Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 February 2020,
in the following composition:
Om ar Ongaro (Italy ), Deputy Chairman
Jérôm e Perlem uter (France), member
S téphane Burchkalter (France), member
on the claim between the player,
Lás zló Kleinheis ler, Hungary
as Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1
and the club,
Football Club Astana, Kazakhstan
as Respondent / Counter-Claimant
and the club,
NK Os ijek, Croatia
represented by Mr Davor Radic
as Counter-Respondent 2
regarding a dispute between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 1 July 2017, the Hungarian player, Mr László Kleinheisler (hereinafter: the player or the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the
contract) with the Kazakhstani club, Football Club Astana (hereinafter: Astana or the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant) valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2018.
2.
According to the contract, the player was entitled to a net monthly salary of EUR 40,500.
3.
On 19 March 2018, the player and Astana (hereinafter jointly referred to as: the parties)
concluded an addendum to the contract (hereinafter: the addendum), thereby extending
the duration of the contract until 30 June 2021 and providing for the payment of an
encouragement fee (hereinafter: the encouragement fee) to the player in the amount of
EUR 100,000, payable by no later than 1 September 2018.
4.
On 30 October 2018, it appears that UEFA informed Astana of the following:
“This is to inform you that the local debt collection office in Switzerland, on the basis of
the request of a creditor, has decided to seize the money related to future UEFA
payments to Football Club Astana (hereinafter: “the Club”) up to the total sum of CHF
1’123’000.- (one million one hundred and twenty-three thousand Swiss Francs). Please
refer to the attached document for further information.
Under Swiss law, UEFA has to freeze your account (only payments intended to the above
mentioned Club) with immediate effect until the seizure is lifted by the same authority
(…)”.
5.
On 9 November 2018, the player informed Astana that the encouragement fee had not yet
been paid. On 12 November 2018, the player reminded Astana of the foregoing.
6.
On 16 November 2018, Astana informed the player that “the payments will be done only
after we receive that money from our founder”.
7.
On 28 November 2018, the player sent a default notice to Astana, granting the latter
8 days to make the payment.
8.
On 21 December 2018, the player sent a second default notice to Astana, requesting the
payment within 15 days. The player also informed Astana that failure to pay would result
in him terminating the contract with immediate effect.
9.
On 28 December 2018, Astana replied that the payment of the encouragement fee would
be made by no later than 31 March 2019 and apologized for the payment delay “connected
some financing issues not depending on the Club”.
10.
On 31 December 2018, the player took note of the financial difficulties encountered by
Astana, but maintained the 15-days deadline granted in his letter of 21 December 2018 for
the payment to be made.
Player László Kleinheisler, Hungary / Football Club Astana, Kazakhstan / Club NK Osikek, Croatia
2
11.
On 10 January 2019, the player sent a termination letter (hereinafter: the termination
letter) to Astana, thereby terminating the contract for non-payment of the
encouragement fee.
12.
On the same day, Astana paid the amount of EUR 100,000 to the player.
13.
On 11 January 2019, the player and the Croatian club, NK Osijek (hereinafter: NK Osijek or
the Counter-Respondent 2) concluded an employment contract valid as from the date of
signature until 30 June 2022, according to which the player is entitled to a monthly salary
of EUR 13,200.
14.
On 29 January 2019, the Kazakhstan Football Federation rejected the ITC request for the
registration of the player with NK Osijek, claiming that the contract between the player
and Astana had not expired. By a decision dated 14 February 2019, the Single Judge of the
Players’ Status Committee decided to authorize the Croatian Football Federation to
provisionally register the player with NK Osijek.
15.
On 7 May 2019, the player expressed his gratitude to Astana for the preparation of a
“termination agreement” draft, submitted to him on 12 April 2019. This termination
agreement, not signed by the parties, stipulated that the contract had been terminated by
the player on 10 January 2019 and that Astana would pay him outstanding remuneration
in the amount of EUR 60,800 net. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the player informed
Astana of his lower salary with NK Osijek and accordingly, requested the payment of
EUR 975,800 within 15 days, corresponding to the balance between his salaries with Astana
and NK Osijek, plus EUR 60,800 as provided in the termination agreement.
16.
On 13 May 2019, Astana rejected the player’s request and granted him a deadline until
15 May 2019 to sign the termination agreement. The club emphasised that “this offer is
final and unnegotiable. We feel that our offer is totally fair as it was Laszlo Kleinheisler
(the Player) who left the Club without any consent”.
17.
On 15 May 2019, the player rejected Astana’s offer and indicated that he would take this
matter to the competent bodies. On 22 May 2019, Astana took note of the player’s
correspondence and confirmed its position.
18.
On 17 September 2019, the player lodged a claim against Astana in front of FIFA.
19.
In his claim, the player considered that Astana breached the contract and the addendum
by not paying the encouragement fee, due on 1 September 2018, for more than 4 months
and despite numerous reminders. Moreover, the player emphasised that the fact that
Astana suffered financial difficulties is not a valid reason for not paying said amount. In
this regard, the player noted that Astana paid the encouragement fee of EUR 100,000 on
the day following the termination, which only tends to demonstrate that the club probably
had the financial capacity to pay said amount at an earlier stage.
Player László Kleinheisler, Hungary / Football Club Astana, Kazakhstan / Club NK Osikek, Croatia
3
20.
The player further stated to have fully complied with his contractual obligations. On the
other hand, the player considered that Astana did not show any genuine interest in
pursuing the contractual relationship.
21.
Consequently, in view of the above, the player considered to have terminated the contract
with just cause and requested compensation for breach of contract in the amount of
EUR 915,000, also taking into account the calculation of his remuneration at NK Osijek,
thereby mitigating his damages.
22.
Furthermore, the player requested the payment of outstanding bonuses in the amount of
EUR 60,800. In this regard, the player referred to Astana’s offer to pay this amount as
outstanding bonuses in the termination agreement and confirmed that he accepted said
amount. In addition, the player requested 5% interest p.a. on this amount.
23.
Finally, the player requested the payment of 5% interest p.a. on the amount of
EUR 100,000, corresponding to the encouragement fee already paid by Astana, to be
calculated as from 1 September 2018 until 11 January 2019, i.e. the date of payment.
24.
In reply to the claim, Astana firstly emphasised that the player was a very important asset
of the team. Then, as regards the player’s remuneration, Astana affirmed that it paid the
player more than the contract stipulated. As such, Astana provided internal financial
documents allegedly attesting of payments made to the player during the contractual
relationship. In particular, the club claimed to have paid part of the encouragement fee
on 30 October 2018, as follows: “In reality on 25 December 2018 (date of the Demand
letter) FC Astana outstanding amount with respect to the Encouragement Fee was
58 269 EUR and remained the same on 11 January 2019 (date of the Termination Letter) as
well”. In continuation, Astana deemed that the unpaid part of the encouragement fee
only constituted 9,94% of the total value of the contract.
25.
In this context, Astana explained that it informed the player that the outstanding part of
the encouragement fee would be paid upon receipt of the “prize money from UEFA for
participation in UCL and UEL 2018/2019”. However, Astana claimed to have never received
this money considering that UEFA froze all payments to the club.
26.
Furthermore, Astana claimed to have paid, upon receipt of the termination letter, the
amount of EUR 100,000 to the player in order to keep him at the club. In this regard, Astana
held that it had always paid the player all his salaries, even after he started sending default
notices for the payment of the encouragement fee, meaning that he was not lacking
financial resources. In addition, Astana stated that the player had received certain bonuses
in addition to the standard remuneration as set out in the contract.
27.
Notwithstanding the above, Astana underlined that it tried to settle the matter with the
player by offering to pay the total amount of EUR 60,800, corresponding to the
outstanding amount of EUR 58,269 of the encouragement fee, plus an amount for the
player’s legal costs.
Player László Kleinheisler, Hungary / Football Club Astana, Kazakhstan / Club NK Osikek, Croatia
4
28.
Consequently, Astana considered that the player terminated the contract without just
cause and that his request for compensation was groundless and disproportionate as it
would lead to unjust enrichment. As such, Astana deemed that the player was of bad faith,
in particular given that he was aware of the financial difficulties of Astana following the
measures taken by UEFA.
29.
In continuation, Astana emphasised once again that the player was of bad faith as he
concluded an employment agreement with another club on 11 January 2019, i.e. one day
after the termination letter. In this regard, Astana expressed its surprise as to the choice of
the player to join NK Osijek, as the club does not compete with the best teams in the
country, nor does it play in any European competition. Moreover, Astana held that the
player and the owners of NK Osijek had former personal ties. In light of the foregoing,
Astana considered that the player and NK Osijek breached art. 18 par. 3 of the FIFA
Regulations as it is “clear that everything was agreed in advance”.
30.
Consequently, in view of the above, Astana submitted a counter-claim against the player
and NK Osijek, claiming the total amount of EUR 3,726,694, broken down as follows:
EUR 1,500,000 as the future transfer of the player. In this respect, Astana argued that
the player’s market value would have continued increasing during the remaining two
and a half years of the contract, in particular given Astana’s good results in national and
European competitions.
EUR 454,167 as the amortised transfer cost of the player.
EUR 2,985,796 as the replacement of the player in the person of Dorin Rotariu from FC
Club Brugge, taking into account the fixed and conditional transfer fees, as well as the
total value of the employment contract of Mr Rotariu.
EUR 60,000 as the salary of the player with NK Osijek for a period of 6 months, which
should be awarded to Astana “on the specificity of sport, taking into account the specific
facts of this case”.
Deduction of EUR 1,215,000 as the remuneration of the player had he stayed at Astana
until the termination of the contract.
Deduction of EUR 58,269 as the outstanding amount of the encouragement fee still to
be paid to the player.
31.
In light of the aforementioned circumstances, Astana considered that NK Osijek should be
jointly and severally liable, as it induced the player to terminate the contract without just
cause.
32.
Finally, Astana requested the imposition of sporting sanctions against the player and NK
Osijek.
33.
In his comments on the counter-claim, the player reiterated his position and acknowledged
receipt of the payment of EUR 41,731 by Astana, but firmly contested that said payment
was made as part of the encouragement fee. On the contrary, the player held that said
payment was made in the context of bonuses paid to the players.
Player László Kleinheisler, Hungary / Football Club Astana, Kazakhstan / Club NK Osikek, Croatia
5
34.
The player further commented on the nature of the encouragement fee, which was the
only financial retribution in consideration for the extension of the contract. Therefore, the
player considered that by failing to pay the encouragement fee, Astana expressed its lack
of interest in pursuing the employment relationship.
35.
In addition, the player fully refuted the arguments of Astana as regards his relationship
with NK Osijek and the fact that the latter induced him to terminate the contract
prematurely.
36.
Finally, the player deemed that in the event that the DRC should decide that he terminated
the contract without just cause, Astana should not be entitled to any compensation as it
did not have any interest in retaining his services and did not comply with its financial
obligations.
37.
NK Osijek, for its part, contested to have ever induced the player to terminate the contract
prematurely, arguing that it “found out in the media that the Player had unilaterally
terminated the contract with the above Club, after which it contacted the Player’s agent
and signed the Player”. Moreover, NK Osijek underlined that a first draft of the
employment contract was sent to the player on 11 January 2019 and signed on 16 January
2019 only.
II.
Cons iderations of the Dis pute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the DRC analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In
this respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was first submitted to FIFA on
17 September 2019. Consequently, the 2018 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures
of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the
Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the DRC referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that,
in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations
(edition 2020), it is competent to decide on the present litigation, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Hungarian
player, a Kazakhstani club and a Croatian club.
3.
Furthermore, the DRC analysed which edition of the Regulations should be applicable as
to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber confirmed that, in accordance
with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations (edition 2020) and considering that the present
matter was submitted to FIFA on 17 September 2019, the June 2019 edition of said
Regulations is applicable to the present matter as to the substance.
4.
The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the
Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, it started to acknowledge
the facts of the case as well as the documents contained in the file. However, the Chamber
emphasized that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments
Player László Kleinheisler, Hungary / Football Club Astana, Kazakhstan / Club NK Osikek, Croatia
6
and documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter
at hand.
5.
In this respect, the DRC acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that the player
and Astana had signed an employment contract, valid as from 1 July 2017 until 30 June
2018, according to which the player was entitled to receive, inter alia, a monthly salary of
EUR 40,500. In continuation, the Chamber noted that it was also undisputed that the
parties had concluded an addendum on 19 March 2018, thereby extending the duration of
the contract until 30 June 2021 and providing for the payment of the encouragement fee
to the player in the amount of EUR 100,000, by no later than 1 September 2018.
6.
What is more, the Chamber further noted that on 10 January 2019, the player unilaterally
terminated the employment contract with Astana, alleging that the encouragement fee
remained unpaid. The Chamber also noted that on the same day, Astana paid the amount
of EUR 100,000 to the player.
7.
Furthermore, the Chamber acknowledged that on 11 January 2019, the player and the
Croatian club, NK Osijek, concluded an employment contract valid as from the date of
signature until 30 June 2022, according to which the player is entitled to a monthly salary
of EUR 13,200.
8.
Summarising the parties’ respective positions in this dispute, the members of the Chamber
noted that the player, on the one hand, claimed that Astana had breached the contract
and the addendum by not paying the encouragement fee, due on 1 September 2018, for
more than 4 months and despite numerous reminders.
9.
Equally, the members of the Chamber took note of the reply of Astana, which, on the
other hand, affirmed that it had paid to the player every monthly salary, a substantial part
of the encouragement fee, as well as additional remuneration not contractually agreed
upon. Moreover, the Chamber noted that Astana invoked its financial difficulties as one of
the reasons for the non-payment of the full amount of the encouragement fee. In this
context, the Chamber observed that Astana deemed that the player terminated the
contract without just cause and lodged a counter-claim against the player and NK Osijek.
10.
In these circumstances, the Chamber further noted that the player, in his comments,
acknowledged receipt of a payment made by Astana, but contested that said amount
constituted a part of the encouragement fee.
11.
Finally, the Chamber observed that NK Osijek supported the position of the player, arguing
that it did not induce the player to terminate the contract and requested primarily the
rejection of the counterclaim lodged by Astana.
12.
In view of the foregoing, the Chamber established that the main issue to be analysed in
the present case is whether the player in fact had a just cause to unilaterally and
prematurely terminate the contract with Astana on 10 January 2019 or not. Subsequently,
the Chamber shall establish the financial and/or sporting consequences to be borne by the
party found to be in breach of contract.
Player László Kleinheisler, Hungary / Football Club Astana, Kazakhstan / Club NK Osikek, Croatia
7
13.
In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that only a breach or misconduct
which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract. In other words, only
when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect a continuation
of the employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be terminated
prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken, such measures
must be taken before terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of
an employment contract can only ever be an ultima ratio measure.
14.
Furthermore, the members of the Chamber deemed it appropriate to recall the basic
principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 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.
15.
In this context, the Chamber noted that the player based the termination of the contract
on the non-payment of the encouragement fee, which fell due on 1 September 2018.
16.
On the other hand, the Chamber thoroughly analysed the position of Astana, which
considered that only a part of the encouragement fee had not been paid to the player,
representing a low percentage of the total value of the contract, and that all other due
amounts had been paid in favour of the player. Furthermore, the Chamber acknowledged
Astana’s financial difficulties and noted Astana’s efforts, as it allegedly tried to settle the
matter with the player, offering to pay the total amount of EUR 60,800.
17.
In this regard, based on the information and documentation on file, the Chamber deemed
it appropriate to point out that no corroborating evidence had been submitted which
enabled the Chamber to establish that a part of the encouragement fee had in fact been
paid to the player. Indeed, the Chamber observed that on the one hand, Astana claimed
to have paid a part of the encouragement fee, whilst on the other hand, even though the
player acknowledged receipt of EUR 41,731, he contested Astana’s position, claiming that
said amount corresponded to bonuses.
18.
Furthermore, the members of the Chamber agreed that the reasons put forward by Astana
for the non-payment, i.e. its financial difficulties and the fact that the player allegedly was
not in a precarious financial situation since he had duly received all his monthly salaries as
well as other amounts, cannot be accepted as valid. The fact that the player was, allegedly,
not in a precarious situation cannot possibly serve as a justification for non-compliance by
Astana of its contractually agreed obligation with respect to the timely payment of the
encouragement fee, even when taking into consideration the financial difficulties
encountered by the club.
19.
Bearing in mind the above, the Chamber further analysed whether other elements
surrounding the matter may be taken into consideration. In this context, the Chamber first
noted that pursuant to the addendum, which extended the validity of the contract until
30 June 2021, the player was not entitled to a salary raise, as the only financial retribution
agreed upon was the payment of the encouragement fee. In other words, the Chamber
considered that the payment of the encouragement fee was, for the player, the only
Player László Kleinheisler, Hungary / Football Club Astana, Kazakhstan / Club NK Osikek, Croatia
8
financial consideration for accepting the extension of the contract. As such, the Chamber
deemed that it was reasonable for the player to expect the payment of said
encouragement fee within the set contractual deadline, i.e. by 1 September 2018.
20.
With this being said, the Chamber underlined that the amount of EUR 100,000 represents
a substantial sum, as it corresponds to approximately two and a half monthly salaries.
21.
Moreover, the Chamber observed that the player sent two reminders and three default
notices between 9 November 2018 and 31 December 2018, asking Astana to pay the
encouragement fee. In this context, the Chamber noted that Astana informed the player
that it was not able to pay the encouragement fee and that it would do so at a later stage.
22.
In continuation, the Chamber acknowledged that Astana paid the amount of EUR 100,000
to the player on the same day as the termination letter, i.e. 10 January 2019. In this regard,
the Chamber noted, on the one hand, that the player viewed this payment as bad faith,
given that Astana probably had the financial capacity to pay said amount at an earlier
stage, whilst on the other hand, Astana claimed to have made this payment upon receipt
of the termination letter in order to keep the player at the club.
23.
In this context, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that the amount of the payment, i.e.
EUR 100,000, corresponds to the full amount of the encouragement fee. In addition, the
Chamber was of the opinion that the timing of the payment, i.e. the same day as the
termination letter, tended to demonstrate that said payment did in fact correspond to the
payment of the full encouragement fee.
24.
In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that the payment of the encouragement fee
by Astana was late, as it was only made as a reaction to the termination of the contract by
the player.
25.
Therefore, the members of the DRC highlighted that, at the moment the player terminated
the contract, the full amount of the encouragement fee had remained outstanding for
more than 4 months. In these circumstances, the Chamber considered that the player could
have legitimately lost faith in the ability and will of Astana to fulfill its contractual
obligation in due course.
26.
Consequently, and considering the situation of the player at the time of termination, the
Chamber was of the opinion that the objective circumstances at the time did provide the
player with just cause to terminate the employment contract.
27.
In light of all of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC came to the conclusion that
the player had terminated the contract on 10 January 2019, with just cause.
28.
As an immediate consequence of such, the Chamber concluded at this point that the
counterclaim lodged by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant against the player and the
Counter-Respondent 2 is rejected.
29.
Having established that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early
termination of the employment contract, the Chamber focused its attention on the
Player László Kleinheisler, Hungary / Football Club Astana, Kazakhstan / Club NK Osikek, Croatia
9
consequence of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the
Regulations, the Chamber decided that the player is entitled to receive from the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant an amount of money as compensation for breach of
contract in addition to any outstanding payments on the basis of the relevant employment
contract.
30.
First of all, the Chamber reverted to the player’s claim, in which he claimed the total
amount of EUR 915,000 as compensation for breach of contract. The Chamber further
noted that the player did not request any outstanding remuneration.
31.
In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of 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.
32.
In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify
as to whether the pertinent 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 the
contract did not contain such a provision.
33.
As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant 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.
34.
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
until 30 June 2021. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of
EUR 1,215,000 (i.e. salaries of January 2019 until June 2021) serve as basis for the
determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
35.
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 able to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC,
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.
Player László Kleinheisler, Hungary / Football Club Astana, Kazakhstan / Club NK Osikek, Croatia
10
36.
In this context, the Chamber noted that the player had signed on 11 January 2019 an
employment contract with the Croatian club, NK Osijek, valid as from the date of signature
until 30 June 2022, by means of which he was entitled to receive a monthly remuneration
of EUR 13,200. The DRC noted that for the overlapping period, the player had been able
to mitigate his damages in the amount of EUR 396,000.
37.
Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the mitigated compensation
due to the player was EUR 819,000.
38.
Moreover, taking into account art. 17 par.1 (ii), the DRC recalled that it had found that the
player had unilaterally terminated the contract due to overdue payables and took note
that the player had been able to mitigate his damages. Consequently, the Chamber
decided that on top of the mitigated compensation, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
had to pay to the player an additional compensation in the amount of EUR 121,500
corresponding to the equivalent of 3 monthly salaries of the player.
39.
Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent / CounterClaimant must pay the total amount of EUR 940,500 to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
1, which was considered reasonable and proportionate as compensation for breach of
contract in the case at hand.
40.
Having established the above, the Chamber then addressed the request of the player for
the payment of outstanding bonuses in the amount of EUR 60,800. The Chamber
considered that the request for said outstanding bonuses had no legal or regulatory basis
and pointed out that no corroborating evidence had been submitted in this regard.
41.
In regard to the player’s claim for the payment of 5% interest p.a. on the amount of
EUR 100,000, the DRC recalled its constant practice and jurisprudence according to which
a claim for interest only, on an amount which has already been paid, must be rejected.
42.
Furthermore, the DRC referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis 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.
43.
In this regard, the DRC pointed out that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to
pay the relevant amount in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid and for the
maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.
44.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant does not pay the amount due to the Claimant / CounterRespondent 1 within 45 days as from the moment in which the Claimant / CounterRespondent 1, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the
relevant bank details to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, a ban from registering any
Player László Kleinheisler, Hungary / Football Club Astana, Kazakhstan / Club NK Osikek, Croatia
11
new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire
and consecutive registration periods shall become effective on the Respondent / CounterClaimant in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
45.
Finally, the DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and
prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due amount, in accordance with art.
24bis par. 3 of the Regulations.
46.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by
establishing that any further request filed by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 is
rejected. Equally and considering that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was, overall,
found to be in breach of the contract, the counterclaim of the Respondent / CounterClaimant is rejected.
III.
Decis ion of the Dispute Resolution Cham ber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1, Mr László Kleinheisler, is partially
accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Football Club Astana, has to pay to the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent 1 compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 940,500.
3.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 is rejected.
4.
The counter-claim lodged by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected.
5.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 is directed to inform the Respondent / CounterClaimant, immediately and directly, preferably to the e-mail addresses as indicated on the
cover letter of the present decision, of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent
/ Counter-Claimant must pay the amount mentioned under point 2. above.
6.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount
in accordance with point 2. above to FIFA to the e-mail address [email protected], duly
translated, if need be, into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, German,
Spanish).
7.
In the event that the amount due in accordance with point 2. above is not paid by the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant w ithin 45 day s as from the notification by the Claimant
/ Counter-Respondent 1 of the relevant bank details to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant,
the Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall be banned from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum
duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods (cf. art. 24bis of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).
8.
The ban mentioned in point 7. above will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete
serving, once the due amount is paid.
Player László Kleinheisler, Hungary / Football Club Astana, Kazakhstan / Club NK Osikek, Croatia
12
9.
In the event that the aforementioned sum is still not paid by the end of the ban of three
entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be submitted, upon
request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.
*****
Note related to the publication:
The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the Players’ Status Committee or the DRC.
Where such decisions contain confidential information, 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 20 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status
Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).
Note relating to the appeal procedure:
According to art. 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly
within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in
accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS. Within another 10 days following the
expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the
facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives).
The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:
Court of Arbitration for Sport
Avenue de Beaumont 2
1012 Lausanne, Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00
Fax: +41 21 613 50 01
e-mail: [email protected] / www.tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Player László Kleinheisler, Hungary / Football Club Astana, Kazakhstan / Club NK Osikek, Croatia
13