Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-12492
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 2 April 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Pal Kristin
BY:
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil)
CLAIMANT:
Pal Kristin , Hungary
Represented by 14 Sports Law
RESPONDENT:
CASALBORDINO, Italy
Represented by Giorgio Romano
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-12492
I. Facts of the case
1. On 6 September 2023, the Hungarian player, Pal Kristin (hereinafter: Claimant or player)
and the Italian club, Casalbordino (hereinafter: club or Respondent) signed an agreement
(hereinafter: agreement), which indicated that the player would be registered with the club
for the 2023/2024 season (01.07.2023 - 30.06.2024 – according to TMS).
2. According to the agreement, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant the following:
“The Club undertakes the obligation to pay the following amounts to the player due to the
rendered sporting services:
- “1.300/00 € per month (to be paid during 7 months until the end of the season)’
- 1.500/00 € to be paid on the date that the player becomes available to the club, i.e., the date
of validation of the player’s membership in Italy);
- Flat-rate travel expense contribution for arrival in Italy;
- Food with contribution to expenses and accommodation to be shared with other players of
the Club;
- 100/00 € for each goal scored”
3. On 24 October 2023, the Claimant put the Respondent in default and requested payment
of the amount of EUR 1,500 corresponding to his outstanding signing-fee as well as
requesting the Respondent “to abstain from any further abusive conduct towards the Player
as well as to recall the ultimatum of 24 hours to abandon his house!”
4. On 24 October 2023, the Claimant sent a second notice to the Respondent, stipulating the
following:
“Subject: Abusive conduct against the player Mr. Pål Kristán || Unlawful breach of
the employment contract
Dear Sir or Madam,
At the outset, reference is made to our previous correspondence served to the Club earlier today,
as per which the latter was expressly summoned to immediately abstain from any further
abusive conduct towards the Player with the ultimate scope to force him to accept a
premature termination of the employment contract.
Nonetheless, it seems that our previous notice was blatantly disregarded.
To add more fire to the flame, the Club decided to intensify its abusive conduct towards our
Client.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-12492
In specific, the President of the Club attended the training session and before the whole squad
he started yelling against the Player due to our previous communication. He also mocked and
insulted our Client “due to his choice to hire a lawyer”. Moreover, the Player was expressly
told that “the only thing he deserves is a potato thrown to his face”.
Following the training session, the Player was once again ordered to immediately leave the
house within the next 24 hours! Otherwise, he was threatened that the police will be invited by
the President in order to evict him from the house should he fail to abide by the supra
instruction!
In the light of the above, it is evident that the Club lacks any interest to maintain the
employment relationship with the Player, while it is clear that no employment relationship
can be maintained under such circumstances. Therefore, we wish to directly inform you that we
consider your contra bonos mores behavior as a severe and unlawful breach of the Employment
Contract signed between the Parties.
As such, the Player will comply with the Club’s instruction, and he will leave the house within the
next 24 hours. Following such development, though, we will seek on legal protection before FIFA
judicial bodies.
At the end, please be advised that we are clearly concerned about the physical and mental
integrity of our Client, in the light of your recent aggressive and assaulting stance. As such, you
ARE EXPRESSLY ORDERED to abstain from any action that might create frustration to the Player
and/or jeopardize his physical health and/or condition. You will be held liable for any such
undesired development.”
5. On 25 October 2023, the player left Casalbordino.
6. On 26 October 2023, the club send a letter to the player, which, inter alia, mentioned “i) the
Parties did never sign an “amateur agreement” and there was no contractual relationship
among them; (ii) the Player was ordered “to leave the flat where he was staying, because it
seems that Mr. Pal Kristan, has no idea about what it means to live in a civilized manner”; and
(iii) it was not the President of the Club that threatened the Player but allegedly its General
Secretary who acted in his role as “avid fan” while the insults were not directed against the
Claimant in person but against the whole squad”
7. The player has remained unemployed.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-12492
II. Proceedings before FIFA
8.
On 2 November 2023, 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
9.
In his claim, the player argued that the agreement incorporates the essentialia negotii in
order to be certified as a valid and binding employment contract.
10. Therefore, on account of the above, the club “terminated de facto the Employment Contract
with the Player as they forced him to leave the city and therefore to cease rendering his sporting
services. In other words, due to their abusive conduct, the performance of the contract was made
impossible.”
11. As to the alleged abusive conduct, the player indicated that “10 (ten) days after the
conclusion of the Employment Contract. In particular, the Player was constantly summoned to
find a new club and terminate his contractual relationship with the Respondent. On top of
that, he was paid with significant delay with regards to the remaining squad and he was also
forced to miss some trainings in order to be isolated from his teammates.”
12. In this context, the player argued that he “could not be expected to maintain his
employment relationship with the Club under such circumstances. Thus, he fled the town
before the expiry of the ultimatum, being scared for his physical integrity and safety.
13. The requests for relief of the Claimant, were the following:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
“Enforce its jurisdiction over the dispute at stake;
Order A.P.D. Casalbordino to proceed to the effective payment of the overdue payables to
Mr. Pål Kristán which totalize to the net amount of EUR 1.500 (one thousand five hundred euros);
Adjudge that A.P.D. Casalbordino unlawfully terminated the Employment Contract with Mr.
Pål Kristán;
(v) Order A.P.D. Casalbordino to proceed to the effective payment of the compensation to Mr.
Pål Kristán which totalize to the net amount of EUR 7.800 (seven thousand eight hundred euros);
(vi) In case Mr. Pål Kristán finds a new employment during the course of FIFA proceedings, he shall
be considered entitled to Additional Compensation up to maximum of six monthly salaries in
accordance with the supra submission IV.D, as per Art. 17.1.ii RSTP;
(vii) Determine that an interest rate of 5% per annum shall apply to the overdue payables and to the
compensation in accordance with the supra submission IV.E;
(viii) Impose the relevant sporting sanctions against A.P.D. Casalbordino
(ix) Order A.P.D. Casanbordino to bear any and all costs incurred as to the present dispute”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-12492
b. Position of the Respondent
14. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent mentioned that it had never signed the agreement
with the player and that the signature thereto is false.
15. The club mentioned that the “and alleged market operator offered to an unknown operator of
the club, the services of the player who was at the time a free agent. The president and the
secretary were totally unaware of this contact and negotiation and suddenly found themselves
at the training ground on 6 September with the player.”
16. Additionally, it indicated that the player was requested to leave the apartment as he had
not respected minimum hygiene and behavioral standards.
17. In conclusion, the club requested the claim to be rejected.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-12492
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
18. 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 2 November
2023 and submitted for decision on 2 April 2024. Taking into account the wording of art. 34
of the March 2023 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.
19. 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 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players February 2024 edition), the Single Judge
is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related
dispute with an international dimension between a Hungarian player and an Italian club.
20. 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 Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (February 2024 edition),
and considering that the present claim was lodged on 2 November 2023, the May 2023
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
21. 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, the Single Judge 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
22. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge 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.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-12492
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
23. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge noted that the parties’ first
fundamental disagreement is whether the document signed between the club and the
player on 6 September 2023 can be considered a valid and binding employment
agreement.
24. The Single Judge turned his attention to the documentation brought forward by the parties
and noted that the club argued that it no longer uses the particular form of contract and
that the club’s representative signature on the agreement was forged, therefore it could
not be valid, consequently it rejected the claim of the player.
25. The Single Judge noted that the player, argued that he accepted the offer of the club and
therefore a valid and binding employment agreement was concluded between the parties.
26. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge started by recalling his well-established
jurisprudence which dictates that, in order for an employment contract to be considered
valid and binding, it should contain the essentialia negotii of an employment contract, such
as the parties to the contract and their role, the duration of the employment relationship
and the remuneration payable by the employer to the employee.
27. On analysis of the document on file, the Single Judge established that the agreement clearly
contains the following: (i) the parties to the contract and their role, (ii) the duration of the
employment relationship; (iii) the remuneration payable by the employer to the employee,
as well as the signature of both parties.
28. Nevertheless, the Single Judge considered the argument of the club which alleged that the
signature of its representative added to the agreement was forged. In this respect, the
Single Judge recalled that, as a general rule, FIFA’s deciding bodies are not competent to
decide upon matters of criminal law, such as the one of alleged falsified signatures of
documents, and that such affairs fall into jurisdiction of the competent national criminal
authority. Additionally, the Single Judge highlighted that no substantial evidence was
provided by the club in support of its allegation.
29. The Single Judge further noted that the player provided evidence relating to a salary
payment made by the club on 18 October 2023, in the amount of EUR 1,300 (salary amount
indicated in agreement), which was not contested by the club.
30. Moreover, the club in its submission confirmed that the player was at some point present
at the club, furthermore that the club indeed requested him to leave the apartment due to
hygienic reasons.
31. Therefore, on account of the above, the Single Judge deemed that the agreement signed
on 6 September 2023 between the parties clearly represented the basis of the
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-12492
establishment of an employment relationship and also contained all the essential elements
of an employment contract, therefore the Single Judge concluded that a valid and a legally
binding employment agreement that created contractual obligations was concluded
between the parties.
32. Having established the above and as to the termination of the agreement, the Single Judge
noted that the player argued that agreement was de facto terminated due to the abusive
conduct of the club, in this context the Single Judge took account that the player asserts:
-
that he received a delayed salary payment
that he was removed from his accommodation/apartment – confirmed by the Respondent.
The player asserts that insults were hurled at him – the Respondent confirmed, though it
alleged that the player was not present that it addressed all of the players specifically
stating– “after the terrible performance last Sunday, our fans should kick tomatoes in your face”
– “only to shake up the team”
33. In line with the above, the Single Judge also referred to the specific wording of art. 14 par.
2 of the Regulations, according to which “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”.
34. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Single Judge determined that all of the above elements,
demonstrated abusive tactic on account of the club to compel the player to unilaterally
terminate the employment agreement and therefore the player had a just cause to
terminate the agreement.
35. Accordingly, the contract was de facto terminated on the day of the player’s departure i.e.,
25 October 2023.
ii. Consequences
36. 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 Respondent.
37. The Single Judge observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent to EUR 2,800.
38. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. EUR
2,800, corresponding to the following:
-
EUR 1,500 as sign- on fee; and
EUR 1,300 as October 2023 salary
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-12492
39. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Single Judge in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the
rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the 25 October 2023 until the date of
effective payment.
40. 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, the Single
Judge 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.
41. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
42. 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.
43. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player requesting to be
compensated until 31 March 2024, the Single Judge 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 Single Judge concluded that the amount
of EUR 6,500 (i.e., November 2023 until March 2024 at EUR 1,300 per month) serves as the
basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
44. 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.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-12492
45. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the player remained unemployed since the
unilateral termination of the contract.
46. Consequently, on account of all 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
6,500, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for
breach of contract in the present matter.
47. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Single Judge in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 25 October 2023 until the date of effective
payment.
d. Costs
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-12492
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Pal Kristin, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, CASALBORDINO, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 2,800 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 25 October 2023
until the date of effective payment
- EUR 6,500 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 25 October 2023 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
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.
6.
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.
7.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-12492
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
pg. 13