Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-13972
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 12 September 2024
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the Player Vice Miljanic
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. HENDEL (USA & France), Deputy Chairperson
Andre DOS SANTOS MEGALE (Brazil), Member
Johan VAN GAALEN (South Africa), Member
CLAIMANT:
Vice Miljanic, Croatia
Represented by Blaz Tomažin Bolcar
RESPONDENT:
NK Rogaska, Slovenia
Represented by Janez Pejovnik
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-13972
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 12 July 2023, the Croatian player Vice Miljanić (hereinafter: the Player or the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent) and the Slovenian club NK Rogaska (hereinafter: the Club or the
Respondent / Counterclaimant) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the
Contract) valid from the signing date to 30 June 2025.
2.
Article 6 of the Contract reads, inter alia, as follows:
“Article 6
(player’s obligations)
(1) The player undertakes:
[…]
-
3.
to ensure the validity of the entry in the register of professional athletes on the basis
of the provisions of the Sports Act (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No.
22/1998 et seq.)”.
Article 7 of the Contract reads, inter alia, as follows:
“Article 7
(payment for professional football and other player benefits)
(1) The club hereby undertakes to pay the player as follows on the basis of this contract:
- a monthly gross amount of EUR 1.203,36, by the 18. day of the month for the previous
month, with statutory default interest charged from the day of arrears until the day of
payment in the event of arrears,
[…]
(3) During the term of the contract, the club will pay the player the following financial
benefits, which are regarded as a variable part of the payments and to which the player
is entitled on the basis of internal club rules:
• premiums
• bonuses for the team's performance during the season.
[…]
(6) The contracting parties agree that the payment of liabilities for taxes, contributions
and other mandatory levies shall be made by the player.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-13972
4.
The Annex to the Contract reads, inter alia, as follows:
“Article 2
The parties agree that for the duration of the contract, the player will be employed by the
Football Club Rogaska or by one of the contractual partners of the Football Club Rogaska,
in accordance with the applicable labour legislation.
Article 3
The parties agree that the player will receive a salary of EUR 1200,00 net per month for
the duration of the contract.
Article 4
The player shall be entitled to the following bonuses which are not subject to the
professional football contract:
-
a net salary increases of EUR 100 for every 12 matches the player starts in the first
eleven
-
a transfer bonus of EUR 10,000.00 + 10% of the transfer value”.
5.
According to the information retrieved from the FIFA Transfer Matching System (TMS), on
25 July 2023, the Player was registered with the Club.
6.
On 18 September 2023, the company TOTAL MONT (hereinafter: the Company) paid EUR
1,204 to the Player. The parties do not dispute that the Company is held by one of the
Club’s representatives (i.e., the Club’s director).
7.
On 18 October 2023, the Company paid EUR 1,204 to the Player.
8.
On 27 October 2023, the Player sent a WhatsApp message to a representative of the Club
informing him that he had been refused registration in the municipality due to a lack of
appropriate documentation. Within the first days of November 2023, the same parties
also exchanged messages regarding the Player's future at the club.
9.
On 9 November 2023, the Player filed a complaint against the Club with the local police.
He reported, inter alia, the series of verbal threats he had allegedly received from the
Club’s representatives and stated that he was being forced to amend the Contract to his
detriment.
10.
On 14 November 2023, the Player also filed an application with the Croatian Ministry of
Finance, under the reference “Reporting abuse of the VAT system”. The Player reiterated that
that he was receiving all kinds of threats from the Club, highlighted inconsistencies in
relation to the Company and suggested that a tax audit was necessary.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-13972
11.
On the same date, the Player also submitted an application with similar content before
the Financial Administration of the Republic of Slovenia.
12.
On 20 November 2023, the following events took place:
•
the Company paid EUR 1,204 to the Player;
•
the Player and his teammates sent a notice of default to the club as follows:
“In accordance with the provisions of the [Contract] and the verbal agreement
regarding the provision of free accommodation and daily warm meal, which was
implemented smoothly in the 2023/2024 competition season until last week, we ask you
to reinstate the above rights to the players and provide them with a daily warm meal
free of charge.
The reimbursement of meal expenses during work is also an obligation of the employer,
in this case [the Club], under Article 130 of the Employment Relationships Act (ZDR-1).
Should the club fail to meet these obligations in full, the player has the right to
unilaterally terminate his contract for good cause under Article 22 of the PRSI NZS”.
•
the Player contacted the Union of Professional Players of Slovenia (in original,
Sindikat Profesionalnih Igralcev Nogometa Slovenije) (SPINS), recalling the breaches
of contract committed by the Club and requesting protection against them.
13.
On 21 November 2023, the parties allegedly exchanged messages via WhatsApp in which
the Club, inter alia, requested the Player to issue an invoice for the payment of his salaries.
14.
According to the Player, on 28 November 2023, he was informed of the termination of the
Contract by the Club. In support of his allegations, the Player provided a notice addressed
to the Company by the Labour Inspectorate at Krapina, which, however, does not clearly
refer to the termination of the Player’s employment relationship with the Club.
15.
On 30 November 2023, the Rogaška Slatina police station notified the Player of the
conclusion of the criminal investigation against the Club in connection with his complaint
of 9 November 2023. It should be noted that this notification does not contain the findings
of the police and/or any other reference to the matter.
16.
In December 2023, the Player exchanged WhatsApp messages with a representative of
the Club regarding, inter alia, the continuity of their employment relationship.
17.
According to the Player, on 16 December 2023, the Club asked him to sign a written
statement, together with his teammates, which reads as follows:
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-13972
“We, the undersigned players and coaches of the [Club], hereby declare that the club has
up to today's date (16 December 2023), regularly and without any time or other
deviations, paid in full the obligations agreed in our respective contracts. The Club has
also respected the verbal agreements related to bonuses and rewards. The Club has
ensured an adequate level of training for all players and has provided above-standard
medical care in the event of injuries and for the individual needs of players. The attitude
of the Club management towards us has always been respectful and of an appropriate
level”.
18.
The Player has not countersigned the document.
19.
On 18 December 2023, the Player attended a meeting with the Club’s management. He
provided an audio recording and a translated transcript purporting to confirm that the
Club had threatened him and had been disrespectful.
20.
On the same day, the Player made a further verbal complaint to the local police in
Slovenia. The report, inter alia, recalled the events of early November and additional
insults allegedly received by the Player in the subsequent meetings.
21.
On 22 December 2023, the Player also contacted the Labour Inspectorate of Slovenia. He
provided a timeline of the events that had occurred since he joined the Club, referred to
the disturbing conversations he had with the Club’s representatives, and requested that
action be taken against the abuses perpetrated by the Club’s management.
22.
Also on 22 December 2023, the Player requested payment of his salary for November
2023.
23.
On 23 December 2023, the Club replied to the Player and asked for an invoice for the
payment of his salary for November 2023.
24.
On 2 and 19 January 2024, the Player attended a medical appointment in Pula, Croatia.
According to the relevant medical reports, he was asked to avoid training from 2 January
to 19 January 2024 and then from 19 January 2024 to 2 February 2024.
25.
On 8 January 2024, SPINS issued a public statement objecting to the mistreatment that
the Player had experienced at the Club, including eviction from his accommodation,
individual training, and discriminatory behaviour.
26.
On 17 January 2024, the Labour Inspectorate of Croatia reacted to the report previously
submitted by the Player and informed him that his petition had been submitted to the
Ministry of Finance, Tax Authority at the Krapina Regional Office and to the Croatian
Pension Insurance Institute.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-13972
27.
On 23 January 2024, the Player sent a notice of default to the Club demanding payment
of his salaries for November and December 2023. In the same e-mail, the Player referred
to a prior notice sent by post on 20 January 2024. He also provided proof of shipment to
the Club.
28.
On 5 February 2024, the Club sent the Player an e-mail, stating as follows, quoted
verbatim:
“We have received your medical excuses excusing your presence in training. Let's say you
work as a professional soccer player and you are bound by the contract about playing
professional football. You were invited to the start of the preparations, which started on
January 3, 2024. You have not participated in any activities.
All the certificates you sent are of course invalid. You have many times received an
invitation to report to the premises of [the Club], where you will be examined by the club
doctor, but you did not respond to any calls.
Furthermore, you were repeatedly asked to sign an employment contract with [the Club],
however, you refused to sign or did not attend the meeting and sign at all attended. The
last time was November 29, 2023, when you were invited to sign the contract together
with actors Baždarić, Braut and Vinogradac.
The mentioned players are you even subsequently called to come to the signing, but you
refused to come and you refused all communication with the sports director.
In conclusion, During the fall semester, you also missed the mandatory club classes
several times activities (club dinner on December 16, 2023, group meeting on December
18 December 2023,...)
Because the club does not have an employment contract with you because you did not
want one to sign, and there are also witnesses for this among the players, the club does
not have a legal one basis for salary payment. The club has no chance to fulfill the
contract about playing professional football in a section that talks about finances
compensation if you do not register as a professional footballer and issue an invoice for
your service in the agreed amount.
As soon as the club receives the invoices, it will of course settle them. However, since it is
a gross breach of contract on your part, the club will be in accordance with according to
the instructions of the trade union (SPINS) carried out appropriate legal and
compensation proceedings against you”.
29.
On 9 February 2024, the Player notified the Club of the termination of the Contract for the
following reasons:
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-13972
•
the parties had entered into an employment relationship, which was further
confirmed by the fact that the Club paid the Player his salaries until the end of
October 2023. The payments were made through the Company;
•
the Player put the Club in default for overdue payables on 20 January 2024, when
at least 2 salaries were outstanding. However, the Club failed to remedy the
breach;
•
the Club also committed a number of other breaches of the contract, such as: (i)
refusing to register the Player as a resident of Slovenia, thereby affecting his taxes;
(ii) excluding the Player from first-team activities; (iii) denying the Player access to
the dressing room and other facilities; (iv) forcing the Player to train with the youth
academy or alone; (v) denying the Player accommodation and failing to provide
him with meals; (v) harassing the Player and his Croatian teammates and
attempting to force the termination of their contracts; (vi) threatening the Player's
well-being and safety, thereby failing to provide a safe working environment;
•
the Club did not provide him with a written agreement authorising the Company
to make payments on its behalf, nor did it provide him with a translated copy of
the Contract, which was only in Slovenian;
•
there was no legal basis for the Club to require him to issue invoices or to justify
the non-payment of his salaries;
•
the Club “made it impossible for him to safely carry out his profession and provide his
services by threatening his safety and well-being. Owing to the abusive conduct of the
Club, [the Player] suffered from severe mental distress and was advised to rest by his
doctor (relevant documentation was provided to the Club). Therefore, [the Player]
states that owing to his mental state, he had a valid medical reason to not return to
training”; and
•
the Club insisted on his return to Slovenia even though he had been threatened to
death by one of the Club’s fans and by one the Club’s representatives.
30.
In light of the above, the Player claimed that the Contract had been terminated for just
cause and demanded that the Club pay (i) EUR 5,186.85 as outstanding remuneration and
(ii) EUR 20,083.56 as compensation for breach of contract (i.e. the residual value of the
Contract).
31.
On 13 February 2024, the Player entered into a new employment agreement with the
Croatian club, NK Croatia Zmijavci (hereinafter: the New Club or the Intervening Party) valid
from the signing date to 30 June 2024. Accordingly, the Player would be entitled to a
monthly remuneration of EUR 850.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-13972
II. Proceedings before FIFA
32.
On 8 March 2024, the Player filed the present claim with FIFA. A summary of the parties’
position is detailed below.
a. Player’s claim
33.
The Player carefully recalled the background to his employment relationship with the
Club, including all communications between the parties and the complaints made to the
relevant authorities to report the controversial behaviour of the Club towards him.
Employment relationship and the connection with the Company
34.
At the time the Player signed the Contract with the Club, he was on the payroll of the
Company: a third party owned by the Club's director and based in Croatia. The Company
paid him part of his wages, although there was no written agreement establishing its
liability.
35.
The Contract contained all the essentialia negotii and was therefore valid and binding on
the parties.
Premature termination with just cause
36.
The Player claimed to have terminated the Contract with just cause in accordance with
both art. 14 and 14bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP),
as follows:
•
Failure to obtain the work permit / residence: the Club failed to obtain a valid
residence and work permit for the Player. In fact, as the Player was registered with
the Company, his registration with the municipality was refused.
The Club's breach resulted in the Player being prevented from providing services
and, contrary to the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal and the Court of
Arbitration for Sport (CAS), the Club did not attempt to remedy the situation.
•
Abusive and discriminatory conduct forcing the termination: the Player was
“consistently subjected to abusive and discriminatory treatment by the [Club] without
reason and solely with an intention to force him to leave the club”.
In particular, he argued that the Club had:
-
failed to provide a safe working environment by constantly threatening the
Player's safety and well-being, resulting in multiple police reports. As a result,
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-13972
the Player was prevented from providing services and remaining in Slovenia;
•
-
demoted him from the first team and forced him to train separately without
any justified sporting reasons. Specifically, the Player argued that (i) he could
not participate in the first team training from 6 November to 10 December
2023; and (ii) the Club violated his personality rights and denied him the
opportunity to actively pursue his profession;
-
threatened the Player after he made his complaint to SPINS. In particular, the
Player claimed that the Club had threatened him during the meeting held on
9 November 2023, again in violation of his fundamental rights; and
-
discriminated against him based on the basis of his nationality, employing a
hate speech against the people of Croatia.
Breach of the financial obligations: the Club failed to pay him his salaries from
November 2023. As a result, the Player issued a notice of default on 20 January
2024, but the Club still failed to remedy the breach. Therefore, the requirements
of art. 14bis RSTP have been fulfilled.
Consequences
37.
38.
The Player claimed to be entitled to the following amounts:
•
EUR 3,972.42 as the outstanding salaries from November 2023 until the date of the
termination of the Contract;
•
EUR 16,787.58 as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to the
residual value of the Contract minus the mitigation with NK Croatia Zmijavci
(allegedly EUR 3,240 net); and
•
EUR 140 as compensation for the costs incurred by the Player for food and hotel
accommodation from 8 to 15 November 2023 (i.e., EUR 20 for 7 days), which the
Club allegedly promised to cover but did not.
The Player’s requests for relief were as follows, quoted verbatim:
“(i) Accept the Claim filed by the Claimant;
(ii) Direct the Respondent to compensate the Claimant for the breach of the Contract
amounting to EUR 20.760,00 (Twenty Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Euros only) at
an interest of 5% p.a. calculated from the date of termination of the Contract until the
date of actual payment; and
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-13972
(iii) Direct the Respondent to compensate the Claimant for the costs incurred for the hotel
and food amounting to EUR 140 at an interest of 5% p.a. calculated from the date of
termination of the Contract until the date of actual payment”.
b. Club’s reply and counterclaim
39.
On 11 March 2024, the FIFA general secretariat invited the Club to submit its position on
the Player’s claim by 1 April 2024 at the latest. At the request of the Club, this deadline
was subsequently extended to 10 April 2024.
40.
On 10 April 2024, the Club submitted its response to the Player’s claim and filed a
counterclaim against him.
41.
The Club first confirmed that it had entered into the Contract and claimed that it was the
only valid agreement concluded between the parties. Furthermore, the Club emphasized
that:
•
in accordance with art. 6 of the Contract, the Player undertook to register pursuant
to the relevant “Sports Act”; and
•
in accordance with art. 7 of the Contract, the Player undertook to pay taxes,
contributions, and other mandatory levies.
42.
In light of the foregoing, the Club claimed that the Player was required to register himself
as a “sole trader” and to issue monthly invoices. Otherwise, the Club claimed that it would
be prevented from making payments, under penalty of sanctions. It alleged that: “It was
only good will of the Respondent and not legal/contractual obligation, that it had paid to the
Claimant the monthly amounts under the Contract without issued invoices; and as such be in
the tax breach for the benefit of the Claimant”. The Club added that it had attempted to
amend the Contract to rectify this situation, but that the parties had never been able to
reach an agreement.
43.
Similarly, the Club alleged that it had asked the Player to provide invoices for the payment
of his remuneration, both by WhatsApp and by email, but to no avail. In the absence of
such invoices, the Club claimed that it was not obliged to make any payment.
44.
In this context and contrary to the Player’s allegations, the Club stressed that art. 14bis if
the FIFA had not been fulfilled because: (i) it was not obliged to make the payments in the
absence of invoices; and (ii) the Player had never formally put it in default, let alone
granted it the 15 days to remedy the breach. In this regard, the Club emphasized that the
Player’s written notice of 20 January 2024 did not comply with FIFA standards.
45.
The Club also denied having committed any other breach of contract, as follows:
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-13972
46.
•
“the Claimant has started only on 4 November 2023 with many actions and statements,
that were direct consequence of the Claimant not playing regularly for the first team of
the Respondent –which is an obvious and clear sporting decision of the Respondent’s
professional staff and totally valid and justified”;
•
the registration process in Slovenia was so simple that almost all professional
players in the country had completed it without any problems. Therefore, the
Player was fully aware that he should have registered himself as a sole trader but
had failed to do so. As a result, he could not be blamed for not having a residence
/ work permit;
•
the Player did not provide any evidence of the Club’s alleged discriminatory
conduct. In this regard, the Club stated that:
o
“It is true that the Claimant has not been, as already stated, in the sporting
plans of the first coach of the Respondent and therefore had not started
matches in the starting eleven (or even entered as a reserve), however it is not
true and has not been confirmed with single evidence in the Claim, that there
has been such conduct that would justify a termination of the Contract
without default warning and description of the alleged actions”;
o
“The mere fact that the Claimant has been appointed occasionally to train
under the separate instructions of the professional staff of the Respondent of
course dose not constitute a just cause for a Contract termination without any
formal written notice”;
o
“The Respondent finally strongly denies any and all allegations about
discrimination on the basis of his nationality, especially considering the fact
that there are many foreign football players in the Respondent. As already
explained, the Exhibit C16, even though not proving anything in the present
case, must be disregarded due to the fact of being illegally acquired. Other
than that, there is no evidence whatsoever that would confirm any Claimant’s
allegations”.
In addition, the Club submitted a notice from the District Public Prosecutor dismissing the
criminal complaint filed by the Player against the Club.
Requests for relief
47.
The Club’s requests for relief were as follows, quoted verbatim:
“The Respondent requests that the FIFA Football Tribunal shall:
a) Accept the present Answer to the Claim by the Respondent;
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-13972
b) Accept the present Counter - Claim by the Respondent;
c) Reject entirely the Claim by the Claimant;
d) Condemn the Claimant to the payment to the Respondent of:
(a) 50.000,00 EUR as compensation for breach of the Contract without just
cause plus interests with the interest rate of 8% from the date of termination
of the Contract until the date of effective receipt by the Respondent;
e) Impose the sporting sanctions of a four-month ban on playing in official matches
to the Claimant”.
48.
Also on 10 April 2024, the FIFA general secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Club’s
petition and invited the Club to complete its counterclaim in accordance with art. 18, par.
1 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural
Rules).
49.
On 15 April 2024, the Club completed its counterclaim.
c. Player’s reply to the counterclaim
50.
On 16 April 2024, the FIFA general secretariat invited the Player to respond to the Club’s
counterclaim by 6 May 2024 at the latest.
51.
On 6 May 2024, the Player submitted his reply to the Club’s counterclaim.
52.
In doing so, the Player first reiterated his arguments concerning the just cause for the
termination of the Contract due to: (i) the Club’s failure to obtain his visa; (ii) the Club’s
failure to pay meet its obligations from November to January 2024; and (iii) and the Club’s
discriminatory conduct.
53.
In addition, the Player also argued the following, in objection to the Club’s account of the
facts:
Verbal agreement between the parties
54.
The Club is such a bad payer that the Slovenian Football Association (NZS) refused to grant
it a license to play in the first division of the Slovenian football because of its overdue
payments.
55.
The parties had indeed reached a verbal agreement concerning the payment of two meals
and accommodation, which was allegedly confirmed by the WhatsApp messages and by
the witness statements of his former colleagues. Moreover, this verbal agreement was
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-13972
confirmed by the Club’s subsequent conduct, in particular the fact that it paid his salaries
from August to October 2023 without any invoice and through the Company.
Furthermore, the Club did not contest or explain the fact that the Company made
payments on its behalf.
56.
Similarly, “the Annex to the Contract does not indicate that the parties intended to enter into
an amendment in the future. Instead, it expressly recognised that the Claimant had been
employed with the Respondent under the applicable labour law of Slovenia”.
57.
And “the natural consequence of the above is that the Claimant does not have to issue any
invoices to receive his salary under the Contract. Hence, all the statements and submissions by
the Respondent regarding the requirement of an invoice are illegal and should be rejected”.
Club’s obligation to provide residence / work permit
58.
The Player did not have a self-employed contract but was employed by the Club.
According to the long-standing jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal and CAS, the Club
should take all administrative measures to ensure that the Player is able to provide his
services e.g. applying for work permit and register the player with the league. This was not
done by the Club and could not be easily resolved by the Player as he was on the
Company’s payroll.
59.
Accordingly, “even if it is assumed that the Claimant was self-employed, it would not absolve
the Respondent from its duty to procure the work-permit for the Claimant. The fact that they
failed to do so only validates the stance of the Claimant that they intended to use all means to
force the Claimant out of the club and justifies the termination of the Contract on this ground
under Article 14 of the FIFA RSTP”.
Overdue payables
60.
The requirements of art. 14bis of the RSTP have been met, as (i) the Club has failed to pay
at least two salaries and (ii) the Player has given the Club written notice and de facto
granted more than 15 days before terminating the Contract.
61.
The above notification was sent both by e-mail and by post, and the Club even replied to
the Player’s claim for overdue payables, thus confirming that it had been duly received.
62.
In the alternative, the Player was still entitled to terminate the Contract based on art. 14
of the RSTP – especially when considering the following aggravating circumstances,
quoted verbatim:
“(a) The Claimant was not assisted by the Respondent to procure the necessary work
permit to legally reside and work in Slovenia,
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-13972
(b) The Claimant was arbitrarily dropped from all activities of the first team and was
forced to train alone without any justified sporting reasons,
(c) While the Claimant was dropped from all first team activities, he was also denied the
benefit of accommodation and food which was being provided to all the players,
(d) The Claimant also did not receive any salary during this point,
(e) Apart from this, the Claimant was also being harassed and discriminated on the basis
of his nationality. He also faced threats and feared for his life in Rogaska, Slovenia as he
did not terminate the Contract and leave as per the instructions of the Director of the
Respondent.
(f) The Claimant was also not allowed to interact with other players in the team. Other
players too were threatened if they interacted with the Claimant and faced the risk of
losing their benefit of food and accommodation”.
63.
The Player also added that the Club had been put on notice on several occasions by the
Player and the relevant authorities dealing with his complaints, but that the Club insisted
on its discriminatory conduct.
64.
The Player therefore concluded that the Club was undoubtedly informed of the reasons
for the termination and/or given the opportunity to review its behaviour. However,
instead of doing so, the Club began to harass him and threaten the life of the Player and
his family.
Blatant breach
65.
If the Football Tribunal decided that the notice of default was not valid, the Player would
still be entitled to terminate the Contract due to the seriousness of the Club’s breaches.
66.
In the Player’s words: “the combined effect of the non-payment of salary, abuse and
harassment as well as the non-procurement of work-permit/residency resulted in the Claimant
losing complete trust in the ability of the Respondent to fulfil its obligations under the Contract”.
Indeed, due to the seriousness of the breaches, the Player “lost complete faith” in the
Club’s ability to fulfil its obligations under the Contract.
67.
Furthermore, the Club accepted that the Player had been dropped from the first team
and forced to train separately without any justification. Furthermore, the Club’s abusive
conduct the Club was confirmed by SPINS’ public statement.
68.
The Player’s audio recording was validly obtained and there was no reason to disregard
it.
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-13972
Amended requests for relief
69.
In conclusion, the Player stressed that the relationship of trust established with the Club
had been irreparably damaged. Consequently, he reiterated that he had terminated the
Contract for just cause and that the Club's counterclaim should be dismissed.
70.
In addition to reiterating his requests for relief, the Player also requested that sporting
sanctions be imposed on the Club, as the termination of the Contract occurred within the
protected period. His updated requests for relief were as follows, quoted verbatim:
“In consideration of all the pleadings, and owing to the fact that the breach of contract
occurred during the protected period, the Claimant accordingly requests for the following
amended reliefs:
(i) Accept the Claim filed by the Claimant;
(ii) Reject the Counter-Claim of the Respondent;
(iii) Direct the Respondent to compensate the Claimant for the breach of the Contract
amounting to EUR 20.760,00 (Twenty Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty Euros only) at
an interest of 5% p.a. calculated from the date of termination of the Contract until the
date of actual payment;
(iv) Direct the Respondent to compensate the Claimant for the costs incurred for the hotel
and food amounting to EUR 140 at an interest of 5% p.a. calculated from the date of
termination of the Contract until the date of actual payment;
(v) Impose sporting sanctions on the Respondent comprising of a ban on registering new
players for two registration periods due to the breach committed during the protected
period of the Contract”.
d. Club’s additional comments
71.
On 7 May 2024, the FIFA general secretariat invited the Club to submit its final comments
on the matter.
72.
On 9 May 2024, the Player submitted an unsolicited correspondence in which he
requested to further amend his requests for relief as set out in his reply to the
counterclaim. In particular, the Player stated that following, quoted verbatim:
“For your perusal, the Claimant seeks to include the following relief to the ‘Amended
Request for Relief’ under the Rejoinder:
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-13972
‘Direct the Respondent to pay the Claimant an Additional Compensation equivalent to six
monthly salaries payments under the Contract owing to the existence of egregious
circumstances, as per Article 17 para 1 clause (ii) of the FIFA Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players’
The Claimant states that the inclusion of the above relief does not add or change the
facts or legal arguments made under the Claim and Rejoinder. Instead, it is a reasonable
request which arises due to the outstanding salaries owed to him by the Respondent
(kindly refer para 23 (Hi) of the Claim) and is based on the facts and legal arguments
already submitted under the Claim (kindly refer para 23 (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Claim) and
Rejoinder (kindly refer para 83, 94-97, and 98-103 of the Rejoinder)”.
73.
On 17 May 2024, the Club submitted its final comments on the case, which are set out
below.
Admissibility
74.
The Club initially challenged the admissibility of the Player’s response and amendment of
his claim, arguing that he should have limited himself to responding to the counterclaim
instead of filing a full rejoinder and amending his petitum.
Substance
75.
The Club also disputed the Player's account of the termination of the Contract. The Club
insisted that the letter sent by the Player on 20 January did not constitute a formal notice
of default within the meaning of the FIFA regulations.
76.
In general, the Club:
•
reiterated that the Player had failed to register as a professional footballer and
to issue the relevant invoices. It explained that the first three payments had
exceptionally been made through the Company, but that it could not continue
this practice;
•
submitted a notice of dismissal of the previous criminal complaint lodged by the
Player to the local police, therefore insisting that there was no evidence of
harassment or discriminatory conduct;
•
confirmed that it had been denied the license to play the Slovenian first league,
but argued that this fact had nothing to do with the Player and that it was not a
final decision;
•
stressed that Slovenia does not require a work permit, but rather registration as
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-13972
a professional player, which had not been done;
•
emphasized that the video recording submitted by the Player was obtained
illegally and could not be used as evidence; and
•
insisted that it should be entitled to the EUR 50,000 as compensation for breach
of contract in accordance with art. 17 of the RSTP.
Requests for relief
77.
The Club’s requests for relief were as follows, quoted verbatim:
“a. Reject entirely the Claim of the Claimant, whether original and/or amended and/or
further amended by the Claimant;
b. Condemn the Claimant to the payment to the Respondent of:
(a) 50.000,00 EUR as compensation for breach of the Contract without just cause plus
interests with the interest rate of 8% from the date of termination of the Contract until
the date of effective receipt by the Respondent;
c. Impose the sporting sanctions of a four-month ban on playing in official matches to
the Claimant”.
e. New Club’s position
78.
On 21 May 2024, the FIFA general secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Club's
comments. In view of the possible consequences of the termination of the Contract
pursuant to art. 17 of the RSTP, the New Club was invited to submit its observations on
the Club's counterclaim.
79.
On 10 June 2024, the New Club submitted its comments on the matter. The New Club
claimed that it had signed the Player after the Contract had already been terminated and
that it therefore had no role in the termination. Similarly, the New Club denied any
inducement as it had never contacted the Player during the period in which he was
employed by the Club.
80.
The New Club concluded its position as follows, quoted verbatim:
“Position of [the New Club] is very clear. This is dispute between [the Player] and [the
Club] and we fully support Player in all his allegations in his claim so we propose that
FIFA reject any request from [the Club] to the Player and, secondary to [the New Club]
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-13972
which means that there is no any sanctions against our club because we never encourage
the Player to terminated contract with [the Club]”.
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
81.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the 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 8 March 2024 and submitted for decision on
12 September 2024. 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.
82.
Furthermore, 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 RSTP
(June 2024 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 Slovenian club, with the intervention of a Croatian club.
83.
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 RSTP (June 2024 edition) and considering that the present claim was lodged
on 8 March 2024, the June 2024 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is
applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
84.
The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis
of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may
consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
85.
Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, 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
assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-13972
i. Admissibility of the amendment to the claim
86.
Preliminarily, the Chamber noted that, in his reply to the counterclaim, the Player
amended his requests for relief to request that sporting sanctions be imposed.
Furthermore, by means of an unsolicited correspondence dated 9 May 2024, the Player
again amended his petitum, this time seeking a higher amount of compensation for breach
of contract.
87.
The Club was given the opportunity to respond to the amendments and, inter alia,
challenged their admissibility in light of the Player’s alleged procedural bad faith.
88.
In this context, the DRC first recalled that art. 21, par. 2-5 of the Procedural Rules reads as
follows (emphasis added by the Chamber):
“2. The respondent(s) may submit a counterclaim with their response to the claim. A
counterclaim shall have the same form as a claim and shall be submitted within the same
time limit as that for the response to the claim.
3. If a party submits a new claim which is related to an existing case in which it is a
respondent, the new claim shall be joined with the existing case and treated as a
counterclaim in the existing case. Where the party has already been notified of the
existing case, the new claim must have been submitted within the same time limit as that
for the response to the claim in the existing case in order to be considered.
4. Where the respondent validly submits a counterclaim, the counter-respondent(s)
(i.e., the original claimant) shall reply solely to the counterclaim within the time limit
granted by the FIFA general secretariat.
5. Should the response to the counterclaim refer to matters which did not form
part of the counterclaim, those matters will not be considered”.
89.
Although it is true that the object of the claim remains the same, the Player’s change of
mind at an advanced stage poses a risk to the stability of the proceedings and the
legitimate expectations of the other party, which are precisely the ratio legis of art. 21 of
the Procedural Rules. Consequently, the Chamber considered that the Player was
estopped from amending his relief during the second round of submissions.
90.
As a result, the Chamber ruled that the Player’s amended request for relief was
inadmissible.
91.
For the sake of completeness, the DRC also stated that this conclusion was without
prejudice to its competence to impose ex officio any applicable sporting sanction and to
determine the amount of any compensation to be awarded to the Player within the limit
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-13972
of the amount already requested in his statement of claim. Therefore, it must be noted,
that if the elements of a possible sporting sanction or the elements of art. 14bis of the
Regulations are present, the natural consequences will flow from it and there is no need
to plea the same.
ii. Main legal discussion and considerations
92.
The Chamber then proceeded to the substance of the matter, noting that it concerned a
claim for breach of contract brought by the Player against the Club and a counterclaim
opposing the same parties, with the involvement of the New Club.
93.
In particular, the DRC noted that the Player terminated the Contract on 9 February 2024
due to overdue payables and, inter alia, the continued abusive and discriminatory
behaviour of the Club. However, the parties strongly dispute whether he had just cause
to do so.
94.
The DRC then determined that its first task was to assess the fairness of the termination
and, subsequently, its consequences.
95.
As a starting point, the DRC turned its attention to the Player’s allegations regarding the
overdue payables vis-à-vis the content of art. 14bis of the Regulations.
96.
The Chamber first noted that, according to the Player’s notice of termination dated 9
February 2024, the Club owed him EUR 5,186.85, corresponding to his salaries from
November 2023 until that date, therefore more than 2 (two) months’ salary.
97.
In addition, the Player submitted a copy of a notice of default sent by post on 23 January
2024, a copy of which was also sent by post.
98.
Contrario sensu, the DRC observed that the Club:
99.
•
did not dispute that the amount mentioned by the Player was indeed
outstanding, but argued that it could not have paid the Player due to his lack
of proper registration as a professional footballer;
•
also did not dispute that it had received the notice of the default from the
Player, but stressed that (i) it had a valid reason for not complying with the
order (i.e., the lack of registration) and (ii) the notice of default did not comply
with the necessary formalities as required by the Regulations, as it was written
in informal language and did not refer to a specific deadline for curing the
breach, such as the 15 days mentioned in art. 14bis of the Regulations.
In this context, the DRC first considered the parties’ contentions regarding the Player’s
registration with the municipality / issuance of invoices, acknowledging that they have
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-13972
conflicting views as to their respective burdens in this regard: according to the Player, the
Club should take the administrative steps necessary for his employment, including
registration and everything necessary for his inclusion on the payroll; whereas, according
to the Club, the Player was the party at fault because he neither registered nor issued the
invoices for payment.
100. The DRC then recalled its long-standing jurisprudence according to which, as a general
rule, clubs are obliged to take all necessary administrative measures to ensure that a
Player’s work permit is granted (or renewed) in order for him/her to perform the services
under the relevant employment contract, and mutatis mutandis to take all further
administrative measures to ensure that he/she is remunerated accordingly. The Chamber
underlined that the jurisprudence also consistently recognized that players must provide
such assistance as can reasonably be expected to facilitate the administrative process.
101. The Commentary on the FIFA Regulations states that:
“A club must procure the work permit and any other required authorisation in a timely
manner. If a club does not comply with this duty, it should not be able to benefit from
the situation to the detriment of the player. If an employer (club) does not take the
necessary action to provide its employee (player) with a work permit or visa, and if this
prevents the employee from entering the country in which they are employed and/or
prevents them from starting work, this could be seen as an unjustified breach of contract
by the employer.
It is understood that the player, for their part, must provide such assistance as can
reasonably be expected from them to facilitate the relevant administrative processes:
“[The] player must put himself at the club’s disposal and supply the prospective club
with all necessary information and documentation in order to facilitate these tasks.
However, it can hardly be expected that the initiative for collecting the required
documentation must come from the player who is not [a] national of the host country
and is presumably not aware of the formal requirements.”
(cf. Commentary on the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players – Edition
2023, p. 115).
102. In addition to the jurisprudence of the DRC, the Chamber was further compelled by the
fact that this conclusion is also in line with the recent jurisprudence of CAS, which confirms
that players must cooperate in efforts to obtain a visa or work permit and, as such, must
show a sufficient degree of diligence to complete with the administrative formalities (see,
for example, CAS 2017/A/5092).
103. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber considered it essential that, in the present case:
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-13972
•
the Player claimed, and the Club confirmed, that despite the irregularity of his
registration and the lack of invoices since the beginning of the Contract, it was
able to make payments to him through the Company. The Club explained that
this arrangement was only exceptional and that no verbal agreement had been
proposed to the Player, but it did not provide any documentation in this regard
(e.g., the whereabouts of the Company and/or a clear explanation to the Player
that he would no longer be paid);
•
although the Player claimed that the Player was aware of his need to register as
a professional player (“sole trader”) and issue the invoices, the Club – as debtor /
employer – also failed to provide sufficient evidence that it had proactively
contacted the Player to remedy the situation. In fact, the Club limited itself to (i)
arguing that the registration process was simple and completed for many foreign
players; and (ii) providing some evidence suggesting that it asked the Player to
issue invoices via e-mail and/or WhatsApp conversations with unspecified
participants. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Club has not demonstrated that
it had guided the Player through the necessary procedures, let alone that the
Player had engaged in any type of dilatory conduct by failing to comply with its
instructions; and
•
the Contract does not establish that the payment of the Player’s salary was
conditional on the issuance of the relevant invoices. Similarly, the Chamber
considered that the fact that the Club was able to find a way to make its payments
for three months without such a document could legitimately give rise to the
Player’s expectation that he would continue to be paid even without the
submission of such invoices.
104. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber was not persuaded by the Club’s argument that it
had done all that could reasonably be expected of it to ensure that the Player’s
fundamental rights to render services and receive the corresponding consideration were
safeguarded. Conversely, the DRC considered that, as employer and debtor, it was
incumbent on the Club to assume a greater burden of ensuring that all administrative
requirements were met and/or to proactively seek an agreement with the Player in order
to protect his rights.
105. It follows from the above that, even if the Club was indeed dependent on the Player’s
bureaucratic action (e.g., checking documents or issuing invoices), it could not have simply
stopped paying his salary, let alone without a clear contractual basis and after having
found another alternative for the first three months of the Contract. As a result, the
Chamber established that the Club did not have a legitimate reason for not paying the
Player’s remuneration after October 2023 and, therefore, the DRC agreed with the Player’s
position that at least two of his salaries were outstanding at the time he put the Club in
default.
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-13972
106. Having stated the above, the Chamber proceeded to analyse the parties’ position
regarding the formalities of the notice of default sent by the Player. Accordingly, the DRC
found that: (i) despite its brevity, the notice clearly identified the November and December
2023 salaries as outstanding and contained a clear demand for payment; (ii) although the
notice did not refer to a specific time limit for curing the breach, the Club acknowledged
receipt and the Player waited more than 15 days to terminate the Contract.
107. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber decided that the requirements of art. 14bis of the
Regulations were de facto fulfilled. In the DRC’s view, this conclusion was further
strengthened by the fact that the Club had also failed to pay the Player’s salary for January
2024 in the meantime and expressly stated that it would only remedy its default once the
Player provided the relevant invoices.
108. Based on the particularities of the case and, in particular, its timeline, the Chamber
decided that such a persistent and substantial breach of the contractual obligations by
the Club could justify the unilateral termination of the Contract.
109. The DRC then decided that the Player terminated the Contract with just cause and should
be compensated accordingly.
110. Lastly, the Chamber also felt compelled to state that it had given due consideration to the
myriad of evidence provided by the Player in an attempt to convince it that the Club had
acted in an abusive and discriminatory manner towards him. As the DRC was already
satisfied that the Player had terminated the Contract for just cause due to the overdue
payments, it stated that such allegations would be addressed in the assessment of the
consequences of the breach.
iii. Consequences
111. The Chamber then turned its attention to the question of the consequences of such
unjustified breach of contract committed by the Club.
Outstanding remuneration
112. First and foremost, the DRC determined that the Player was entitled to the outstanding
salaries at the time of termination, as follows:
•
•
•
EUR 1,203.36 as the salary for November 2023;
EUR 1,203.36 as the salary for December 2023;
EUR 1,203.36 as the salary for January 2024.
113. At this point, the DRC noted that the Player’s calculation of his outstanding salaries
differed from the above. However, in the absence of a proper breakdown and in view of
pg. 24
REF. FPSD-13972
the contradictory wording of the Contract and its Annex, the Chamber decided to apply
the amount referred to in art. 7 of the Contract i.e., the same amount paid by the Company
to the Player for the first three months of the Contract.
114. The DRC also noted that the Player claimed EUR 140 as reimbursement for
accommodation and meals, which the Club appeared to have orally promised. However,
the Chamber concluded that this claim had no contractual basis and was not supported
by sufficient evidence. Indeed, the DRC was mindful of the various complaints / reports
submitted by the Player to the local authorities, some of which referred to his alleged
entitlement to accommodation or food allowances. However, the Chamber considered
that these documents were of limited probative value in establishing the Club’s consent
to the payment of additional remuneration.
115. Consequently, the Chamber decided to dismiss this part of the claim.
116. Taking into account the Claimant’s request, the principle of ultra petita, and the consistent
practice of the Football Tribunal in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Player
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding salaries (EUR 3,610.08) from the date of
the termination, as requested, until the date of effective payment.
Compensation
117. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the Player by the Club. 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.
118. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber 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 in the event of
breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber determined that no such compensation
clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.
119. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation 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.
pg. 25
REF. FPSD-13972
120. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Player under the terms of the Contract
from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of EUR 20,457.12 (i.e. the Player’s salaries from February 2024
to June 2025) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation
for breach of contract.
121. 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.
122. Indeed, the Player found employment with the New Club. In accordance with the pertinent
employment contract, the Player was entitled to approximately EUR 850 per month.
Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Player mitigated his damages in the total
amount of EUR 3,868.96 (i.e., EUR 468.96 as the pro rata salary for February 2024; plus
EUR 3,400 as the salaries from March to June 2024).
123. Then the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which a
Player is entitled to an amount equal to three monthly salaries as additional
compensation should the termination of the employment contract in question be due to
overdue payables. The Chamber also emphasized that the Player’s entitlement to
additional compensation is laid down in the Regulations and is therefore not affected by
the late amendment of his claim (cf., §§ 86-91, supra).
124. In the present case, the Chamber confirmed that the Contract was terminated for the
aforementioned reason i.e. overdue payables by the Club, and therefore decided that the
Player should receive additional compensation. As to the quantum, the Chamber also
recalled that in case of egregious circumstances, the additional compensation may be
increased up to a maximum of six-monthly salaries, whereby the overall compensation
may never exceed the rest value of the prematurely terminated contract.
125. On this basis, the DRC considered that the Player would in principle be entitled to a
minimum of EUR 3.619.08 in additional compensation (i.e., three month’s salaries).
However, in view of the Club’s systematic delay in fulfilling its contractual obligations (both
financial and administrative) and, most importantly, the substantial evidence provided by
the Player regarding the unprofessional (if not to say, immoral or perhaps even illegal)
behaviour towards him, the Chamber decided to increase the amount of additional
compensation up to the threshold of the residual value of the Contract, for a total of EUR
3,868.96.
pg. 26
REF. FPSD-13972
126. Consequently, on account of all the abovementioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Club should, in principle, pay the
amount of EUR 20,457.12 to the Player (i.e., EUR 20,457.12 minus EUR 3,868.96 plus EUR
3,868.96), which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation
for breach of contract in the present matter.
127. However, as the Player had expressly limited his claim to EUR 20,900 in totum and had
already been awarded EUR 3,610.08 in outstanding remuneration, the Chamber found
that it was bound by the principle of ne ultra petita. Therefore, the DRC concluded that the
Player should only be awarded EUR 17,289.92 as compensation for breach of contract,
plus 5% interest p.a. from 9 February 2024 until the date of effective payment.
128. The DRC also considered that the conduct of the Club towards the Player was of great
concern and therefore requested that the case file be forwarded to the Disciplinary
Committee for further investigation.
iv. Compliance with monetary decisions
129. 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.
130. 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.
131. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC 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 Player, a ban from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and
consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on the Club in
accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
132. 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.
133. 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.
pg. 27
REF. FPSD-13972
d. Costs
134. 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.
135. 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.
136. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 28
REF. FPSD-13972
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Vice Miljanic, is accepted insofar as it is
admissible.
2.
The Respondent / Counterclaimant, NK Rogaska, must pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent the following amount(s):
- EUR 3,610.08 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 9 February
2024 until the date of effective payment; and
- EUR 17,289.92 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 9 February 2024 until the date of effective payment.
3.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counterclaimant is 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 / Counterclaimant 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 / CounterRespondent 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. 29
REF. FPSD-13972
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 – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 30