Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-2620
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 03 November 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Numan
Kurdic
BY:
ONGARO, Omar (Italy), Deputy Chairperson
LUKASEK, Peter (Slovakia), member
ZAPISOTSKIY, Yuriy (Ukraine), member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT 1:
Numan Kurdic, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Represented by Tarik Trbic
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
FK Kukesi, Albania
Represented by Juan de Dios Crespo Perez & Paolo Torchetti
COUNTER-RESPONDENT 2:
FK Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Represented by Parmars-Sports
Page 2
REF FPSD-2620
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 8 July 2020, the Bosnian player, Mr Numan Kurdic (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant
/ Counter-Respondent 1) and the Bosnian club, FK Sarajevo (hereinafter: FK Sarajevo or the
Counter-Respondent 2) signed an employment contract valid as from 10 July 2020 until 30
June 2022.
2.
In accordance with clause 9 of said contract, the player was entitled, inter alia, to the
following monthly remuneration:
a. BAM 2,191.64 from 10 July 2020 and 31 December 2020; and
b. BAM 2,877.62 from 1 January 2021 until 31 December 2022.
3.
On 22 January 2021, FK Sarajevo and the Albanian club, FK Kukesi (hereinafter: FK Kukesi or
the Respondent / Counter-Claimant), concluded a loan agreement by means of which the
player was temporarily transferred from the former to the latter as from the date of signature
and 31 May 2021 (hereinafter: the loan agreement).
4.
Clause 4 of the loan agreement stipulated the following:
“FK Kukesi undertakes to conclude with the player an agreement for the period from
22.01.2021 to 31.05.2021 stipulating conditions of the player’s engagement, including
monthly remuneration and bonuses for sport activity, so that FK Sarajevo will not bear any
costs arising from the professional contract that exists between FK Sarajevo and the player.
The player undertakes that he will not request any consideration based on his professional
contract from FK Sarajevo for the above specified period”.
5.
On 25 January 2021, the player and FK Kukesi signed an employment contract valid as from
the date of signature until 31 May 2021 (hereinafter: the employment contract).
6.
Pursuant to clause 2 of the employment contract, FK Kukesi undertook to pay the player a
monthly remuneration of ALL 30,000, payable every 10th day of the following month.
7.
Additionally, clauses 14, 15 and 16 of the employment contract set forth the following:
“Article 14 – Termination of the Contract by the Club
The Club will be considered to have terminated the contract with the Player with legitimate
just cause, by notifying the Player, in writing 15 days prior, if the Player:
a) is found guilty for serious violation of the law;
b) Will not take into consideration any warning in writing given by the Club;
c) Repeated infringement of the club’s regulation;
d) Is convicted for a criminal offence, for which the sanction consists of imprisonment for
at least one month or longer;
Page 3
REF FPSD-2620
e) If the Player doesn’t appear a satisfactory performance.
Article 15 – Termination of the Contract by the Player
1. The player will be considered to have terminated the contract with the club to legitimate
reasons by notifying the Club in writing 30 days in advance if the club:
a) will be found guilty of serious and persistent violation of the terms and conditions of
this contract; or
b) fails to pay any remuneration, or other payments, or bonuses that the Club owns to
the Player under this contract for more than 90 days from the time when obligations
needed to be fulfilled.
2. If the club fulfils its own obligations within the period of notice of 30 days, then the
player shall not terminate the contract unilaterally due to legitimate reason, otherwise the
Player accept to pay to the Club a compensation.
Article 16 – Termination of contract
1. This contract may be terminated before the term defined in this contract, by written
agreement between the parties.
2. The Club has the right to terminate the contract at any time without any financial, legal
or moral obligations towards the player in case that the last has seriously violated the club
regulation. If the player break the contract unilaterally before the term, he shall pay to the
club a penalty 100,000 Euro”.
8.
On 4 May 2021, the player sent FK Kukesi a default notice informing that more than three of
his salaries were outstanding, as well as the relevant housing allowance for the two previous
months. The player also wrote the following: “your club did not give the player his copy of
the Annex of the contract where his main part of the salary is agreed. In the Annex the player
and your club agreed [an] additional monthly salary of 2,000,00 EUR during his loan period.
Such a behaviour is disrespectful and has the only goal to harm the player”. In this context,
he granted FK Kukesi with a 10 days’ deadline in order to pay the debt (i.e. both salaries and
accommodation), as well as to deliver a copy of the abovementioned Annex to the
employment contract.
9.
On 5 May 2021, the player allegedly sent FK Kukesi’s Sport Director, Mr Nderim Nexhipi
(hereinafter: Mr. Nexhipi), a message via the electronic application WhatsApp requesting a
copy of the cited Annex to the employment contract, as well as his outstanding remuneration.
The same request was subsequently reiterated by the player to Mr Nexhipi.
10. On 6 May 2021, the player sent FK Kukesi a second default notice with the same content as
the previous one.
11. In parallel, on 10 May 2021, FK Kukesi sent the player a disciplinary letter with copy to the
Football Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FFBH) and to FIFA, acknowledging that the
player had not appeared at the team gathering nor in the match of 7 May 2021 “without
permission and without notifying”. As such, FK Kukesi warned the player to resume his
services until 13 May 2021.
Page 4
REF FPSD-2620
12. On 11 May 2021, the player sent FK Kukesi a third default notice, reiterating his position as
to the copy of the documentation and the outstanding remuneration.
13. All three aforementioned default notices were addressed to FK Kukesi by the player’s legal
representative.
14. On the same date, i.e. 11 May 2021, FK Kukesi replied to the player’s correspondence and
requested a “notarized authorization and apostille stamp issued by the player” in order to
negotiate with his representative. At the end, FK Kukesi wrote that: “each of your petitions
has no legal value as long as you have not had authorization from the player”.
15. On 13 May 2021, by means of a letter dated 10 May 2021, FK Kukesi sent a second
disciplinary letter to the player reiterating its request for him to resume his duties until 18 May
2021.
16. On 14 May 2021, the player notified FK Kukesi of the termination of their employment
relationship due to outstanding remuneration. In this opportunity, the player once again
requested FK Kukesi to cure its breach and proceed the payment of the amounts in default.
17. On 17 May 2021, the player sent FK Kukesi an e-mail with a proposal of a settlement
agreement. In this opportunity, the player, inter alia, acknowledged receipt of a total of EUR
800 out of EUR 9,200 for the entire duration of the employment contract. In order to solve
the dispute amicably, the player proposed a final payment of EUR 6,200 in two instalments,
to no avail.
18. On 6 July 2021, the player’s International Transfer Certificate (ITC) was reinstated from FK
Kukesi to FK Sarajevo (cf. Transfer Match System – TMS reference no. 389653). Likewise, the
player resumed his services with FK Sarajevo, as per the employment agreement previously
signed between said parties on 8 July 2020.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
19. On 26 May 2021, the player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Claim of the player
20. According to the player, he was entitled to receive from FK Kukesi a monthly remuneration
of EUR 2,243, being EUR 243 as described in clause 2 of the employment contract and EUR
2,000 as an additional remuneration allegedly established in an Annex to the employment
contract. In this regard, the player mentioned that FK Kukesi refused to give him copy of the
Page 5
REF FPSD-2620
signed Annex, in spite of being requested to do so in person, via WhatsApp messages and
via written notices.
21. Notwithstanding the above, the player maintained that FK Kukesi did not fulfil its financial
obligations and failed to deliver a significant part of his remuneration. Moreover, the player
remarked that FK Kukesi has not reply to his letters nor to his proposal of settlement
agreement.
22. Based on the foregoing, the player claimed that he terminated the employment contract with
just cause, hence that FK Kukesi should be liable to pay his outstanding remuneration and
compensation for breach. In particular, the player requested the following amounts:
a. EUR 7,314 as outstanding remuneration, broken down as follows:
(i)
EUR 373 as the pro rata salary of January 2021 (i.e. 5 days);
(ii)
EUR 1,443 as the partial salary of February 2021;
(iii)
EUR 2,143 as the salary of March 2021;
(iv)
EUR 2,243 as the salary of April 2021; and
(v)
EUR 1,012 as the pro rata salary of May 2021 (i.e. 14 days).
b. EUR 1,230 as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to the pro rata salary
of May 2021 (i.e. 17 days).
b. Reply and counterclaim of FK Kukesi
23. FK Kukesi rejected the claim of the player and filed a counterclaim against him and FK
Sarajevo. It stated that the player unilaterally terminated the employment contract without
just cause.
24. In this context, FK Kukesi submitted proof of the payments made to the player and argued
that it paid him the total amount of EUR 1,981 over the 5-month period. Thus, FK Kukesi
held that it “satisfied its financial obligations to the player”.
25. FK Kukesi then mentioned that the player missed a team meeting on 6 May 2021 and the
club’s match of 7 May 2021 without permission. As a consequence, FK Kukesi recalled that
it sent the player two disciplinary letters, to no avail.
26. Subsequently, FK Kukesi maintained that the player failed to meet the requirements described
in clause 15 of the employment contract. Furthermore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant
Page 6
REF FPSD-2620
also argued that the player did not respect the 15-day notification period described in art.
14bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP).
27. In light of the above, FK Kukesi concluded that it was the player who breached the
employment contract and should be liable to pay compensation amounting to EUR 100,000
(cf. clause 16, par. 2 of the employment contract). In addition, FK Kukesi also claimed that FK
Sarajevo should be considered jointly liable to pay said compensation in accordance with art.
17, par. 4 of the FIFA RSTP.
28. FK Kukesi’s requests for relief were, inter alia, as follows:
a. To reject the player’s claim and accept its own counterclaim;
b. To declare that the player unilaterally and prematurely terminated the employment
contract without just cause;
c. To require the player and FK Sarajevo to pay compensation amounting to EUR 100,000,
plus 5% “interest calculated”;
d. To impose sporting sanctions on the Counter-Respondents as the employment contract
was terminated during the protected period; and
e. To fix a sum of CHF 10,000 to be paid by the player as contribution towards legal fees
and costs.
29. Alternatively, FK Kukesi requested no compensation to be awarded for either side.
c. Reply to the counterclaim of the player
30. After being invited to do so, the player provided his reply to the counterclaim lodged by FK
Kukesi and stated that the latter’s requests should be entirely rejected.
31. In particular, the player pointed out that FK Kukesi did not dispute the signature of the Annex
to the employment contract, by means of which the parties supposedly agreed upon an
additional remuneration of EUR 2,000. In this respect, the player further added that:
(i)
“there is no reason whatsoever why the player – earning 2,877.62 BAM per month
at Sarajevo (EUR 1,500) – would go on loan to foreign country for an amount of
LEK 30,000 only (EUR 241), which was around 15% of his salary at Sarajevo”;
(ii)
FK Kukesi threatened to impose a fine of EUR 200 on the player, which would imply
in a penalty of almost one monthly salary; and
(iii)
Mr. Nexhipi allegedly confirmed via WhatsApp that FK Kukesi would sign the player
for EUR 2,000.
Page 7
REF FPSD-2620
32. Subsequently, the player held that FK Kukesi failed to pay a significant part of his
remuneration. What is more, the player stressed that the receipts filed by FK Kukesi could not
be taken into consideration since “they were not translated in a FIFA language”.
33. Based on the foregoing, the player firmly asserted that he had just cause to terminate the
employment contract. Specifically, the player opposed FK Kukesi’s allegations regarding the
requirements set out in clause 15 of the employment contract and made reference to art. 18,
par. 6 of the FIFA RSTP, according to which grace periods shall not be recognised.
34. Alternatively, the player mentioned that the amount claimed by FK Kukesi as compensation
is disproportionate and non-reciprocal. Furthermore, the player deemed that FK Kukesi did
not suffer any damage as a result of the termination of the employment contract because it
happened only two weeks before its natural expiry.
35. Lastly, the player reiterated his requests for relief as established in his statement of claim.
d. Reply to the counterclaim of FK Sarajevo
36. Firstly, FK Sarajevo highlighted that it was not a party to the employment contract. Therefore,
FK Sarajevo held that, in accordance with the principle of relative effect of the contract, it
does not have standing to be sued in the case at hand.
37. In continuation, FK Sarajevo mentioned that the existence of its employment agreement with
the player was prior to the existence of the employment contract with FK Kukesi. In this
respect, FK Sarajevo outlined that it was already agreed by the parties in the loan agreement
that the effects of the previous employment relationship would recommence as from the end
of the loan period.
38. Based on the above, FK Sarajevo referred to the wording of art. 17, par. 4 of the FIFA RSTP
and stressed that it could not be considered as a “new club” from the FIFA regulations’
perspective – hence that it could not be jointly and severally liable for any consequence that
could possibly follow.
39. Thereafter, FK Sarajevo stressed that it did not take any part in the negotiation of the
employment contract. In particular, FK Sarajevo claimed that it did not agree with the
compensation clause therein described – especially considering that it was “severally
disproportionate from the salary paid to [the player]”. As such, FK Sarajevo stated that such
clause could not be enforceable in any hypothesis.
40. In continuation, FK Sarajevo maintained that it did not induce the player to terminate the
employment contract. In this regard, FK Sarajevo outlined that the FK Kukesi did not submit
any evidence capable of demonstrating that it should be jointly liable to the consequences of
the termination.
Page 8
REF FPSD-2620
41. Lastly and in any event, FK Sarajevo mentioned that FK Kukesi did not pay the player his
salaries, so that he had just cause to prematurely terminate the employment relationship.
42. Taking into account the abovementioned considerations, FK Sarajevo requested, inter alia,
the following:
a. To declare that it does not have standing to be sued in the dispute at stake;
b. To rule that it was not jointly and severally liable to the termination of the employment
contract;
c. Alternatively, to reduce the compensation clause claimed by FK Kukesi in light of the
remaining 17 days of the employment contract and the player’s remuneration.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
43. 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 26 May 2021 and submitted for decision
on 3 November 2021. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the October 2021 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.
44. 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 (August 2021 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 a Bosnian player, an
Albanian club, and a Bosnian club.
45. At this point, the DRC wished to highlight that the objection raised by FK Sarajevo as to its
standing to be sued in the case at stake does not influence the admissibility of the player’s
claim nor FK Kukesi’s counterclaim insofar as it pertains to the substance of the dispute, hence
that it shall be analysed in the relevant section below.
46. 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 Player (August 2021 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 26 May 2021, the February 2021 edition
Page 9
REF FPSD-2620
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
47. 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
48. 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
49. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter
and took note of the fact that the dispute at hand pertains to a claim and counterclaim lodged
respectively by the player against FK Kukesi and by FK Kukesi against the player and his “new
club” (i.e. FK Sarajevo), both in connection with the premature of the employment contract
and the consequences thereto.
50. In this context, the DRC acknowledged that FK Sarajevo preliminary argued that it does not
have standing to be sued in the case at stake because it was not a party to the employment
contract, as well as it did not a enter into a new employment relationship with the player but
only resumed the existent one i.e. previous to the signature of the loan agreement.
51. To this extent, the Chamber referred to art. 17, par. 4 of the Regulations as well as to its wellestablished jurisprudence on the matter, according to which the joint and several liability of
the player and his new club is an automatic consequence. In this respect, the DRC wished to
highlight that FK Sarajevo’s standing to be sued in this case (i.e. in connection with the
counterclaim) does not derive from the employment contract itself, but from a regulatory
presumption to be ascertained in case-by-case basis.
52. Likewise, the DRC also stressed that the fact that FK Saravejo was already the player’s
employer before the signature of the loan agreement does not change the abovementioned
outcome since FK Saravejo – under the scope of the Regulations – is still to be considered the
Page 10
REF FPSD-2620
subsequent “new club” of the player after the termination of the employment contract sub
judice.
53. In light of the above, the DRC unanimously decided that FK Sarajevo should be considered as
a party to these proceedings, hence that its allegations as regards to its standing to be sued
could not be upheld.
54. In continuation, the Chamber turned to the analysis of the termination. In particular, the DRC
took due consideration that the player prematurely terminated the employment contract on
14 May 2021, due to outstanding remuneration.
55. Furthermore, the Chamber outlined that the player claimed that a significant part of his
remuneration was not delivered by FK Kukesi, in spite of the various attempts to solve the
controversy amicably. On the other hand, the DRC was also observant that FK Kukesi alleged
that it satisfied all of its financial obligations, hence that the player deliberately decided to
breach the employment contract, induced by FK Sarajevo.
56. In view of this dissent between the parties and guided by their submissions in this respect,
the DRC firstly deemed important to define the total monthly remuneration due by FK Kukesi
to the player during the term of their employment relationship. In this regard, the Chamber
noted that the employment contract established a salary of ALL 30,000, but that the player
maintained that he was also entitled to an additional remuneration of EUR 2,000 per month,
in accordance with a document on the club’s exclusive possession.
57. In light of the above, the DRC went on analysing the documentation brought forward by the
parties in support of their allegations and noted that: (i) FK Kukesi has never disputed the
signature of the Annex repetitively mentioned by the player; and (ii) the player expressly
requested a copy of such Annex to the club’s representative in several opportunities and they
had never questioned its existence. Furthermore, it was the position of the Chamber that the
constellation of contracts signed by the parties corroborates with the player’s allegation
regarding the existence of an additional remuneration, especially when considered that the
employment agreement signed with FK Sarajevo established a higher remuneration than the
one contained in the employment contract.
58. Therefore, based on the overall developments of the case, the members of the Chamber were
satisfied with the conclusion that the club was liable to pay the player a total monthly
remuneration of EUR 2,243, being ALL 30,000 (i.e. approx. EUR 243) plus EUR 2,000.
59. Having established the above, the Chamber moved to the analysis of the amounts effectively
delivered by FK Kukesi to the player. To this extent, the DRC recalled the content of art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, which establishes that a party that asserts a fact has the burden
of proving it. In doing so, the DRC considered that it was up to FK Kukesi to prove that he
had indeed “satisfied its financial obligations to the player”.
Page 11
REF FPSD-2620
60. At this point, the DRC also recalled that, in accordance with art. 13 par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules, all documentation provided in the context of a dispute in front of FIFA shall be
presented in the original version and, if applicable, translated into one of the official FIFA
languages (English, French, Spanish and German). Bearing in mind the wording of the
aforementioned provision also coupled with art. 13, par. 3 and 4 of the Procedural Rules, the
DRC concluded that the receipts provided by FK Kukesi without the translated version could
not be taken into account. Likewise, after carefully analysing the remaining documentation
on file, the Chamber deemed that FK Kukesi did not advance any valid evidence capable of
supporting its allegations.
61. For the sake of completeness, the DRC also stressed that the disciplinary letters sent by FK
Kukesi to the player were not relevant to the outcome of the case since the player had already
put the club in default in several opportunities and granted a reasonable deadline in order to
cure the breach, to no avail.
62. With the above in mind, the Chamber considered that FK Kukesi failed to meet its burden of
proof as to the payments supposedly made to the player. Thus, as per solid jurisprudence of
the Football Tribunal, the DRC decided that such persistent and substantial non-compliance
of the contractual obligations by FK Kukesi could justify the unilateral termination of
the employment contract as well as it could hold the club liable for breach of contract.
63. Based on the factual and contractual situation, the members of the Chamber unanimously
concluded that the player had just cause to terminate the employment
contract. Consequently, the player is entitled to both outstanding remuneration and
compensation for breach of contract, as follows.
ii. Consequences
64. 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 FK Kukesi.
65. Due to the lack of any valid evidence capable of rebutting the player’s allegations and in
accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that
FK Kukesi should be liable to pay to the player the amounts which were outstanding under
the contract at the moment of the termination, as follows:
a.
b.
c.
d.
EUR 373 as the pro rata salary of January 2021 (i.e. 5 days);
EUR 1,443 as the partial salary of February 2021;
EUR 2,143 as the salary of March 2021; and
EUR 2,243 as the salary of April 2021.
66. In addition, 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 at the rate of 5%
Page 12
REF FPSD-2620
p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the date in which each instalment fell due until the
date of effective payment.
67. 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.
68. 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.
69. 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.
70. 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 EUR 2,243 (i.e. the residual value of the employment contract,
corresponding to the player’s salary of May 2021) serves as the basis for the determination
of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
71. 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. Indeed, the DRC noted that after the
termination of the employment contract the player did only resume his employment
relationship with FK Sarajevo after said relevant period, hence no mitigation was to be
considered.
72. 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 EUR 2,243
to the player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation
for breach of contract in the present matter.
Page 13
REF FPSD-2620
73. 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 the date of the claim (i.e. 26 May 2021) until the date of effective
payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
74. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 24bis 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.
75. 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.
76. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that FK Kukesi must pay the full
amount due (including all applicable interest) to the player within 45 days of notification of
the decision, failing which, at the request of the player, a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and
consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on FK Kukesi in
accordance with art. 24bis par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
77. FK Kukesi shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the player in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the
present decision.
78. 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. 24bis par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
79. 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.
80. 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.
Page 14
REF FPSD-2620
81. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
Page 15
REF FPSD-2620
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1, Numan Kurdic, is admissible.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, FK Kukesi, is admissible.
3.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 is partially accepted.
4.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1, the
following amounts:
- EUR 373 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 11 February 2021 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 1,443 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 11 March 2021 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 2,143 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 11 April 2021 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 2,243 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 11 May 2021 until
the date of effective payment; and
- EUR 2,243 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 26 May
2021 until the date of effective payment.
5.
Any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 are rejected.
6.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected.
7.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in
the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
8.
Pursuant to art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (February 2021
edition), if full payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of
notification of this decision, the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall be banned from registering any new players,
either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum
duration of the ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not
made by the end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
Page 16
REF FPSD-2620
9. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant / CounterRespondent 1 in accordance with art. 24bis par. 7 and 8 and art. 24ter of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players.
10. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 17
REF FPSD-2620
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request of a
party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a
redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 18