Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-14120
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 25 April 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Oleksii Larin
BY:
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Single Judge of the DRC
CLAIMANT:
Oleksii Larin, Ukraine
Represented by Uzbekistan Footballers Union
RESPONDENT:
FC Neftchi, Uzbekistan
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-14120
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 4 January 2023, the Ukrainian player, Oleksii Larin (hereinafter: Claimant or player) and
the Uzbek club, FC Neftchi (hereinafter: club or Respondent) concluded an employment
contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as from 4 January 2023 until 30 November 2023.
2.
According to the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a monthly salary
of USD 8,000, paid in Uzbekistan Som (UZS).
3.
On 2 December 2023, the parties signed a “termination agreement”, which establishes that
the contract expired and that the Respondent is in debt for the total amount of UZS
135,252,000, which shall be paid within 20 days.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
4.
On 19 March 2024, 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
5.
In his claim, the Claimant requested payment of the following monies:
- UZS 135,252,000 as outstanding amount from the termination agreement;
- USD 7,559 as “unused vacation amount”;
- USD 16,000 as “bonus for played minutes”.
The Claimant requested payment of 5% interest p.a. as of the due dates.
6.
In this regard, the player argued that the club failed to remit the amount agreed upon in
the termination agreement and that he is entitled to the additional amounts.
b. Position of the Respondent
7.
In its reply, the club rejected the claim and pointed out that it remitted the amount of UZS
136,875,024 on 28 March 2024.
c. Reaction of the Claimant to the alleged payment
8.
The Claimant acknowledged receipt of the payment of 28 March 2024 corresponding to the
amount mentioned in the termination agreement, but insisted that the unused vacation
and bonus are still outstanding.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-14120
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
9.
First of all, the Single Judge (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 14 March 2024 and submitted for decision on 25
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.
10. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 and art. 24 par. 1 lit. a) of the
Procedural Rules and observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with
art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (February 2024
edition), he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a player and a club.
11. 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 14 March 2024, the February 2024
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
12. 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 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
13. 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 it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-14120
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
14. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute that the player is entitled
to the claimed outstanding remuneration.
15. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to decide if the player is
indeed entitled to the claimed amounts or not.
16. In this framework, the Single Judge started by acknowledging that according to the player,
the club failed to remit the amount agreed upon in the “termination agreement”, plus
unused vacation as well as bonuses.
17. Furthermore, the Single Judge duly noted that the Respondent rejected the claim and
pointed out having remitted the amount defined in the termination agreement. The club
provided proof of said payment.
18. The player acknowledged receipt of said payment, but insisted that he is still entitled to
further amounts.
19. In this framework, the Single Judge pointed out that the termination agreement does not
refer to any further outstanding amounts. The player agreed on the amount specified in
the termination agreement and therefore is not entitled to any further amounts.
20. On account of the above, the Single Judge decided that the claim is rejected as the amount
of the termination agreement has been remitted by the club.
d. Costs
21. 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 Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
22. 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.
23. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-14120
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Oleksii Larin, is rejected.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-14120
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 7