Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-11350
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 25 October 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Dylan Teddy Ngallot Mboumbouni
BY:
Roy Vermeer (Netherlands), Single Judge of the DRC
CLAIMANT:
Dylan Teddy Ngallot Mboumbouni, France
Represented by Yakub Kizilkaya
RESPONDENT:
CS Mioveni, Romania
Represented by Diaconu Silviu Constantin
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-11350
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 15 January 2023, the French player, Dylan Teddy Ngallot Mboumbouni (hereinafter:
Claimant or player) and the Romanian club, CS Mioveni (hereinafter: club or Respondent)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as from 15 January 2023
until 30 June 2023.
2.
According to the contract, the Respondent, inter alia, undertook to pay the Claimant a
monthly salary of EUR 5,000.
3.
Art. XI of the contract, with the title “Applicable law” reads as follows:
“This agreement will be governed and interpreted according Regulations of FIFA.
The conflict related to the execution, performance, modification, suspension or termination of this
Agreement will be solved in the following order of proceedings:
- Amicably
-
FIFA Football Tribunal”
II. Proceedings before FIFA
4.
On 15 August 2023, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of
the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
5.
In his claim, the Claimant requested payment of EUR 20,000, corresponding to his salaries
between March and June 2023, plus 5% interest p.a. as of the due dates.
6.
In his claim, the player argued that the club failed to remit his salaries as of March 2023.
b. Position of the Respondent
7.
In its reply, the club held that the club is undergoing insolvency proceedings in Romania
and that therefore the sole competent court can be a “Romanian Tribunal”.
8.
Moreover, the club argued that the parties opted to submit disputes to “domestic
jurisdictional bodies of the Romanian Football Federation” in accordance with art. XI of the
contract.
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-11350
9.
In this context, the club claimed that the Romanian contract part was not properly
translated and that the English version of art. XI is wrong and should read as follows:
“This Agreement will be governed and interpreted according to the Law of physical
education and sports no. 69/2000, to the Civil code, to the Regulation on the Status and
Transfer of Football Players, to the Law 227/2015 regarding the fiscal code and to the
Regulations of FRF and FIFA.
The conflicts related to the execution, performance, modification, suspension or
termination of this Agreement will be solved in the following order of proceedings:
- Amiably;
- As litigations, considering that the competence to solve such litigations belongs to the
arbitration courts of sports, that is the competent committees of FRF and/or LPF,
depending on the case, and TAS, excepting those that belong exclusively to the
competence of the courts of law, under the law. (FIFA Football Tribunal, pursuant RSTP
of FIFA and Appeal to CAS).”
10. According to the club, the “NDRC of the RFF” does meet the requirements set by FIFA as to
“composition, independence and fair proceedings”.
c. Replica of the Claimant
11. In his replica, the Claimant rejected the arguments as to jurisdiction of the Respondent.
12. He pointed out that he was not part of any insolvency proceeding in Romania.
13. The player reiterated his requests.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
14. In its duplica, the Respondent insisted that the Romanian courts are solely competent.
15. The club submitted a court order dated 31 August 2023, according to which all proceedings
involving the club are “suspended”.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-11350
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
16. First of all, the Single Judge (hereinafter also referred to as Single Judge) analysed whether
he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took note that the
present matter was presented to FIFA on 15 August 2023 and submitted for decision on 25
October 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023 edition of the
Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the
aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
17. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 and art. 24 par. 1 lit. a) of the
Procedural Rules and observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with
art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (May 2023), he
is, in principle, competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a player and a club.
18. However, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent disputed FIFA’s competence to
decide the matter at hand for two different reasons:
a) The presence of insolvency proceedings;
b) An arbitration clause in favour of the NDRC in Romania.
19. In this regard, the Single Judge noted that although insolvency proceedings appear to have
been opened in Romania against the Respondent, it appears that the club is still affiliated
to the Romanian Football Federation. Therefore, the Single Judge decided to reject said
argument.
20. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to Art. XI of the employment contract. According
to the Respondent the translation submitted by the Claimant was inaccurate and the
wording to take into account is:
“This Agreement will be governed and interpreted according to the Law of physical education
and sports no. 69/2000, to the Civil code, to the Regulation on the Status and Transfer of Football
Players, to the Law 227/2015 regarding the fiscal code and to the Regulations of FRF and FIFA.
The conflicts related to the execution, performance, modification, suspension or termination of
this Agreement will be solved in the following order of proceedings:
- Amiably;
- As litigations, considering that the competence to solve such litigations belongs to the
arbitration courts of sports, that is the competent committees of FRF and/or LPF,
depending on the case, and TAS, excepting those that belong exclusively to the
competence of the courts of law, under the law. (FIFA Football Tribunal, pursuant RSTP
of FIFA and Appeal to CAS).”
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-11350
21. The Single Judge, after analysing the wording of the jurisdiction clause submitted by the
Respondent, concluded that such clause did not clearly and exclusively establish the
competence of the NDRC of Romania, in accordance with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the
aforementioned Regulations.
22. As a consequence, the Single Judge was of the opinion that the first pre-requisite for
establishing the competence of an NDRC was not met, and therefore, without the need to
enter the analysis of any further requirement, he established that the Respondent’s
objection to the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected and
that the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent, on the basis of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of
the Regulations, to consider the present matter as to the substance.
23. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (May 2023 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 15 August 2023, the May 2023 edition of
said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
24. The Single Judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Single Judge
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may
consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
25. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Single Judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the Single Judge emphasised that in the following
considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
26. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note of the fact that the Claimant requested payment of amounts
corresponding to his salaries between March and June 2023.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-11350
27. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that his task was to determine, based on
the evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained
unpaid by the Respondent and, if so, whether the latter had a valid justification for not
having complied with its financial obligations.
28. The Single Judge first noted that in the case at hand the Respondent bore the burden of
proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between
the parties.
29. Nonetheless, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent did not dispute the outstanding
amount as such.
30. On account of the above, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay the
outstanding amounts resulting from the contract to the Claimant.
ii. Consequences
31. The Single Judge observed that the financial obligations deemed as outstanding in the
present case correspond to EUR 20,000 as salaries as from March 2023 until June 2023 (4x
EUR 5,000).
32. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda,
the Single Judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts
claimed as outstanding under the contract, in total EUR 20,000, as detailed above.
33. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice
of the Chamber in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the Claimant interest at
the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from the respective due dates until the
date of effective payment.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
34. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Single Judge referred to art. 24
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA
deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the
concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or
compensation in due time.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-11350
35. In this regard, the Single Judge highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the
failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any
new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The
overall maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and
consecutive registration periods.
36. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must
pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of
notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration
of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
37. 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.
38. The Single Judge recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior
to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par.
8 of the Regulations.
d. Costs
39. The Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which
“Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football agent,
or match agent”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were to be
imposed on the parties.
40. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art.
25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
41. Lastly, the Single Judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-11350
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Dylan Teddy Ngallot
Mboumbouni.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, CS Mioveni, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- EUR 5,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2023 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 5,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2023 until the
date of effective payment;
- EUR 5,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2023 until
the date of effective payment;
- EUR 5,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2023 until the
date of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-11350
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal).
CONTACT INFORMATION
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 10