Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-7151
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 12 April 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Matija
Katanec
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. Hendel (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Sihon Gauci (Malta), member
André dos Santos Megale (Brazil), member
Claimant:
Matija Katanec, Croatia
Represented by Ivan Ostojic
Respondent:
Mezőkövesd Zsóry FC, Hungary
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-7151
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 July 2021, the Croatian player, Matija Katanec (hereinafter: the Claimant or player), and
the Hungarian club, Mezokovesd Zsory FC (hereinafter: the Respondent or club) signed an
employment contract valid as from 1 July 2021 until 30 June 2023.
2.
According to the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a monthly salary
of Hungarian Forint (HUF) 3,000,000 per month.
3.
Article II par.10 of the contract establishes, that: “the professional management or the
management of the Employer may determine in his/her sole discretion at what team -or in line
with the content of sub-point 8.a) -individually, or otherwise shall the Employee perform his/her
training work, or in the matches of what team he/she is obliged to participate.”
4.
Article XI par 47 and 49 of the contract, stipulates:
“47.The Employee acknowledges that if he/she is not included in the first team of the Employer,
or based on the decision of the professional management he/she is transferred to the second or
further teams of the Employer, his/her base wage will be reduced to the percentage determined
in the Personal Conditions of the amount given in point 15 - but to max. its 50 % • from the 15th
day of the month following the decision.
49.The Parties agree that they shall make efforts to settle their possible dispute in amicable way
by negotiations. If these efforts fail - in cases determined by the rules of MLSZ and FIFA - the
Parties may turn to the organizational units with MLSZ or FIFA scope of authority, in case of
labour dispute to the Administrative and Labour Court having competence and scope of
authority, and in all other disputes arising out of their legal relationship the Parties stipulate the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Sports Standing Arbitration Court based on the Article 4 7 of the
Sports Law. The number of arbitrators is three; the procedure is determined by the Procedural
Rules of the Arbitration Court.”
5.
Article XII of the contract, inter alia, stipulates the following:
“Parties agree that if the employee will not play at least the 50% of the league games (at least
720 minutes in the season) in the season of 2021/2022 the employer has the option to terminate
this contract until the 30th of June, 2021. Employer has to notify the employee until the 15th of
June, 2021.
The Parties agree that the Employee shall work in time framework and in unequal working time.
The Employee acknowledges that the Employer determines his working time in a six months'
time frame, based on the 8 hours daily working time. Within the working time framework, the
professional
management of the Employer has the right to distribute the work.”
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-7151
6.
On 8 March 2022, the Respondent sent a letter to the Claimant informing him that from 8
March 2022 he would be part of the club’s second team.
7.
On 11 March 2023, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent informing it that he was
taken from “its first team without any reason and without any prior notice which actions of the
Respondent constitute abusive behavior”, hence he requested the Respondent to not breach
the contract and for his immediate reintegration to the first team.
8.
On 22 April 2022, the Claimant sent another letter to the Respondent according to which
he, inter alia, asked the Respondent to continue paying his full monthly salary and to
immediately reintegrate him in the training process of the first team.
9.
On 10 June 2022, the Respondent sent a notice to the Claimant, informing him that “you as
a professional soccer plaver would not be the member of the first soccer team of Mezokovesd
Zsory FC Kft. and in accordance with the decision of the management of Mezokovesd Zsory
Futball Club starting on the 10th of June,2022 YOU would become a member of the Mezokovesd
Zsory II soccer team. From the aforementioned date you are obligated to train together with the
Mezokovesd Zsory II soccer team.”
10. On 4 July 2022, the Claimant sent a default notice to the Respondent and reiterated his
requests to be reintegrated in to the first team, to be allowed to join the first team’s
training, and to be paid his May 2022 salary, granting the Respondent a deadline of 15 days
to comply, however to no avail.
11. On 12 July 2022, the Claimant sent a final default notice to the Respondent with a 15 day
deadline in which it, inter alia, requested from the Respondent:
-
to stop breaching the Employment contract, and
to reintegrate him in the training process of the first team of the Club, and
to pay him May 2022 salary of net HUF 3,000,000.00 (three million Hungarian Forint), which
matured on 10/6/2022, and
to pay him June 2022 salary of net HUF 3,000,000.00 (three million Hungarian Forint), which
matured (in the meantime) on 10/7/2022
12. On 28 July 2022 the Claimant unilaterally terminated the contract with the Respondent, due
to the latter’s failure to provide any answer in response his default notices and its failure
to fully comply with his requests (it only paid the May 2022 salary of net HUF 3,000,000.00).
13. On 3 August 2022, the Respondent sent a letter to the Claimant, mentioning the following:
“We reject in its entirety the terms of Matija Katanec's termination of his contract sent to us on
28th July 2022, and We do not accept the terms of his termination. Matija Katanec seriously
breached the Employment Contract between the parties and the rules of employment law
applicable to the employment relationship by unlawfully dismissing the applicant.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-7151
Matija Katanec particularly breached the Chapter IX. 39 point of Employment Contract because
He would have been entitled to terminate his employment contract with immediate effect if the
Employer is in min. 1,5 month ( 45 days) delay with the payment of the Employee's wage, and
the Employee called upon the Employer to fulfill the contract within 15 (fifteen) days deadline
and this date has expired without success.
As previously informed to Matija Katanec in detail on several occasions that his performance
during the fall/spring season He could not included to the first team of the MEZOKOVESD ZSORY
FC. The decision of the professional management of MEZOKOKOVESD ZSORY FC according to
which Matija Katanec obliged to train with the second team of MEZOKOVESD ZSORY FC and to
play in its matches is a temporary measure, which would have lasted only until Matija Katanec
was fit and healthy enough to return to the first team.”
14. According to the information available in TMS, the player signed a contract with the
Croatian club, NK Varazdin for the period 23 August 2022 until 15 June 2023 for a monthly
salary of HRK 33,000. The contract was mutually terminated on 10 January 2023.
15. The player then concluded a contract with the Romanian club, Politehnica Lasi for the
period 15 January 2023 until 15 June 2023, for a monthly salary of RON 24,630.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
16. On 22 August 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 Claimant
17. In his claim, the Claimant argued that he terminated he contract with just cause due to
multiple and severe breaches of the contract committed by the Respondent, i.e. failure of
the club to fully comply with the financial terms of the contract and the exclusion of the
player from the training sessions of the first team of the club for the period of 5 months.
18. The claimant mentioned that “in the event the Player played at least 720 minutes of league
games for the Club as from the day of the signature of the Employment contract, the abovementioned par. 47. of Chapter XI. of the Employment contract could not be applied to the Player,
which is defined in the Chapter XI. par. 47. of the Employment contract.”
19. The requests for relief of the Claimant, were the following:
“I. to ascertain that the Claimant terminated the Employment contract signed with the
Respondent with just cause;
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-7151
II. to condemn the Respondent to pay in favor of the Claimant contractual outstandings of net
HUF 5,709,677.60 which matured as follows:
- HUF 3,000,000.00, on 10/7/2022, and
- HUF 2,709,677.60, on 28/7/2022;
III. to condemn the Respondent to pay in favor of the Claimant compensation of net HUF
33,290,322.40 which matured on28/7/2022
IV. to condemn the Respondent to provide the Claimant with the corresponding tax certificates
concerning the payment of all the above specified net amounts alongside all the net amounts
paid to the Player during season 2021/2022,
V. to condemn the Respondent to pay in favor of the Claimant default interest of 5% per year on
the aforementioned amounts starting from the respective date of
maturity until the effective date of the payment”
b. Position of the Respondent
20. In its reply, the Respondent, firstly mentioned that that Hungarian law applies to the
employment relationship between the parties and according “to the relevant provisions of
the applicable Hungarian labour law and the Employment Contract between the parties, in the
event of a labour law dispute, the competent court, in this case the Labour Tribunal Miskolc has
jurisdiction.”
21. Accordingly, it argued that “the Miskolc Labour Court has jurisdiction in the present case, not
FIFA, and that the Claimant should have brought the action before the Miskolc Labour Court
rather than FIFA.”
22. In regard to the Claimant’s removal from the first team, the Respondent indicated that it
had “informed the Claimant on several occasions that the measure was temporary and would
last only until he was physically and healthy enough to play in the first team again. In accordance
with the Employment Contract concluded Claimant was transferred to the second team of the
MEZOKOVESD ZSORY FC due to his inadequate physical condition, MEZOKOVESD ZSORY FC
informed the Claimant that he transferred to the second team of the MEZOKOVESD ZS ORY FC
and is obliged to carry out training work with the second team until he reach the level required
to join the first team according to the decision of the professional management of the Employer
.”
23. The Respondent mentioned that it did not breach the employment contract as the
“Claimant's monthly salary for June was due on 10 July 2022, but the Claimant terminated his
employment contract on 28th July 2022, the Respondent was not and could not have been in
default of payment of the applicant's salary 1,5 month (45 days) as the delay was only 18 days
at the time of the immediate termination. We emphasized that the Employer has never been in
default for more than 1,5 month (45 days) during the duration of the employment relationship.”
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-7151
24. Furthermore, the Respondent indicated at “no time during the employment relationship did
the Respondent reduce the Claimant's wages, the Respondent has fulfilled its payment
obligations under the Employment Contract and was not in arrears for 1,5 months (45 days).”
25. In conclusion the Respondent, requested the following relief:
-
-
that the DRC terminate the proceedings before FIFA in view of the fact that the dispute
between the parties is a labour dispute, which is governed by the employment contract
concluded between the parties on 1 July 2021 and the Hungarian labour law rules of
international labour law.
In case if the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) will not terminate the procedure or
will not stay the proceedings, the Respondent kindly request the FIFA Dispute Resolution
Chamber (DRC) complete rejection of the Claimant's claim as it is completely unestablished
and also for the obligation of the Claimant to cover all costs which have arisen regarding
this case.
c. Additional Comments of the Claimant
26. The Claimant emphasizes “that it clearly derives from the content of Respondents prayers for
relief from its Answer that such answer certainly does not constitute any kind of counterclaim
whatsoever (as the Respondent wrongfully titled it) in this matter and thus should be treated by
the FIFA Football Tribunal (hereinafter: FIFAFT) as an answer to the Players Statement of Claim.”
27. Furthermore, the Claimant “rejected all the allegations of the Club from its above-mentioned
correspondence, given that said allegations constitute nothing more but a groundless and
fabricated attempt to avoid paying to the Player all the sums that he requested in his Statement
of Claim. Consequently, all the arguments of the Club that the Player did not terminate the
employment contract with just cause shall also be entirely rejected.”
28. The Claimant further mentioned that the Respondent on 19 September 2022 paid him an
amount of outstanding remuneration of net HUF 5,709,677.60. Consequently, the Claimant
amends his request for relief stipulated in his statement of claim dated 22 August 2022,
requesting the following:
i.to ascertain that the Claimant terminated the Employment contract signed with
the Respondent with just cause; and
II. to condemn the Respondent to pay in favor of the Claimant an accrued default
interest, broken-down as follows:
- 5% per year on the amount of HUF 3,000,000.00 accrued from 10/7/2022 until
19/9/2022; and
- 5% per year on the amount of HUF 2,709,677.60 accrued from 28/7/2022 until
19/9/2022; and
III. to condemn the Respondent to pay in favor of the Claimant compensation for
breach of contract of net HUF 33,290,322.40 (thirty-three million, two hundred and
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-7151
ninety thousand, three hundred and twenty-two Hungarian Forint and forty Fillers)
which matured on 28/7/2022, while at the same time taking into account provisions of
Article 17. of FIFA RSTP, within 45 days as from the date of notification of the decision in
the present matter to the Respondent; and
IV. to condemn the Respondent to provide the Claimant with the corresponding tax
certificates concerning the payment of all the above specified net amounts alongside
all the net amounts paid to the Player during season 2021/2022, respectively, within 45
days as from the date of notification of the decision in the present matter to the
Respondent; and
V. to condemn the Respondent to pay in favor of the Claimant default interest of
5% per year on the aforementioned amounts starting from the respective date of
maturity until the effective date of the payment, within 45 days as from the date of
notification of the decision in the matter of the reference to the Respondent; and
VI. to impose sporting sanctions against the Respondent, all in the light of FIFA
RSTP.”
29. Finally, the Claimant also respectfully requests the honourable FIFA Football Tribunal to
entirely reject all reliefs sought by the Respondent.
d. Additional Comments of the Respondent
30. The Respondent rejected the Claimant's claim that the counterclaim dated on 13th
September 2022 cannot be considered a counterclaim.
31. The Respondent indicated that its counterclaim has set out precisely the factual and legal
circumstances in light of which it requests FIFA DRC to reject Claimant's claimant on the
basis of what grounds.
“We kindly request FIFA DRC to consider our counterclaim dated on 13th September 2022 as a
counterclaimant. As stated in the counterclaim, we reiterate kindly requested that:
-the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) to terminate the proceedings before FIFA in view of
the fact that the dispute between the parties is a labour dispute. which is governed by the
employment contract concluded between the parties on 1 July 2021 and the Hungarian labour
law rules of international labour law.
-In case if the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) will not terminate the procedure or will
not stay the proceedings, the Respondent kindly request the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber
(DRC) complete rejection of the Claimant's claim as it is completely unestablished and also for
the obligation of the Claimant to cover all costs which have arisen regarding this case.”
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-7151
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or
DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it
took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 22 August 2022 and submitted
for decision on 12 April 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October
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.
2.
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 October 2022 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 an Bulgarian player
and a Hungarian club.
3.
The Chamber however noted that the Respondent challenged the competence of FIFA to
hear the dispute at stake, in that it argued that “the Miskolc Labour Court in Hungary has
jurisdiction in the present case, and that the Claimant should have brought the action
before the Miskolc Labour Court rather than FIFA.
4.
The Chamber therefore referred to article XI par. 49 of the employment contract, according
to which: “the Parties agree that they shall make efforts to settle their possible dispute in
amicable way by negotiations. If these efforts fail – in cases determined by the rules of MLSZ or
FIFA – the Parties may turn to the organizational units with MLSZ or FIFA scope of authority, in
case of labor dispute to the Administrative and Labor Court having competence and scope of
authority, and in all other disputes arising out of their legal relationship the Parties stipulate the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Sports Standing Arbitration Court based on the Article 47 of the
Sports Law. The number of arbitrators is three; the procedure is determined by the Procedural
Rules of the Arbitration Court.”
5.
The Chamber, after analysing the wording of the jurisdiction clause, concluded that such
clause did not clearly and exclusively establish the competence of the labour court in
Hungary.
6.
As a consequence, the Chamber was of the opinion that the Respondent’s objection to the
competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected and that the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is competent, on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations, to
consider the present matter as to the substance.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-7151
7.
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 Players (October 2022 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 22 August2022, the July 2022 edition of
said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
8.
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).
c. Merits of the dispute
9.
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
10. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that player terminated the contract on 28 July 2022, due
to outstanding remuneration and his removal from the first team.
11. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine whether the
Claimant had just cause to terminate the contract on 28 July 2022 and to decide on the
consequences thereof.
12. The Chamber started to examine the circumstances of the Claimant’s removal from the first
team.
13. In this regard, the DRC noted that the Respondent did not deny the removal of the Claimant
from the first team but argued that it “informed the Claimant on several occasions that the
measure was temporary and would last only until he was physically and healthy enough to play
in the first team again”.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-7151
14. The Chamber noted that the Claimant on his account highlighted he had just cause to
terminate the contract in that the Respondent failed to respond to his various request to
reintegrate him to the first team as well as that it failed to provide clarity about the
possibility to rejoin the first team, additionally that the Respondent failed to fully comply
with the financial terms of the contract.
15. In continuation and in reference to the termination of the contract by the Claimant and in
reference to art.14.2 of the Regulations, the Chamber recalled the content of art.14 (2) of
the Regulations which stipulates that “any abusive conduct of a party aiming at forcing the
counterparty to terminate or change the terms of the contract shall entitle the counterparty (a
player or a club) to terminate the contract with just cause.”
16. In this context, the Chamber took into account the different elements of the club’s
behaviour brought forward by the Claimant to justify the termination of the contract, such
as:
-
exclusion from the training sessions of the first team
relegation to the second team
failure to reintegrate to the first team or possibility to rejoin the first team
failure to timeously pay salary
17. In this regard, the Chamber took note that the Claimant considered that the aforesaid
behaviour of the Respondent was aimed against him to try to force him to terminate the
contract, moreover that such behaviour violates not just art.14.2 of the Regulations but
also his personality rights as a professional player to train and play with the first team. The
DRC took note that the Claimant requested on several occasion with the s to be
reintegrated back to the first team.
18. The Chamber further recalled article ii par.10 of the contact, however highlighted that such
provision cannot be applied in an abusive manner by the Respondent.
19. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber noted that the behaviour of the Respondent,
as highlighted above is clearly and deliberately abusive. Furthermore, the Chamber took
note of the evidence provided by the Claimant, showing that he consistently and in good
faith tried to contact the Respondent and be allowed to comply with the terms of the
employment contract. In this context, the Chamber concluded that the circumstances of
the present case are in line with art. 14 par. 2 of the Regulations.
20. The Chamber therefore concluded that such actions of the Respondent shall not be
accepted and therefore taking into account the Claimant’s default notice (at the time it was
issued i.e., 12 July 2022 at least two monthly salaries were outstanding) and the numerous
requests to be reinstated to the first team, established that the player had just cause to
terminate the contract on 28 July 2022.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-7151
21. For the sake of completion, the Chamber referred to the alleged counterclaim of the
Respondent and confirmed that it indeed does not constitute a clear counterclaim
complying with the per the prerequisites of art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, hence it
shall not be taken into consideration.
ii. Consequences
22. 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.
23. Before entering into the calculation of any possible compensation, the Chamber decided
that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant interest due to the late payment of the
Claimant’s salaries, as follows:
-
5% interest p.a. on the late payment of the amount of HUF 3,000,000 (June salary) due on
10 July 2022 but paid on 19 September 2022
5% interest p.a. on the late payment of the amount of HUF 2,709,677.60 (pro rata July 2022
salary) due on 28 July 2022 but paid on 19 September 2022
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-7151
27. 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. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of HUF 33,290,322.58 (i.e., the period 29 July 2022 until 30 June
2023 at HUF 3,000,000 per month x 11 plus pro rata 3 days of July 2022 at HUF 290,322.58)
serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of
contract.
28. 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.
29. Indeed, the player found employment with the Croatian club, NK Varazdin, for the period
23 August 2022 until 15 June 2023 for a monthly salary of HRK 33,000, which contract was
mutually terminated on 10 January 2023. The player thereafter concluded a contract with
the Romanian club, Politehnica Lasi for the period 15 January 2023 until 15 June 2023, for
a monthly salary of RON 24,630. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the player
mitigated his damages in the total amount of HUF 16,301,216 [monthly salary HRK 33,000
X 4 plus pro rata August – HRK 9,581 (approximately HUF 7,011,063) plus RON 123,150
(approximately HUF 9,290,153)].
30. 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 included the said reason i.e., overdue payables by the club, and therefore
decided that the player shall receive additional compensation.
31. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of HUF
9,000,000, i.e., three times the monthly remuneration of the player (HUF 3,000,000 per
month).
32. 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.
33. 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 HUF 25,989,106.58 (HUF 33,290,322.58 less HUF 16,301,216 plus HUF 9,000,000) , which
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-7151
was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of
contract in the present matter.
34. 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 28 July 2022 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
35. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber 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.
36. 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.
37. 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. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
38. 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.
39. 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. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
40. 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.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-7151
41. 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.
42. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-7151
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant, Matija Katanec.
2.
The claim of the Claimant, Matija Katanec, is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Mezőkövesd Zsóry FC, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- only 5% interest p.a. on the late payment of the amount of HUF 3,000,000 as from 11
July 2022 until 19 September 2022;
- only 5% interest p.a. on the late payment of the amount of HUF 2,709,677.60 as from 28
July 2022 until 19 September 2022;
- HUF 25,989,106.58 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus
5% interest p.a. as from 28 July 2022 until the date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant 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 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.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-7151
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 Governing the Football
Tribunal).
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
pg. 17