Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-5409
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 26 August 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player João Diogo
Jennings
BY:
Michele COLUCCI, Italy
CLAIMANT:
João Diogo Jennings, Brazil
Represented by Souza & Muller Advogados
RESPONDENT:
CPF Karpaty Ltd., Ukraine
Page 2
REF FPSD-5409
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 3 August 2019, the Brazilian player, Mr João Diogo Jennings (hereinafter: the player or
the Claimant), and the Ukrainian club, CPF Karpaty Ltd. (hereinafter: the club or the
Respondent), concluded an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until
30 June 2020 (hereinafter: the employment contract).
2.
In accordance with clause 4.1 of the employment contract, the club undertook to pay the
player a monthly salary of UAH 5,500.
3.
Also on 3 August 2019, the parties signed a document titled “Agreement on incentive money
payments” (hereinafter: the Agreement), as integral part of the employment contract.
4.
Clause 1 of the Agreement read as follows:
“1. In accordance with the i. 4.2 of the labour contract concluded between the parties,
aiming and forming with [the player] of the firm motivation to increase his selflessness
and also to secure fulfilment of the sport tasks which are put for the club teams. The
parties have agreed about institution and payment to [the player], in course of the term
of validity of the labour contract between [the player] and the club, of monthly incentive
money payments (hereinafter – Reward) in amount of 176 500,00 (one hundred seventysix thousand five hundred) UAH per month.
1.1. If [the player] perform 10 effective actions (goal + assist) times of the main [club’s]
team’s official matches of the competitions of the Championship of Ukraine in football
between the teams of Ukrainian Premier League of 2019/2020 season. In this case he
will receive a one-time cash payment in the amount of 127 000,00 (one hundred and
forty thousand) UAH
1.2 Club undertakes to reimburse [the player’s] costs for apartment rent in amount of
5000,00 (five thousand) UAH per month.
1.3 Club undertakes to purchase 2 (two) airlines tickets (return) per contractual year, for
[the player] to visit his home country.
1.4 The payout of all mandatory fees from payments received according to this
Agreement is made by [the player] independently”.
5.
On 17 February 2020, the parties signed the three documents listed below, containing
inter alia the following content:
Page 3
REF FPSD-5409
Title
Content
“1. The parties have come to consent to terminate pre-term
the validity of the Contract No. 19/43F, concluded between
[the player] and the club on June 20, 2019, namely – from
the day of this Agreement concluding, as the result [the
player] will be dismissed from work in the club by parties’
consent (cl. 1 of the Art. 36 of the Labour Code in Ukraine)
on the indicated day (the day of this Agreement concluding
Agreement
on
pre-term will be the last day of [the player’s] work in the club).
termination of validity of the
contract
between 2. The parties confirm by means of this Agreement that no
professional football club and compensation are due to payment by any of the parties to
the contract in favour of the other party in connection with
the professional footballer
pre-term termination of validity of the contract.
3. The parties confirm by means of this Agreement
concluding that they have executed all their obligations in
full and in due order and also that they have no claims one
against another as for the moment of this Agreement
concluding”.
“to dismiss from work Joao Diogo Jennings, sportsmanprofessional in football of FC Karpaty, on February 17, 2020
under the agreement of the parties (cl. 1 of the Article 36 of
Letter “about dismissal from
the Labour Code in Ukraine).
work”
Letter of confirmation
6.
Grounds: Application of Joao Diogo Jennings dated February
17, 2020”.
“Hereby I’m confirming that all the payments, due to be paid
to me by LLC CPF Karpaty, were received by me in time and
in full, club has fulfilled all its financial and other
obligations, I have no financial, material or other claims
towards the club.
According to the player, on 13 December 2021, he put the club in default and requested
payment of his outstanding remuneration amounting to UAH 364,000, to no avail.
However, no copy of such notification was submitted to FIFA.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
7.
On 10 March 2022, the player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. Accordingly, the
Claimant explained that the parties entered into a mutual termination agreement on 17
February 2020, but the club failed to pay him the outstanding salaries of December 2019
Page 4
REF FPSD-5409
and January 2020. Consequently, he requested to be awarded UAH 364,000 “plus interest
of 5%”.
8.
On 27 July 2022, the club filed its reply to the player’s claim and submitted copies of the
documents signed on 17 February 2020. The club pointed out that the player confirmed
three times that no remuneration was outstanding and confirmed not having any future
claim against it.
9.
Additionally, the club highlighted that no default notice was ever sent by the player in
connection with the employment contract.
10. On 2 August 2022, the player was invited by the FIFA general secretariat to provide his
comments on the club’s reply. Subsequently, on 5 August 2022, he informed that all
documentation had already been submitted and no further comments would be made.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
11. 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. In
this respect, he took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 10 March
2022 and submitted for decision on 26 August 2022. Taking into account the wording of
art. 34 of the June 2022 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.
12. 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 Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) (July 2022 edition), the
Dispute Resolution Chamber is in principle competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between
a Brazilian player and a Ukrainian club.
13. At this point, the Single Judge recalled the content of art. 23 par. 3 of the FIFA RSTP (July
2022 edition), which stipulates that the Football Tribunal shall not hear any case if more
than two years have elapsed since the facts leading to the dispute arose. He also
highlighted that the application of said time limit shall be examined ex officio in each
individual case.
14. With the above in mind, the Single Judge acknowledged that the case at hand pertains to
a claim for outstanding remuneration, namely the player’s salaries for the months of
December 2019 and January 2020, which were payable by the end of the respective
months.
Page 5
REF FPSD-5409
15. In parallel, the Single Judge recalled that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on
10 March 2022. Therefore, he concluded that in line with the abovementioned art. 23, par.
3 of the FIFA RSTP (July 2022 edition), any amount fallen due before 10 March 2020 is
affected by the statute of limitations.
16. Based on the foregoing, the Single Judge decided that the player’s claim is time-barred,
hence it is inadmissible.
17. For the sake of completeness, the Single Judge felt furthermore comforted with his
conclusion by considering that none of the documents signed at the time of the
termination of the employment contract referred to a debt from the club towards the
player. What is more, even if this was the case, said documents were also signed before
10 March 2020, hence being barred by the statute of limitations.
18. Having established the above, 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, he decided that no procedural
costs were to be imposed on the parties.
19. 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.
Page 6
REF FPSD-5409
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, João Diogo Jennings, is inadmissible.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 7
REF FPSD-5409
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 8