Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-6984
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 26 October 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Stéphane Le Metayer
BY:
Alejandro ATILIO TARABORELLI (Argentina), Single Judge of the DRC
CLAIMANT:
Stéphane Le Metayer, France
RESPONDENT:
UE Santa Coloma, Andorra
REF FPSD-6984
I Facts
1. On 11 November 2021, the player Stéphane Le Metayer and UE Santa Coloma concluded an
employment contract valid “as from the player would obtain his residence permit” until 31 May 2022.
2. According to art. 8 of the contract, the player was entitled to EUR 1,275 per month.
3. According to a certification issued by the FAF (Federació Andorrana de Futbol), the player was deregistered from UE Santa Coloma on 30-01-2022.
4. On 31 January 2022, the player sent a notice to the club, indicating the following:
“Since the beginning of January, you have excluded me of the team trainings. You have prevented me for
executing my labour contract and working as professional football player.
You even told me that I haven't been registered anymore to play with the club despite my labour contract.
Without any written information from you, I had to contact the Andorran Federation by myself to know
about my situation. And by this way, I learnt that you proceeded to my deregistration from the Federation
on last 3 January 2022.
That means that I cannot execute my professional duties at all. By the de registration, you violated my
fundamental rights of players.
Therefore, I inform you that I have no other choice than terminating my contract with just cause and
immediate effect.”
5. Following the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), on 10 February 2022,
the player transferred as an amateur to the French club, FC Mulhouse.
6. Accordingly, the player was de-registered from the Federació Andorrana de Fútbol (FAF) on 10
February 2022.
7. The player informed FIFA that he remained unemployed.
REF FPSD-6984
II Proceedings before FIFA
1. On 8 August 2022, the player Stéphane Le Metayer lodged a claim before FIFA for outstanding
remuneration and breach of contract without just cause and requested the payment of the following
amounts:
- EUR 3,525 as outstanding salaries, plus 5% interest p.a. from the due date of each of the payments,
detailed as follows
- EUR 975 for the salary of November 2021 ;
- EUR 1,275 for the salary for December 2021;
- EUR 1,275 for the salary for January 2022
- EUR 5,100 as compensation for the Club's termination of the Contract without just cause, plus 5%
interest p.a. as from the date of termination of the Contract,
- EUR 3,000 as legal costs.
2. In its reply, the club argued that, in December 2021, the player had a talk with the sports director of
the team, in which the player indicated that he wanted improved (contractual) conditions, which the
club refused to grant.
3. The club explained that the player left on 20 December 2021 without giving any explanation. The
club argued that its relationship with the player ended on 31 December 2021.
4. The club further explained that it obtained a work permit for the player, but that he never picked it
up. The club explained that it is still in possession of said document.
5. The club explained that the coach decided to not count on the player since January 2022.
6. According to the club, the player requested a document referred to as “No deute”.
7. In his replica, the Claimant rejected the arguments of the player.
8. The player acknowledged that he left on 20 December 2021, but explained that this was only due to
the winter holidays.
9. The Claimant underlined that the club did not contest that it deregistered him on 3 January 2022.
10. The Claimant insisted in his initial request.
11. In its duplica, the Respondent rejected that the player left for holidays.
12. The Respondent considered that the contract only entered into force on 19 November 2021.
13. The Respondent provided a document issued by the Andorran FA, confirming that the player left the
club on 3 January 2022.
REF FPSD-6984
III Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
1.
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 8 August 2022 and submitted for decision on
26 October 2022. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the June 2022 edition of the
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the
aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
2.
Subsequently, the 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 (June 2022 edition), he is competent to deal
with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international
dimension between a French player and an Andorran club.
3.
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 (June 2022 edition), and considering that the
present claim was lodged on 8 August 2022, the June 2022 edition of said regulations (hereinafter:
the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
4.
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.
5.
Merits of the dispute
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 he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
6.
The Single Judge first observed that, on 11 November 2021, the parties concluded an employment
contract valid “as from the player would obtain his residence permit” until 31 May 2022.
REF FPSD-6984
7.
Thereafter, the Single Judge noted that the claimant lodged a claim against the respondent, arguing
that the latter breached the contract without just cause. In particular, the Judge noticed that, on 31
January 2022, the player sent a termination notice to the club (cf. point I. 4 above).
8.
On the other hand, the Judge took note of the position of the Respondent, which explained, inter
alia, that the player left on 20 December 2021 without giving any explanation. The club also argued
that its relationship with the player ended on 31 December 2021.
9.
Given the above, the Single Judge understood that the main legal issue at stake is to determine when
the contract was terminated and, in that case, if it was done with or without just cause.
10. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art. 14 of the Regulations, according to which
“A contract may be terminated by either party without consequences of any kind (either payment of
compensation or imposition of sporting sanctions) where there is just cause.”
11. The Single Judge then carefully analysed the arguments and documentation provided by the parties
during the course of the investigation, and remarked that it can, as a first consideration, be
established that the player left the club on 20 December 2021, only to send a termination letter on
31 January 2022, arguing that the club deregistered him.
12. Simultaneously, the Judge observed that there is no evidence that the player tried to contact the
club before terminating the contract on 31 January 2022 or even tried to find an explanation about
his alleged de-registration.
13. Nevertheless, the Judge further observed that the club further stated that the contract was valid
until 31 December 2021, although it was clearly valid until 31 May 2022.
14. In addition, and after observing the documentation on file, the Judge further noted that it can be
established that the player was deregistered from the club as from January 2022. In doing so, and
in accordance with its longstanding jurisprudence, the Single Judge considered that the club
significantly violated one of the player’s fundamental rights, which consists in his right to access
training and to be given the possibility to compete with his fellow team mates in the team’s official
matches.
15. Therefore, the Judge considered that the club committed a significant contractual breach by
assuming that the contract was terminated after December 2021 and for deregistering the player.
The Single Judge therefore established that the player is entitled to compensation
REF FPSD-6984
ii. Consequences
16. Before entering into the calculation of the payable compensation, the Single Judge recalled that the
player is entitled to his outstanding remuneration due until the date of termination, i.e. until 31
December 2021.
17. In particular, and after verifying the position of the parties and the information on file, the Single
Judge observed that the following amounts appears to no have been paid:
- EUR 975 for the rest of the salary of November 2021 ;
- EUR 1,275 for the salary for December 2021;
18. Consequently, in strict application of the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Judge established that
the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant, the total outstanding amount of EUR 2,250 (i.e.
975+1,275), as detailed above.
19. Moreover, taking into account the request of the Claimant as well as the longstanding jurisprudence
in this regard, the Judge decided to award 5% interest p.a. over said amount as from the due dates.
20. 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.
21. In application of the relevant provision, the Single Judge held that it first of all had to clarify 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.
22. 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.
23. As a consequence, the Single Judge determined that the amount of compensation payable by the
Respondent to the Claimant 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 nonexhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of
compensation payable.
REF FPSD-6984
24. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Single Judge proceeded with the
calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract until its term.
Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the amount of EUR 6,375 (i.e. January 2022 until May
2022: 5*1,275 = EUR 6,375) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation
for breach of contract.
25. In continuation, the Single Judge verified 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.
26. In this respect, the Single Judge noted that the player remained unemployed since the unilateral
termination of the contract.
27. The Single Judge referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which, in case the
player did not sign any new contract following the termination of his previous contract, as a general
rule, the compensation shall be equal to the residual value of the contract that was prematurely
terminated.
28. In this respect, the Single Judge decided to award the player compensation for breach of contract in
the amount of EUR 6,375, as the residual value of the contract.
29. 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 the date of claim until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
30. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge referred to art. 24 par. 1 and
2 (of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA deciding body shall
also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the concerned party to pay the relevant
amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or compensation in due time.
31. In this regard, the Single Judge 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.
32. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the club 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 creditor, a ban from registering any new players, either
nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration
REF FPSD-6984
periods shall become immediately effective on the club in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of
the Regulations.
33. The club 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.
34. The Single Judge recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of the
Regulations.
d. Costs
35. 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.
36. Furthermore, 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.
37. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
REF FPSD-6984
IV Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Stéphane Le Metayer, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, UE Santa Coloma, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amounts:
- EUR 2,250 as outstanding remuneration plus interest as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 975 p.a. as from 1 December 2021 until the date of effective
payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 1,275 p.a. as from 1 January 2022 until the date of effective
payment;
- EUR 6,375 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest p.a. as
from 8 August 2022 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
REF FPSD-6984
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