. EUR 5,100 as unpaid salaries plus 5% interest p.a. as from the relevant payment dates
until the date of effective payment, as follows:
i. EUR 300 for each the month from July until December 2021, amounting to EUR
2,100;
ii. EUR 3,000 for the months of November and December 2021;
b. EUR 25,800 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest as from 26 January
2022 until the date of effective payment, as follows:
i. EUR 21,000 from the amendment;
ii. EUR 4,800 from the contract;
c. EUR 10,800 “as an additional compensation + 5% interest as from 10 February 2022 until
the date of effective payment”; and
d. EUR 2,500 as legal costs.
b. Position of the club
25. The club started by highlighting that in the default notices, the player’s representative did
not present any power of attorney. At the same time, it underlined the issues the player
had with presenting a power of attorney before FIFA.
Page 6
REF FPSD-5378
26. The club then proceeded to argue that the player did not have just cause to terminate the
contract. The club referred to article 14bis of the RSTP And argued that neither of
conditions found therein was met by the player. To this end, the club submitted that
conversely to what was alleged by the player, the only amounts payable were those found
in the amendment and not the original contract – and thus the player’s salary was EUR
30,000 to be paid in 20 installments of EUR 1,500 each, i.e. 10 payments per season.
27. In continuation, the club explained that in accordance with the contract, and as confessed
by the player, he was not entitled to receive any salaries for the months of December and
January of each season (i.e. the winter break). As such it argued that on 30 January 2022
the player had only one salary outstanding, being that for the month of November 2021,
which the club had requested the player to collect.
28. In support of his position, the club filed several salary receipts allegedly signed by the
player, for the months between June and September 2021.
29. Additionally, the club referred to the player’s default notice and argued that he granted
only 10 days instead of the 15 days foreseen by article 14bis of the Regulations.
30. The club submitted that the player did not have just cause to terminate the contract under
article 14 of the RSTP, aside from the fact that in the club’s opinion the player had never
filed a power of attorney before. Additionally, the club argued that the evidence provided
by the player in support of his position to have been excluded from the training camp is
not sufficient since it is a Facebook publication listing 23 players, which is not things entire
squad of the club. The club equally submitted that only 10 days had elapsed since the
default notice and therefore that the termination is premature.
31. Subsequently, the club argued that there is no evidence on the file pertaining to the issue
of the work visa and therefore that the position of the player in this respect should be set
aside.
32. As such, the club filed a counterclaim against the player and the New Club and requested
EUR 23,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause, calculated as
follows, together with 5% interest p.a. as of to date of termination until the date of
affective payment:
“Value of the Contract as stated in the Annexe: EUR 30,000
Salaries paid to the Player: EUR 1,500*4 = EUR 6,000
Residual value of the Contract: EUR 30,000 – EUR 6,000 = EUR 24,000
Outstanding salary: EUR 1,000 (sanction of EUR 500)
Compensation due = EUR 30,000 – EUR 6,000 – EUR 1,000 = EUR 23,000".
Page 7
REF FPSD-5378
33. Lastly, the club filed a subsidiary motion that in case the player’s claim is accepted, the
amount of compensation should be mitigated by the player’s new contract.
c. Reply to the counterclaim by the player
34. In reply to the club’s counterclaim, the player started by stating that the club had not
discharged its burden of proof regarding his absences. The player highlighted that the
letters from to club found on file were not followed by any proof of delivery. At the same
time, he highlighted that the club did not follow due process regarding the fine imposed
on him since he was sanctioned directly without a chance to defend himself.
35. The player reiterated that he had just cause to terminate the contract and adduced that,
conversely to the club’s position, he did so on the basis of article 14 and not 14bis of the
RSTP due to the multiple violations of his personality rights. The player submitted that
“the employer’s payment obligation is its main obligation towards the employee. If it fails to
meet this obligation, the employee can no longer be expected to continue to be bound by the
contract in future. Whether the employee falls into financial difficulty by reason of the late or
non-payment, is irrelevant. The only relevant criterion is whether the breach of obligation is
such that it causes the confidence to be lost, which the one party has in the future performance
in accordance with the contract.”
36. As to the compensation sought by the club, the player argued that in case the Football
Tribgunal found that the termination took place without just cause, due to the principle
of “positive interest”, the party in default cannot be rewarded by receiving financial gain.
d. Position of the New Club
37. The New Club did not file its position despite having been invited to do so by the FIFA
general secretariat.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
38. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also
referred to as Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case
at hand.
39. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 8 March
2022 and submitted for decision on 6 July 2022. Taking into account the wording of
art. 34 of the June 2022 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Page 8
REF FPSD-5378
Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the
Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
40. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and
observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22, par. 1, lit.
b) of the RSTP (July 2022 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) is competent
to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with
an international dimension between an Bosnian player and a Serbian club, with the
involvement of a Bosnian club.
41. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to
the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with
art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the RSTP (July 2022 edition), and considering that the present
claim was lodged on 8 March 2022, the March 2022 edition of said regulations
(hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
42. The Single Judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art.
13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the
basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, he
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which he
may consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the
evidence generated by or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
43. The competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single
Judge entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, he started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, he emphasised that in the following considerations
he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which he
considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
44. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of
the matter, and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute the termination
of the employment relationship between the parties and the consequences thereto.
45. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that it was his task was to make a
determination on the following:
Page 9
REF FPSD-5378
a. What amounts were due to the player by the time of his default / termination
notice, given the contents of the contract and amendment?
b. Did the player have just cause to terminate the contract?
c. What are the consequences of the above?
46. The Single Judge proceeded to examine these questions in turn.
What amounts were due to the player by the time of his default/termination notice, given
the contents of the contract and amendment?
47. First of all, the Single Judge recalled that the parties diverge on what amounts were
payable to the player. While the latter argues that he was to receive EUR 1,500 per month
under the amendment plus RSD 35,000 (or its Euro equivalent) under the contract, the
club argues that the amendment replaced the relevant clause of the contract entirely, and
that only EUR 1,500 were payable to the player on a monthly basis.
48. Having examined the contents of the amendment with attention, the Single Judge
concluded that the club’s position shall be upheld. In fact, the contents of the amendment
are clear to determine that clause 3 (1) of the contract, i.e. the one establishing the
player’s remuneration, was entirely replaced by the wording explained in the
amendment. Such conclusion derived from the unequivocal wording of the amendment.
49. Although the parties did not explain precisely why the amendment was signed, the Single
Judge found it easy to note that the player’s earnings under the contract were smaller
than those established under the amendment, as the latter also comprised of bonuses.
It seemed therefore to the Single Judge that the parties agreed to modify the player’s
earnings i.e. to increase it, and thus signed the amendment.
50. It follows that the payments established under the amendment are the only ones to
consider.
51. At the same time, the Single Judge was mindful that the player confesses that he was not
to receive salaries during the winter break of each season, and furthermore that he did
not challenge the club’s assertion that no moneys were payable between December and
January of each year. This is, in the Single Judge’s opinion, consistent with the wording of
the amendment, whereby the player would receive 20 payments of EUR 1,500 each during
the contract’s term – thus 10 payments per season, excluding January and December of
each year.
Page 10
REF FPSD-5378
52. In his claim, the player asserts that the club failed to pay him EUR 300 per month from
July to December 2021 under the contract. However, as established above, no payments
were due to him under the contract, and therefore the only conclusion that the Single
Judge could reach was that no amounts were outstanding in this regard.
53. Equally, the Single Judge recalled that the player states that the salaries of November and
December 2021, amounting to EUR 3,000, were also due. However, as already established
above, no payments were due for December (and January for that matter). For the sake
of completeness, although the club did not file any salary receipts for the month of
October 2021, the Single Judge was mindful that player is not requesting this concept in
the claim, and therefore it was understood that such salary was paid.
54. As such, considering all the information and evidence at his disposal, and,in particular,
the player’s default / termination notices, the Single Judge concluded that only EUR 1,500
as salary of November 2021 were due to the player, and not EUR 5,100 as claimed.
Did the player have just cause to terminate the contract?
55. The Single Judge found it important to recall under the Regulations and existing
jurisprudence what constitutes just cause to terminate a contract. In doing so, he referred
to the Commentary to the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players Edition 2021 (page
107), which explains as follows:
“The Regulations to do not provide a defined list of “just causes”. It is impossible to capture all
potential conduct that might be considered just cause for the premature and unilateral
termination of a contract concluded between a professional player and a club. Over the years,
jurisprudence has established several criteria that define, in abstract terms, which
combinations of circumstances should be considered just causes. A contract may only be
terminated prior to the expiry of the agreed term where there is a valid reason to do so.
In several awards, CAS has drawn a parallel between the concept of ”just cause” as defined in
article 14 of the Regulations and the concept of ”good cause” in article 337(2) of the Swiss Code
of Obligations (SCO). Good cause (and thus just cause) to lawfully terminate an employment
contract exists when the fundamental terms and conditions which formed the basis of the
contractual arrangement are no longer respected by one of the parties. When required to
assess whether a valid reason existed for a unilateral contract termination, the following
principles should be applied, while considering the specific circumstances of each individual
matter:
- Only a sufficiently serious breach of contractual obligations by one party to the contract
qualifies as just cause for the other party to terminate the contract.
Page 11
REF FPSD-5378
- The termination of a contract should always be an action of last resort (an “ultima ratio”
action)”.
56. In the case at hand, and against such background, the Single Judge found it necessary to
determine if the breaches allegedly committed by the club were sufficient to make it
impossible for the player to expect the continuation of the employment relationship, and
if the termination was an ultima ratio measure.
57. On this note, the player argues that he was excluded from the club’s training camp.
Although the evidence he has provided is scarce, as it reflects a social media post solely,
this document indeed shows that the player was not called up to the training camp. More
importantly, the Single Judge highlighted that while the club refuted the document by
stating that its roster was bigger, it provided no evidence in support of its argument, i.e.
failed to demonstrate that the player had not been excluded from the training camp –
quite the contrary, as the club confirmed to have requested the player in February 2022
to come to the club’s office and collect his salary.
58. Based on the above, the Single Judge found that it can be established that the player was
excluded from the training camp. This consists of a violation of the player’s personality
rights: a club – as an employer – has the duty to protect the personality rights of the player
– as an employee. The Single Judge added that the career development of a footballer
may be prejudiced as a result of inactivity and thus, the club has a duty to allow its players
to engage in the activity for which they have been in principle employed and are qualified
for.
59. The Single Judge recalled that the DRC has already confirmed in multiple occasions that
“among a player’s fundamental rights under an employment contract, is not only his right to
a timely payment of his remuneration, but also his right to access training and to be given the
possibility to compete with his fellow teammates in the team’s official matches”. The same
reasoning applies mutatis mutandis to the training sessions - in particular, regarding a
training camp.
60. Additionally, the Single Judge was mindful that the player also alleged the issue of his visa
/ work permit, but no evidence is found on file in this regard, and thus any argumentation
could only be disregarded on the basis of art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules. Equally,
(a) no evidence has been included on file that the player was absent; and (b) no evidence
as to the correct conduction of any disciplinary proceeding could be demonstrated by the
club. As such, the Single Judge concluded that the fines and any argumentation to this
end were rejected.
61. Considering the foregoing and the overall behaviour of the club, the Single Judge was of
the opinion that seemingly the player had just cause to terminate the contract, especially
given that he repeatedly denounced the situation by his default notices to the club. In
Page 12
REF FPSD-5378
this respect, the Single Judge moreover remarked that while it would have been more
diligent on the player’s representative side to provide a copy of the power of attorney with
the relevant notices (since the player gave such power apparently on 1 January 2022, and
because he is represented by a player’s union), the club never questioned the lack of said
document until after the termination had occurred. The Single Judge also noted that the
club was quite late in responding to the notices.
62. As such, the Single Judge concluded that the player had just cause to terminate the
contract.
What are the consequences that follow?
63. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned his attention to the question of the
consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the club. He observed
that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination, coupled with the specific
requests for relief of the player, is equivalent to one salary under the contract for the
month of November 2021, amounting to EUR 1,500.
64. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt
servanda, the Single Judge decided that the club is liable to pay to the player said amount.
65. In addition, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the DRC in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award interest at the rate of 5% p.a.
on the outstanding amount as from its due date until the date of effective payment.
66. Having stated the above, the Single Judge turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the player by the club in the case at stake. In doing so, he 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.
67. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that he 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 Single
Judge established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment
contract at the basis of the matter at stake.
Page 13
REF FPSD-5378
68. As a consequence, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge recalled that said provision
provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration
when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
69. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Single Judge
proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of
the contract (and its amendment) from the date of its unilateral termination until its end
date. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the amount of EUR 22,500 (i.e. EUR
30,000 minus the months already elapsed – July to November 2021, since no payments
were due between December and January) serves as the basis for the determination of
the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
70. In continuation, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge 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.
71. Indeed, the player found employment with the New Club – however, as an amateur,
therefore without a new (written) contract in accordance with art. 2 of the Regulations.
Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that not mitigation took place in the matter at
hand.
72. Subsequently, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge confirmed that the player
shall receive no additional compensation since there is no mitigation to be accounted for.
73. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Single Judge decided that the club must pay the
amount of EUR 22,500 to the player, which was to be considered a reasonable and
justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
74. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of
the DRC in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of claim until the date of effective
payment.
Page 14
REF FPSD-5378
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
75. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge referred to art. 24
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
76. In this regard, the Single Judge highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the
failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any
new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The
overall maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and
consecutive registration periods.
77. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the club must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the player within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the player, 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 club in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
78. The club shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
79. The Single Judge recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and
prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art.
24 par. 8 of the Regulations.
d. Costs
80. The Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football
agent, or match agent”. Accordingly, the Single Judge decided that no procedural costs
were to be imposed on the parties.
81. Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
82. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for
relief made by any of the parties.
Page 15
REF FPSD-5378
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1, Faris Handzic, is partially accepted.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, FK Novi Pazar, is rejected.
3.
The the Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1
the following amount(s):
- EUR 1,500 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 December 2021
until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 22,500 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 8 March 2022 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 are 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. 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/Counter-Claimant 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/CounterRespondent 1 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.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 16
REF FPSD-5378
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 17