Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-9740
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 17 August 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Nikola Leko
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (The Netherlands), Chairperson
Dana MOHAMED AL-NOAIMI (Qatar), member
Tomislav KASALO (Croatia), member
CLAIMANT:
Nikola Leko, Croatia
Represented by Loizos Hadjidemetriou & Associates L.L.C
RESPONDENT:
FC Krasava E.N.Y. Digenis Ipsona, Cyprus
Represented by Christoforos Florou
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-9740
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 23 August 2022, the Croatian player, Nikola Leko (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant)
and the Cypriot club, FC Krasava E.N.Υ. Digenis Ipsona (hereinafter: the club or the
Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the
date of signature until 31 May 2024.
2.
According to clause 1.3 of the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant the
following amounts:
3.
-
From 23 August 2022 until 31 May 2023: 10 monthly instalments of EUR 2,000 net
each, payable on the last day of each month as from 31 August 2022 until 31 May
2023.
-
From 1 June 2023 until 31 May 2024:
•
If the club was not promoted to the first division of the national league within
the Cyprus Football Association (CFA): 10 monthly instalments of EUR 3,000
net each, payable on the last day of each month as from 31 August 2023 until
31 May 2024.
•
If the club was promoted to the first division of the national league within the
CFA, 10 monthly instalments of EUR 3,500 net each, payable on the last day
of each month as from 31 August 2023 until 31 May 2024.
According to clause 1.5 of the contract, the Claimant was also entitled to the following
benefits:
-
Season 2022/2023:
•
-
-
Accommodation allowance: 9 monthly instalments of EUR 1,200, payable on
the first day of each month as from 1 August 2022 until 1 May 2023.
Season 2023/2024:
•
Accommodation allowance: 10 monthly instalments of EUR 1,000, payable on
the last day of each month as from 1 August 2023 until 31 May 2024.
•
Transportation expenses: 10 monthly instalments of EUR 500, payable on the
last day of each month from 31 August 2023 until 31 May 2024.
One return flight ticket from Cyprus to Croatia per football season.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-9740
4.
On 1 January 2023, the parties allegedly signed an amendment to the contract (hereinafter:
the Amendment). It is to be noted that the player disputed the signature of the Amendment.
5.
In accordance with the Amendment, the parties agreed upon, inter alia, the following:
1) “The recitals of facts and representations set forth in the preamble above are true and
correct and they are incorporated into the body of this Agreement by reference.
2) The Parties hereby irrevocably agree that the clause 1.3 of [the contract] be amended,
as of the date hereof: The Club will pay to the Player remuneration by paying the net
amount of €700 (SEVEN HUNDRED euro) per month, payable on the last day of every
month, beginning on 01/01/2023 to 31/05/2023.
3) This Amendment Agreement does not cancel and/or affect/amend any other terms
and conditions of [the contract] other than in the way and the ones specifically, stated
in this Amendment Agreement.
4) This Amendment Agreement shall form an integral part to [the contract] and should
be read at all times in conjunction with [the contract].
5) This Amendment Agreement shall be governed by and construed according to the
Laws of the Republic of Cyprus and the parties hereby submit to the jurisdiction of the
Cypriot Courts to try and claim any dispute or difference arising out of or in
connection with this agreement.
6) All terms and conditions of this Amendment Agreement are of the essence and any
party in breach of this agreement shall be liable to the payment of damages to the
other innocent party in respect thereof [...]”.
6.
On 2 January 2023, the club sent a letter to the player stating as follows (quoted verbatim):
“Following the failure in achieving the primary target for this season, in placing the
team in the top 8 teams at the end of the First stage of the championship, which gives
[the club] no chance to compete for promotion to the First Division, as management/
owners of the organization had no other way but to revise the budget until the end of
the season 2022-2023.
By doing this [the club] had no other way but to cut down on expenses part of which
are contracts of players who based on the coaches' evaluation didn't not perform to
our expectations and who are not in the coaches' plans for the rest of the season.
For this reason and because you are one of the players whose contract must be
terminated as per the above. We would like to inform you that you are free to enter
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-9740
into negotiations with any other club of your choice in finding the next team to
continue your career.
At the same time [the player] can meet with the General Director of the Club in order
to finalize the settlement/termination of your contract with [the club]”.
7.
On 4 January 2023, the club’s president issued a personal guarantee stating as follows:
“guarantee and/or assume a personal obligation to pay to the Cyprus Football
Association any amounts awarded from any Judicial Body in favour of player NIKOLA
LEKO CFA reg. no. 299504, due to the termination of his employment agreement
and/or his deregistration from the list of eligible to compete players”.
8.
On 8 March 2023, the player put the club in default and stressed the following:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
9.
he did not agree with the early termination of their employment relationship on 2
January 2023;
the club adopted an abusive treatment towards him by assigning him to train with
the U-19 team since 19 January 2023 and completely excluding him from the team’s
activities; and
he was deregistered from the list of eligible players to participate in official
competitions.
Consequently, by means of his notice the player requested the club to reinstate him to the
first team’s training sessions and to register him in the list of eligible players by no later
than13 March 2023.
10. On the same date, 8 March 2023, the club replied to the player informing him that he had
been deregistered from its “list A” and could no longer be reinstated. The club made
reference to its guarantee dated 4 January 2023, a copy of which was shared with the
player.
11. On 14 March 2023, the player sent a termination notice to the club, considering, inter alia,
that he had been deregistered and was not informed of any attempt by the club to remedy
the situation.
12. Following the termination of the contract, the player remained unemployed.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
13. On 27 March 2023, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-9740
a. Claim of the Claimant
14. In his claim, the Claimant stated that he unilaterally terminated the contract with just cause
on 14 March 2023. He made the following remarks in this respect:
-
In accordance with the Respondent’s correspondence on 2 January 2023, it became
evident that the Respondent was no longer interested in his services.
-
He did not agree to the premature termination of his employment by hand of the
club.
-
The Respondent ordered him to train with the U-19 team, preventing him from
participating in matches.
-
He “was never informed whether this decision for him to be training with the U-19 team
was temporary or permanent. Even though he was repeatedly and constantly
complaining and requesting to return to the A Team”.
-
He was informed by his lawyer that he had been removed from the list of eligible
players to participate in official competitions. Subsequently, he put the Respondent
in default in order to be re-registered, however, was informed that the club was no
longer able to fix the issue.
15. The Claimant requested the following relief (quoted verbatim):
“i. €903.23 net as the Claimant’s pro rata due payables for March 2023, plus legal
interest from 15/03/2023 until full payment.
ii. €541.94 net as the Claimant’s pro rata accommodation allowance for March 2023,
plus legal interest from 15/03/2023 until full payment.
iii. €35,096.77 net corresponding to the residual value of the Claimant’s salaries, plus
legal interest from 27/03/2023 until full settlement.
iv. €13,058.06 net corresponding to the residual value of the Claimant’s
accommodation allowance for both seasons, plus legal interest from 27/03/2023 until
full settlement.
v. €5,000 net as compensation for the transportation allowance, plus legal interest
from 27/03/2023 until full settlement”.
b. Reply of the Respondent
16. On 27 April 2023, the Respondent filed its reply to the claim of the player. In doing so, the
Respondent explained the following:
-
The Respondent informed the player that it had revised its budget due to the failure
to meet its targets for the season 2022/2023.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-9740
-
The Claimant expressed his desire to leave the club as he wanted to participate in
the first division of the national league within the CFA, which was not possible due to
the results of the season 2022/2023.
-
Both parties agreed that: (i) the Claimant was free to seek a new club; and (ii) in the
meanwhile, he would continue to train with the club, but his salary would be reduced
to EUR 700 in line with the Amendment.
-
Consequently, the Respondent also proceeded with the player’s deregistration,
about which he was also duly informed.
-
The Claimant never participated in the training sessions of its second team.
17. In view of the foregoing, the club rejected the player’s argument that he had terminated
the contract with just cause and argued that their employment relationship had already
been mutually terminated.
18. In conclusion, the Respondent requested FIFA to reject the claim of the player. Alternatively,
it added the following (quoted verbatim):
“However, in case that the position of the Claimant will be accepted by the FIFA
Committee, i.e. that the termination of the employment agreement has been made
with just cause by the Claimant, then the Respondent states the followings:
i.
The Claimant is not entitled to the remaining value of his employment
agreement as compensation since the Parties has been signed the
Amendment Agreement dated 0 1/01/2023 with a reduced salary and
therefore any awarded compensation shall be calculated on this basis.
ii.
The Claimant is not entitled to any compensation corresponding to the
residual value of the Claimant's accommodation allowance for both seasons
but only until the date of the termination of the employment agreement. In
accordance to the well known FIFA and CAS jurisprudence the
accommodation allowances and housing benefits are not a salary (…) In this
matter at stake, the Claimant failed to prove whether he suffered any
damages and whether he has incurred any housing cost and if yes, he failed
to prove for which period he has suffered any such cost.
iii. The Claimant is not entitled to any compensation corresponding to
transportation allowances since are not a salary but cost and therefore he
has not proved whether has he incurred such cost.”
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-9740
c. Rejoinder of the Claimant
19. On 11 May 2023, the Claimant filed his rejoinder on this matter. Accordingly, the Claimant
rejected the arguments issued by the Respondent and argued inter alia the following:
-
The Claimant has never agreed with the Respondent to terminate his contract or
seek another club, nor did he agree to reduce his salary.
-
“The so called [Amendment], was never ever signed by the Claimant. The Claimant never
agreed to sign such an agreement and he had never even seen this agreement existed […]
before receiving [the Respondent’s statement of defence]. This agreement is forged and
was never signed by the Claimant. For this reason, the Claimant is calling the FIFA PSD to
request the original of the agreement to be sent to FIFA and, after this proceeding is
concluded, he shall proceed filing a criminal complaint to the Cyprus police for forgery.
The Claimant’s position that this agreement is forged is proven by the fact that it was
allegedly singed on 01/012023. If such an agreement had indeed been signed on
01/01/2023, the Respondent would have had no reason at all to prepare and send to the
Claimant the letter dated 02/01/2023. Which, amongst others, was calling the Claimant
to meet with the general director to finalise the settlement / termination of his contract”.
-
The Claimant was never informed about his deregistration.
-
“The fact that the Claimant had been training with the second team is proven by the fact
that the Respondent never replied or challenged the Claimant’s letters of 08/03/2023 and
14/03/2023. Which stated that the Claimant had been forced to train with the second
team since 19/01/2023 and he was not allowed back to the First Team, despite his
repeated complaints and requests.”.
-
The Claimant has never agreed to the mutual termination of the contract.
20. Given the above, the Claimant reiterated his requests for relief in line with his statement of
claim.
d.
Final comments of the Respondent
21. On 17 May 2023, the FIFA general secretariat requested the Respondent to submit its final
comments on the present matter by no later than 24 May 2023.
22. On 25 May 2023, the Respondent submitted its comments on this matter.
23. On the same date, 25 May 2023, the FIFA general secretariat:
-
acknowledged receipt of the late correspondence of the Respondent;
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-9740
-
referred to art. 11 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal
(hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) according to which submissions received outside
the time lime were not taken into account;
-
informed that parties that submission-phase in the case at hand was closed, hence
they would no longer be able to supplement or amend their submissions or
requests for relief or produce new evidence (cf. art. 23, par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules); and
-
requested the Respondent to submit the original copy of the Amendment via courier
(cf. art. 23, par. 2 of the Procedural Rules).
e. Additional documentation and comments of the parties
24. On 31 May 2023, the Respondent submitted a copy of the Amendment via courier.
25. On 21 July 2023, and once again on the basis of art. 23 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, the
FIFA secretariat general requested both parties to submit proof of payment and/or receipt
of the player's salaries of January and February 2023, by no later than 26 July 2023.
26. On 26 July 2023, the Claimant inter alia acknowledged having received his salary of January
2023 as follows: (i) EUR 750 via wire transfer (cf. banking statement provided by the
Claimant); and (ii) EUR 2,450 in cash. As to the salary of February 2023, he denied having
received any amount, reason why such concept was now part of his claim before FIFA. The
Claimant also provided additional comments as to the forgery of the Amendment, which
were however not requested by the FIFA general secretariat.
27. The Respondent failed to submit any additional comment within the time limit granted by
the FIFA general secretariat.
28. On 27 July 2023, the Respondent requested FIFA to grant it the right to respond to the
additional arguments filed by the player on 26 July 2023.
29. On 2 August 2023, the FIFA general secretariat acknowledged receipt of the parties’ latest
submissions and confirmed that (i) the submission-phase of the case at hand was already
closed; and (ii) any unsolicited correspondence would be disregarded (cf. art. 23, par. 1 of
the Procedural Rules).
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-9740
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
30. 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 27 March 2023 and submitted
for decision on 17 August 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March
2023 edition of the Procedural Rules, the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules
is applicable to the matter at hand.
31. Furthermore, 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 par.1 lit. b)
of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (May 2023 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 Croatian player
and a Cypriot club.
32. 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 Players (May 2023 edition) and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 27 March 2023, the October 2022 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to
the substance.
33. For the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled that: (i) parties to the proceedings are
not authorised to supplement or amend their submissions or requests for relief or produce
new evidence once the submission phase is closed (cf. art. 23, par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules); (ii) any supplementary information and/or documentation shall only be accepted if
requested by the FIFA general secretary in the course of the proceedings (cf. art. 23, par. 2
of the Procedural Rules); and (iii) submissions received outside the time lime were not taken
into account (cf. art. 11, par. 4 of the Procedural Rules. Consequently, the DRC confirmed
both that the Respondent’s letter of 25 May 2023, and the Claimant’s unsolicited comments
of 26 July 2023 were inadmissible, hence disregarded, and that the club’s right to be heard
had been fully respected, in that the club failed to timely comments as instructed by the
FIFA general secretariat on 21 July 2023.
b. Burden of proof
34. 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
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-9740
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
35. 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
36. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and noted that the parties strongly dispute: (i) when and by whom the contract was
terminated; and (ii) the justice such termination, together with the consequences that
follow.
37. In this context, the Chamber took note that the Claimant claimed having terminated the
contract with just cause due to the abusive behaviour of the club, in particular, due to his
deregistration. On the other hand, the DRC was also observant of the Respondent’s position
according to which, via the Amendment and the subsequent correspondences: (i) the player
agreed to be deregistered and to reduce his salary; and (ii) the contract was terminated by
mutual consent.
38. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine: (i)
whether the Amendment was valid and binding to the parties; (ii) in the negative, the justice
of the termination by hand of the player; and (iii) the consequences that follow.
39. The Chamber then moved to the analysis of each topic in turn.
Was the Amendment valid and binding to the parties?
40. As a departure point, the DRC recalled that the parties’ dispute the validity of the
Amendment: whereas the club argues that such document was properly concluded in order
to address the new constellation of their employment relationship; the player claims that
it was never signed, thus forged.
41. In view of this dissent between the parties, the DRC initially turned to the documentation
on file and observed the player’s signatures were, inter alia, as follows:
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-9740
Document
Passport retrieved from TMS
Signature
Contract
Power of attorney
Amendment
42. While considering the above, the DRC initially established that, under a technical point of
view, the player seemed to have used different signatures at different times.
43. Consequently, the Chamber recalled its long-standing jurisprudence according to which, in
the absence of a clear confirmation that the signature found in the specimen under analysis
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-9740
(i.e., the Amendment) is authentic, it falls on to both parties to further prove their position
– for instance, in the case at hand, by filing additional documentation, such as payment
receipts for previous salaries and/or communications between the parties corroborating
that the player was in agreement to reduce his salary.
44. The DRC stressed that the above is particularly important when considering that 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. Thus, it is up to the relevant chamber of the Football
Tribunal to take a decision vis-à-vis the other elements of the case.
45. Upon assessing the particularities of the case, the Chamber found it decisive that:
•
the timeline of the case shed doubt on the club’s narrative because, whereas the
Amendment was dated 1 January 2023, on the following day the club informed the
player that the contract would be terminated and that he was free to seek new
employment. As such, the behaviour of the club was controverted;
•
despite arguing that the player was aware and in agreement with the premature
termination of the contract, the club did not advance any supporting documentation
to this extent, in spite of the argumentation raised in its defense (e.g., proof that the
player expressed his interest in seeking new employment and/or that he was not
indeed interested resuming his services with the club). On the contrary, the club
limited itself to file a copy of the Amendment, which did not provide any apparent
benefit to the player; and
•
the club failed to file its position on the player’s rejoinder, despite being invited to do
so. Nonetheless, upon being requested by the FIFA general secretariat to provide
further evidence as to the payment of the salaries of January and February 2023, it
remained undisputed that the player received more than the EUR 700 mentioned in
the Amendment, thus suggesting that he was still entitled to the full remuneration
per the contract.
46. Against this background and while balancing the position of the parties vis-à-vis the few
pieces of evidence on file, the DRC concluded that the club could not establish to a
comfortable satisfaction degree that the player had ever agreed to the conditions
stipulated in the Amendment (cf. art. 13, par. 5 of the Procedural Rules).
47. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Amendment should not be taken into account
in the context of the present dispute.
When and by whom was the contract terminated? Was it terminated with just cause?
48. Having stated the above, the Chamber moved to the analysis of the termination.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-9740
49. In doing so, the Chamber initially noted that the club claimed having mutually agreed with
the player to terminate the contract so that he could find a new employment. However, the
Chamber highlighted that the club failed to advance any supporting evidence in this regard,
entailing that it could not identify any type of consent from the player’s side with such
premature termination. As such, the Chamber concluded that the club’s argumentation
could not be upheld.
50. Subsequently, the DRC observed that the player, for his part, argued that he was the one to
terminate the contract on 14 March 2023 due to his deregistration by the club.
51. On this topic, the Chamber recalled that in line with its jurisprudence, the registration
procedure is the sole responsibility of a club and upon which a player has in general no
influence. As the Club is supposedly interested in acquiring the rights of the Player and in
benefiting from his services, it is also expected that it acts accordingly and executes the
administrative formalities in view of obtaining, for instance, the registration with the
engaging federation.
52. Furthermore, as mentioned in page 114 of the Commentary of the RSTP, “a club – as an
employer – has the duty to protect the personality rights of the player – as an employee. The
career development of a footballer may be prejudiced as a result of inactivity and thus, the club
has a duty to allow its players to engage in the activity for which they have been in principle
employed and are qualified for”. Consequently, the non-registration of a player constitutes a
serious misconduct of a club.
53. At this point, the Chamber took due consideration that (i) by means of its letters dated 2 and
4 January 2023, the club suggested that it was no longer interested in retaining player’s
services; (ii) on 8 March 2023, the club expressly confirmed that the player had been
deregistered and he could no longer be reinstated; and (iii) on 14 March 2023, the player
notified the termination of the contract claiming just cause, to no avail.
54. Based on the foregoing, the Chamber was sufficiently convinced that the club once again
incurred in a controverted towards the player; granting him a just cause to prematurely
terminate the contract on 14 March 2023. Thus, the DRC stressed that the club should be
liable to the consequences that follow.
ii. Consequences
55. 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 the
Respondent.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-9740
56. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination,
coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, amounts to EUR 2,000 as the
salary of March 2023 and EUR 1,200 as accommodation allowance for the same month.
57. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent should be liable to pay to the Claimant the total
of EUR 3,200.
58. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request, the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, and the principle ne ultra petita, the latter decided to award the
Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the overdue amounts as follows:
-
On the amount of EUR 1,445.17 net as from 15 March 2023 until the date of effective
payment.
On the amount of EUR 1,754.83 net as from 27 March 2023 until the date of effective
payment.
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. 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
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-9740
concluded that the amount of EUR 51,400 net serves as the basis for the determination of
the amount of compensation for breach of contract, broken down as follows:
•
EUR 6,400 as the salaries and accommodation allowance of April and May 2023
salaries; plus
•
EUR 45,000 as the salaries, accommodation, and transportation allowances for the
entire season 2023/2024.
63. 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. According to the constant practice of the
DRC 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.
64. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the player remained unemployed following the
unilateral termination of the contract.
65. By referring once again to art. 17, par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, the Chamber determined
that, as the player could not mitigate his damages and the termination was not linked to
overdue payables, the amount of compensation should be equal to the residual value of
the contract that was prematurely terminated, i.e., EUR 51,400 net.
66. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request, its constant practice, and the principle
ne ultra petita, the Chamber decided to award the player interest on said compensation at
the rate of 5% p.a. as of 27 March 2023 until the date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
67. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber 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.
68. 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.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-9740
69. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the
full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, 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
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
70. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached
to the present decision.
71. 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. 24 par. 8 of
the Regulations.
d. Costs
72. 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.
73. 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.
74. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-9740
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Nikola Leko, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, FC Krasava E.N.Υ. Digenis Ipsona, must pay to the Claimant the following
amounts:
- EUR 1,445.17 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 15 March
2023 until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 1,754.83 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 27 March
2023 until the date of effective payment;
- EUR 51,400 net as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 27 March 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. 18
REF. FPSD-9740
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. 19