Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-2470
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 3 November 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Christ Remi
Lourougnou
BY:
Omar Ongaro (Italy), Deputy Chairperson
Peter Lukasek (Slovakia), member
Yuriy Zapisotskiy (Ukraine), member
CLAIMANT:
Christ Remi Lourougnou, Côte d’Ivoire
Represented by Mr Loïc Alves
RESPONDENT:
Shabab El Bourj, Lebanon
Page 2
REF FPSD-2470
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 14 September 2019, the Ivorian player, Christ Remi Lourougnou (hereinafter: the
Claimant), and the Lebanese club, Shaba El Bourj (hereinafter: the Respondent) signed two
contracts (hereinafter: the first contract and the second contract), valid as from 15 September
2019 until ‘the end of May’ 2020.
2.
In accordance with the first contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant inter
alia USD 10,000 as a sign on fee and the amount of USD 20,000 divided into 10 monthly
instalments of USD 2,000 each. The Claimant was also entitled to a ‘furnished house’ and a
‘roundtrip flight ticket’ at the end of the season.
3.
In accordance with the second contract, the Claimant was entitled to the amount of USD
12,000, divided into 10 monthly instalments of USD 1,200 each, a ‘furnished house’ and a
‘roundtrip flight ticket’ at the end of the season.
4.
On 18 January 2020, the Claimant was arrested in the co-shared flat, following a police raid
triggered, due to an investigation into one of his cotenants. Due to the fact that the Claimant
was only in the possession of an expired visa, he was placed in detention - together with two
of his cotenants - in an immigration centre where he stayed for almost a month, i.e. the
period between 25 January and 17 February 2020.
5.
During the aforementioned period of detention, the Claimant faced extremely rough and
degrading condition, as he was placed in a cell with approximately 20 other prisoners, where
they did not receive sufficient food and water. After the first week, the Claimant fell ill due
to the degrading and ill-treatment he received during his detention.
6.
While being in detention, the Claimant requested the prison authorities to contact the
Respondent and the embassy of Côte d’Ivoire. What is more, during the detention, the
Respondent sent a member of the LFA, Mr Rabih Halawani, who offered him to sign a
termination agreement by means of which he would waive his entitlements, in exchange for
the Respondent’s assistance in his release from the detention centre and a return flight ticket,
which the Claimant refused to do.
7.
On 17 February 2020, with the help of the Ivorian embassy and the church, the Claimant that
he was finally able to obtain an embassy emitted pass, allowing him to leave the country on
17 February 2020 with a flight ticket purchased by his wife.
8.
By correspondence dated 14 October 2020, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of
payment of USD 54,000, consisting of outstanding salaries under the first and second
contract, flight expenses, accommodation allowances and moral damages, setting a time limit
of 15 days in order to remedy the default. A similar letter was also sent to the Lebanon
Football Association (LFA).
Page 3
REF FPSD-2470
9.
On 26 October 2020, the LFA responded to the above letter, rejecting and dismissing all
claims.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
10. On 7 May 2021, 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
11. According to the Claimant, the Respondent requested him to sign two contracts, in order to
make it possible that the one with lower amounts could be registered with the LFA and enable
the Respondent to reduce the registration costs, and the one with higher amounts would be
applied in the work relationship between the parties. The Claimant adds that this is notably
demonstrated by the fact that the Respondent undertook to immediately pay USD 10,000 as
down payment as per the first contract.
12. The Claimant further submits that whilst he fulfilled his contractual obligations, the
Respondent from the outset, failed to comply with essential obligations, such as the payment
of salaries, the regularisation of his administrative situation as well as the providing of a
furnished flat. The Claimant adds that, except for the down payment amounting to USD
10,000, the Respondent completely ceased to remunerate him.
13. With regard to his administrative status in Lebanon, the Claimant submits that he repeatedly
reminded the Respondent that his visa was due to expire on 24 November 2019 and that the
Respondent did not undertake any administrative steps with the relevant authorities to obtain
the relevant documents.
14. Additionally, the Claimant submits that he informed the Respondent that due to its failure to
pay him his salary as well as the rental costs, he found himself in a situation of financial
hardship, which forced him to move into a shared apartment.
15. Despite the default notice dated 14 October 2020, the Claimant submits that the Respondent,
without any justification and for a long period of time, failed to pay his financial entitlements.
As a result, he submits that he is therefore entitled to claim all outstanding remuneration.
16. Furthermore, the Claimant submits that under both contracts (i.e. article 4 of each contract),
the Respondent had the obligation to provide him with furnished accommodation. The
Claimant further adds that from the outset, the Respondent apparently informed him that
providing him with accommodation would be too costly and instead committed to pay him
a fixed amount of USD 300, to cover part of his housing, but did so only for the first two
months.
Page 4
REF FPSD-2470
17. The Claimant submits that the Respondent demonstrated a total disinterest in maintaining
the contractual relationship, by not responding to any of his correspondence, despite being
repeatedly invited to remedy the various breaches.
18. In regards to the request for compensation for breach of contract, the Claimant submits that
the Respondent left him without any support, neither financial nor administrative. Therefore,
the Claimant states that there exists a direct and logical causal link between its shortcomings
and his sufferings. The Claimant adds that had the Respondent provided him with
accommodation as agreed, he would not have been compelled to look for cotenants in order
to pay for his monthly rent, no police raid would have subsequently taken place at the
premises and he would not have been detained.
19. Consequently, the Claimant submits that the Respondent's actions directly caused him
physical and mental suffering and that it follows that this exceptional and serious
infringement of his fundamental rights entitle him to moral damages.
20. Given the circumstances, the Claimant submits that the FIFA DRC should use the period
during which the suffering was most intense as an objective measure. Thus, he states that it
is reasonable and fair to take as a starting point the month of January 2020, as the peak of
the physical and moral suffering, since it corresponds to the raid, arrest and detention of the
Player.
21. Therefore, the Claimant submits that he is entitled to the amount of USD 20,000 as
outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. from the relevant payment dates until the
effective date of payment.
22. In the alternative, the Claimant submits that he is entitled to:
USD 30,000 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the relevant due
dates until the effective date of payment;
USD 365 as reimbursement of the flight tickets, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 14 February
2020, i.e. day following the issuance of the payment receipt;
USD 40,000 as moral damages.
b. Position of the Respondent
23. The Respondent, in its reply, requests that the FIFA DRC takes measures against the Claimant
or close the case as all the financial requests are based on a falsified contract, which is not
registered with the LFA.
24. The Respondent adds that the Claimant is “blackmailing it for money due to his financial
situation after being arrested with the gang and banned from entering Lebanon”.
Page 5
REF FPSD-2470
25. In regards to the alleged signing of two contracts, the Respondent submits that the first
contract should not be considered valid. According to the Respondent, in the first contract,
the signature of its General Secretary, Mr Abdel Nasser Malakee, is not the same as the one
in the second contract. Therefore, the Respondent submits that the signature in the first
contract is forged.
26. The Respondent submits that the only legally and contractually valid contract is the second
contract, i.e. the one ‘that is witnessed by LFA’.
27. Additionally, the Respondent submits that its administration has a set budget for foreign
players at the amount of USD 12,000 and that this is reflected in the contracts of other players
that played with the Claimant in the same season. According to the Respondent, the Claimant
initially negotiated for a salary of USD 35,000 and that this was rejected, as it was not within
budget.
28. The Respondent adds that the Claimant claimed that such low salary could not be exposed
to the public, since it will impact heavily its reputation. According to the Respondent, the
Claimant asked to be provided with a contract template, so that in case anyone claimed his
low salary, he would show the one with a higher salary. In this respect, the Respondent
however argued that the template with the higher salary was not signed.
29. The Respondent argues that the first contract presented by the Claimant is forged and/or that
the Claimant “abused the template” given to him. What is more, the Respondent argues that
now he is using it to blackmail the Respondent, since he has financial issues after been
arrested by the Lebanese General Security.
30. According to the Respondent, as per registered contract at the LFA, it is responsible to pay
the Claimant the amount of USD 12,000. Hence, it is committed to the payment of the
remaining amount of USD 2,000.
31. In regards to the down payment of USD 10,000 that was made to the Claimant, the
Respondent submits that said amount was paid to the Claimant, as he insisted that he is in
urgent need to send money to his family. The Respondent therefore submits that as per
registered contract at the LFA, the Claimant was entitled to USD 12,000 divided into monthly
equal salaries until the end of season and that he received USD 10,000.
32. In relation to the claim for accommodation allowances, the Respondent submits that the
Claimant requested to be paid in cash, so that he can pay his cotenants in the shared
apartment and that it therefore paid an amount of USD 300 for two months to the Claimant.
After the Claimant moved in the apartment the Respondent provided him, the league was
cancelled by LFA due to “a Force majeure caused by COVID-19 and the economic situation
of Lebanon”. Accordingly and after coordination with LFA, the Respondent submits that it
was advised by LFA to settle the contracts of foreign players, which it did for all except the
Page 6
REF FPSD-2470
Claimant, since he disappeared, until the Respondent got a call from Lebanese General
Security requesting to pay his fine of USD 400 and a return ticket to his country.
33. In response to the claim that it failed to regularize the Claimant’s visa situation in Lebanon,
the Respondent submits that according to Lebanese law, the Claimant’s sponsor is in charge
of renewing his visa. Nonetheless, the Respondent states that it attempted to coordinate with
his sponsor to renew his visa, but that the Claimant submitted a passport with less than six
months to expire, which is contrary to the requirements for visa renewal.
34. In regards to the assistance provided by it to the Claimant when he was arrested, the
Respondent submits that it offered to pay the fine and a return flight home, but that the
Claimant rejected said offer. The Respondent also adds that the Claimant sent his default
notice to the wrong contact details.
35. Nonetheless, according to the Respondent, the Claimant received the amount of USD 10,000
and only played three matches for the Respondent. As a result, the Respondent deems that
no amounts are due to the Claimant.
36. In regards to the request for compensation for breach of contract, the Respondent submits
that compensation, if any, must be on the basis of the a legally registered contract with the
LFA.
37. In relation to the request for moral damages, the Respondent submits that any harm that he
may have suffered was as a result of “his indiscipline” and it cannot be held accountable for
his own deeds.
38. In conclusion, the Respondent submits that the claim of the Claimant should be rejected.
c. Claimant’s additional comments
39. In regards to the Respondent’s allegation that the first contract is forged, the Claimant was
asked by FIFA to provide his comments as to the argumentation of the Respondent regarding
the alleged forgery.
40. Furthermore, the Claimant submits that not only does the Respondent bring no reliable and
conclusive evidence in support of such assertion, but the facts of the present case actually
contradicts said allegation. Indeed, as per the terms of the first contract, the Respondent
proceeded to make payment of the advance sum of USD 10,000, demonstrating that it had
started to execute the first contract.
41. What is more, the Claimant submits that he signed both contracts in person, the first contract
in the personal house of Mr Ali Sleem, a copy of which was provided to him only at a later
stage, after he repeatedly requested it, and the second contract was directly signed at the
federation’s premises with the presence of the Club’s technical director. The Claimant states
Page 7
REF FPSD-2470
that he was not provided with a template and that he thus had no possibility to manipulate
or forge the content
42. Finally, according to the Claimant, the Respondent never denied the existence of the first
contract, as demonstrated by the WhatsApp communications between the parties
throughout, which he constantly requested the payment of his salaries. As a result, the
Claimant submits that the Respondent’s submission is ungrounded and shall be rejected.
43. According to the Claimant, all arguments raised by the Respondent remain unsupported and
thus speculative, for the simple reason that they are brought forward in an attempt to justify
its behaviour and that said arguments should therefore be disregarded
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
44. 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 7 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.
45. 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 in principle competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an Ivorian
player and a Lebanese club.
46. In continuation, 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 (August 2021 edition) and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 7 May 2021, the February 2021 edition 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
Page 8
REF FPSD-2470
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 that of the fact that there are two contracts on file, allegedly signed by the
parties and that the parties disagree as to which version is valid and binding.
50. The Chamber noted that according to the Claimant, he is entitled to outstanding
remuneration and compensation for breach of contract on the basis of the first contract. On
the other hand, the Chamber also noted that the Respondent submits that it only signed the
second contract, which is registered with the LFA and which is the only binding contract.
51. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it was imperative to first determine which
of the two contracts is valid and binding on the parties.
52. With the above in mind, the Chamber first of all noted that according to the Respondent, the
first contract is forged, as the signature of its General Secretary is different from the one in
the second contract.
53. In continuation, while reiterating the contents of the basic principle of burden of proof, the
Chamber analysed and compared the signature contained in the contract uploaded in TMS
under the relevant transfer and noted in this respect, that the signature of the General
Secretary in the first contract is similar to the one uploaded in TMS. Additionally, the Chamber
noted that the signature contained in the second contract is different from the one uploaded
in TMS by the Respondent.
54. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Respondent was asked by the FIFA Administration
to submit the original contract, in reply to which he submitted a scan of the “original contract”
via email and not the original document in hard copy. As a result, and in accordance with the
standing jurisprudence the Chamber decided to disregard said document.
Page 9
REF FPSD-2470
55. With regard to the above and taking into account the fact that the Respondent proceeded to
make an advance payment of USD 10,000 in cash to the Claimant, the Chamber deemed
that this could lead one to reasonably believe that the Respondent was executing the first
contract. The second contract did not establish a sing on fee and actually provided for the
total amount of USD 12,000 to be paid in instalments. Under these circumstances, it would
not appear to be logic that the Respondent would make a one-time down payment of USD
10,000.
56. In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that from all the circumstances in the matter
at hand, the Respondent had effectively started to execute the first contract with the
Claimant. Therefore, the first contract as submitted by the Claimant is the one to be
considered valid and binding between the parties.
57. In continuation, the Chamber turned its attention to the Respondent’s argument that the
Claimant did not provide him with a valid passport in order to process his visa. In this regard,
the Chamber deemed that based on the submissions on file, the Respondent did not provide
any collaborating documentary evidence that it had made the necessary efforts to renew the
Claimant’s visa, although said action was to be considered the responsibility of the
Respondent, as it was the party supposedly interested in acquiring the services of the Claimant
and in benefiting from his services.
58. The Chamber, in continuation, noted that it remained uncontested that – except from a down
payment of USD 10,000 paid to the Claimant - no other amounts were paid by the
Respondent. Hence, at the time of the Claimant leaving Lebanon in February 2020, at least
five monthly salaries were outstanding.
59. With the above in mind, the Chamber noted that there was no formal termination of the
contract on file, but deemed that - by leaving Lebanon on 17 February 2020 – it could be
established that on said date, the Claimant had terminated effectively terminated the contract
with the Respondent.
60. In view of the above, taking into account the outstanding salaries and the other circumstances
described, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant – on 17 February 2020 – had terminated
his contract with just cause, based on article 14 par. 1 of the Regulations. As a result, the
Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the contract with just cause by the
Claimant.
ii. Consequences
61. 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.
62. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant, the amounts which
Page 10
REF FPSD-2470
were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. the total amount
of USD 12,000, consisting of the salaries due in the period between September 2019 and
February 2020 in the amount of USD 2,000 each.
63. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate
of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the due dates until the date of effective
payment as follows:
-
on the amount of USD 2,000 as of 1 October 2019;
on the amount of USD 2,000 as of 1 November 2019;
on the amount of USD 2,000 as of 1 December 2019;
on the amount of USD 2,000 as of 1 January 2020;
on the amount of USD 2,000 as of 1 February 2020;
on the amount of USD 2,000 as of 1 March 2020.
64. In continuation, taking into account that the Claimant was entitled to a roundtrip flight ticket
in accordance with the contract and the evidence submitted by the Claimant, the Chamber
further decided to award the Claimant the amount of CFA 200,000 as reimbursement for the
flight ticket, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 14 February 2020.
65. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the Claimant by the Respondent 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.
66. 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.
67. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber 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 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.
Page 11
REF FPSD-2470
68. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the contract
from the date of the unilateral termination until its end date. Having awarded 6 months as
outstanding salaries and taking into account that the Claimant was entitled to a total amount
of USD 20,000, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 8,000 (USD 20,000 -/- USD
12,000) shall serve as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation
for breach of contract.
69. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant 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.
70. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Claimant had remained unemployed for the entire
duration of the first contract and therefore, was not able to mitigate his damages. As a result,
no further mitigation shall apply to the residual value of the contract.
71. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of USD
8,000 to the Claimant, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
72. Lastly, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of 7 May 2021, the date of claim, until the date of
effective payment.
73. In continuation, the Chamber took note of the Claimant’s request to be awarded USD 40,000
as moral damages. In this regard, the Chamber first of all wished to recall that in accordance
with its well-established jurisprudence, the DRC is rather reluctant in awarding moral
damages. In absence of any proof in this respect, a party is in general not entitled to the
payment of any compensation for moral damages.
74. However, the Chamber noted that the Claimant was in prison for almost one month, as a
result of the fact that was not in the possession of a valid visa, a direct consequence of the
Respondent’s actions in failing to perform its administrative tasks in connection with the
rendering of services of the Claimant. Additionally, the Chamber noted that during the
Claimant’s detention, the Respondent tried to use the situation the Claimant was in in its
advantage, and obtain his agreement to a termination of the contract.
Page 12
REF FPSD-2470
75. With the above in mind and taking into account the medical documentation submitted by
the Claimant confirming that he suffers from “anxiety and depression”, the Chamber found
that the Respondent’s conduct in this case had been both exceptional and severe, and that
the Claimant should exceptionally be awarded an amount to reflect the anxiety and insecurity
caused by the Respondent.
76. Given the extraordinary circumstances of this case, the Chamber decided – on an exceptional
basis and considering the rather specific circumstances in the matter at hand - to award the
Claimant moral damages in the amount of USD 20,000, i.e. the same value as the contract,
which was considered by the DRC to be a reasonable and justified amount.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
77. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24bis of
para. 1 and 2 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.
78. 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.
79. 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. 24bis par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
80. 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.
81. 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
82. 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
Page 13
REF FPSD-2470
agent, or match agent”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to
be imposed on the parties.
83. 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.
84. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
Page 14
REF FPSD-2470
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Christ Remi Lourougnou, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Shabab El Bourj, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amounts:
USD 12,000 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the due dates
until the date of effective payment as follows:
on the amount of USD 2,000 as from 1 October 2019;
on the amount of USD 2,000 as from 1 November 2021;
on the amount of USD 2,000 as from 1 December 2019;
on the amount of USD 2,000 as of 1 January 2020;
on the amount of USD 2,000 as of 1 February 2020;
on the amount of USD 2,000 as of 1 March 2020.
CFA 200,000 as reimbursement for the flight ticket, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 14
February 2020 until the effective date of payment.
USD 8,000 as compensation for breach of contract, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 7 May
2021 until the effective date of payment.
USD 20,000 as moral damages.
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. 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 shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration the ban shall
be of 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 article 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
Page 15
REF FPSD-2470
7. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 16
REF FPSD-2470
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 17