Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-1960
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 3 November 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Fabrice
Ondoa
COMPOSITION:
Omar Omgaro (Italy), Deputy Chairperson
Peter Lukasek (Slovakia), member
Yuriy Zapisotskiy (Ukraine), member
CLAIMANT:
Fabrice Ondoa, Cameroon
Represented by M.Batinde Josée
RESPONDENT:
KV Oostende NV, Belgium
Represented by M. Thomas Verstraete and Dimitri Dedecker
Page 2
REF FPSD-1960
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 22 June 2018, the player from Cameroon, Fabrice Ondoa (hereinafter: the Claimant or
player), and the Belgian club, KV Oostende NV (hereinafter: the Respondent or club) signed
an employment contract valid as from 1 July 2018 until 30 June 2022.
2.
According to article 11 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to the following payments:
-EUR 15,000 per month;
-EUR 50,000 as sign on fee payable in 2 instalments of EUR 25,000 on the 5 September and
5 February of each season in the event that the player is still active with the club;
-Holidays in accordance with the Regulations in force
-EUR 1500 per month for accommodation;
-a lease car (ford kuge or mondea);
-EUR 5,000 for flight tickets.
3.
Article 11.5 of the contract stipulates the following: “Football clubs playing in the first national
division of the competition organized by the Pro League and the RBFA are obliged to pay
quarterly employer's contributions to the group insurance scheme for all football players who
are members and who are bound by a sportsmen's employment contract remunerated in
accordance with the agreement within the Pro League. The contributions for the group
insurance are therefore not included in the monthly salary. This cannot be deviated from
contractually” (free translation).
4.
Article 24 of the contract states that “He declares that he has taken note of the labour
regulations, the group insurance regulations of the Pro League and the regulations of the
RBFA which are an integral part of this Agreement and accept its terms and conditions. Both
the Player and the Club acknowledge the rules and regulations of the RBFA in its disciplinary
powers without prejudice to the right to subject the final decisions after exhaustion of all
internal remedies to the marginal review of an arbitration or the courts” (free translation).
5.
Article 35 of the law of 3 July 1978 on employment contracts states that ”Either party may
terminate the contract without notice or before the expiry of the term for a serious reason to
be determined by the judge and without prejudice to any damages. Judge’s discretion and
without prejudice to any damages if applicable. Serious misconduct shall be deemed to be
any serious misconduct which makes it immediately and permanently impossible for the
employer and the employee to work together. Dismissal for serious reasons may no longer
be given without notice or before the expiry of the term, when the fact which would have
justified it is known to the employer. The party giving notice of termination for serious
misconduct may no longer give notice or terminate the contract before the end of the term
if the fact which would have justified it has been known to the party giving notice for at least
three working days (…)” (free translation).
Page 3
REF FPSD-1960
6.
On 15 December 2020, the Respondent sent a letter to the Claimant informing as follows:
“We regret to notify you of the decision to terminate your contract immediately for serious
misconduct in accordance with article 35 of the law of 3 July 1978 on employment contracts”.
7.
On 29 December 2020, the Claimant responded to the above letter and contested its contents
noting that he had not been invited to present his position as to the allegations against him.
In the same letter, the Claimant requested to be compensated by the Respondent for breach
of contract for EUR 546,811.05.
8.
On 4 January 2021, the Respondent replied and rejected the Claimant’s request for
compensation for breach of contract.
9.
On 11 February 2021, the player concluded a new contract with the Croatian club NK Istra,
valid from 11 February 2021 until 30 May 2021, during which period a total amount of EUR
4,720 was payable to him, broken down in 5 equal monthly instalments of EUR 1,180.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
10. On 9 March 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. The Claimant requests that the DRC orders the Respondent to pay the amount of EUR
495,568.58 as compensation for breach of contract, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 16 December
2020 until the effective date of payment broken down as follows:
− EUR 277,500 as fixed remuneration;
− EUR 50,000 as sign on fee;
− EUR 5,000 for flight tickets;
− EUR 10,175 for the car;
− EUR 27,750 as accommodation;
− EUR 18,000 as holiday pay;
− EUR 107,143.58 as group insurance.
12. In support of his claim, the Claimant submits that during the 2019/2020 season, he - as
evidenced by his playing statistics - was the first reserve goalkeeper of the first team. The
Claimant states that he was in the starting line-up (starting eleven) on 5 occasions during the
Pro League championship and on 2 occasions for the Belgian Cup and that he was on the
reserve bench for all other official matches of the first team of the Respondent in all
competitions.
Page 4
REF FPSD-1960
13. Following the change of management at the beginning of the 2020/2021 season, the
Claimant states that he was not selected to play in any matches for the 2020/2021 season.
14. The Claimant submits that he was a few days late in resuming training for the 2020/2021
season (due to difficulties in returning from Cameroon to Belgium at the end of June 2020)
and that this resulted in a fine imposed on him by the Respondent for the amount of EUR
1,253.82 for (6 days absence), which was deducted from his July 2021 payment slip.
15. The Claimant adds that the Respondent invoked, without any further evidence, that he did
not follow the instructions of the head coach and would create a "negative atmosphere”
within the first team and as a result he was "temporarily" banned from training with the first
team and obliged to participate (initially) with the U21 (reserve) team of KVO.
16. As a result, the Claimant submits that he did not participate in matches for the 2020/2021
season.
17. The Claimant adds that in October 2020, he was selected by the national team of Cameroon,
which displays his physical and mental capacity. He adds that between July and September
2020, the Respondent attempted to transfer him to several clubs, which demonstrates that
the Respondent had lost interest in his services for the 2020/2021 season.
18. The Claimant further submits that the incident leading to the club’s termination of contract,
namely his participation in a family party (with friends) on 13 December 2020, is neither
contested nor disputable. However, the player argued that such incident is no "serious"
reason justifying immediate and definitive dismissal, but rather a pretext used by the
Respondent to get rid of (arbitrarily and subjectively) of the Claimant.
19. The Claimant adds that the only sanction given by the federal police authority after the
“incident” is a fine of EUR 250, which proves without a doubt that the offence was not
serious.
20. In view of all the above, the Claimant submits that the Respondent’s decision was severe and
disproportionate and that therefore it terminated the contract without just cause during the
protected period.
21. The Claimant submits that no outstanding remuneration was due at the date of contract
termination, but adds that he is entitled to compensation for breach of contract.
22. In regards to compensation, the Claimant submits that there is no contractual clause
determining the amount of the compensation due to him following the termination of the
contract without just cause by the Respondent.
Page 5
REF FPSD-1960
23. In conclusion, the Claimant requests to be awarded EUR 495,568.58 as compensation for
breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as of 2020 or 16 December 2020 until the effective
date of payment.
b. Position of the Respondent
24. According to the Respondent, only Belgian labour courts have jurisdiction over this dispute.
25. The Respondent adds that under article 1676 para.5 of the Belgian Judicial Code, Belgian law
prohibits clauses that subject labour disputes between employers and employees to arbitration
before the dispute has even arisen. Such clauses are considered null and void.
26. Additionally, the Respondent submits that pursuant to article 578 of the Belgian Judicial Code, the
Labour Court is competent to hear disputes concerning employment agreements between
employees (players) and employers (clubs).
27. In accordance with article 13 of the law of 3 July 1978 on employment contracts also states that
employees and employers may not undertake in advance to submit any disputes that may arise from
the agreement to arbitrators (note: document on file).
28. The Respondent adds that since there is no arbitration agreement between the parties in which both
parties expressly agree to submit the present dispute to arbitration before the arbitral bodies of FIFA,
only the Belgian Labour Courts have compulsory jurisdiction to hear and judge over the present
labour law dispute.
29. This general rule is not only incorporated in the above provisions of imperative Belgian Labour Law,
which even has a public order character, but this is also reflected and acknowledged in the federal
regulations of the Royal Belgian Football Association (hereinafter: RBFA).
30. Article B1.17 of the RBFA federal regulations provides that disputes regarding employment contracts
of trainers or players can only be submitted to arbitration, if both parties accept the arbitration in an
arbitration agreement concluded after the dispute has arisen. If the arbitration is not accepted, the
player, coach or club has the right to refer the dispute to the jurisdictions prescribed by the law.
31. The Respondent adds that the FIFA DRC lacks jurisdiction following the fact that there is an
independent arbitration tribunal on a national level within the framework of the RBFA that respects
and guarantees fair proceedings and the principle of equal representation of players and clubs.
32. In article 24 of the employment agreement, the parties expressly agree that the RBFA federal
regulations form an integral part of the employment agreement and that this is also confirmed by
the Claimant in page 22 of his claim. Therefore, according to the Respondent, the parties have
therefore undoubtedly opted in on the internal competence of the arbitration committees of the
RBFA, which is competent and meets the requirements of parity.
Page 6
REF FPSD-1960
33. In view of the above, the Respondent submits that FIFA is not competent.
34. As to the substance, the Respondent held that since the contract signed between the parties is silent
as to the applicable law and since the contract is registered in Belgium where the Claimant performed
his work, Belgian law should apply. As a result, it submits that Belgian law applies primarily and that
the FIFA Regulations will apply subsidiarily insofar as it is compatible and consistent with Belgian law.
35. The Respondent further stated that during the course of the contract, the Claimant's behaviour
turned out to be problematic on multiple occasions. As a result of his unlawful absences, misconduct
and insubordination, he frequently received verbal warnings from the club’s staff and eventually led
to several default notices.
36. The Respondent adds that the Claimant never once contested these allegations in the formal notices.
For example, in the formal notice dated 22 July 2021, the Claimant was informed that he failed to
return from his vacation on the agreed date of 19 July 2019 without a legitimate justification. As a
result, he was issued with a warning that if his behaviour did not improve, it would be forced to take
disciplinary action.
37. According to the Respondent, the Claimant’s behaviour did not improve and worsened to a point
that he was no longer permitted to train and play for the first team as notified to him on 24 August
2020, which remained uncontested by the Claimant.
38. The Respondent further submits that after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium in
March 2020, the Pro League and the RBFA decided to suspend and later cancel the remainder of the
Jupiler Pro League season 2019-2020 in the interest of public health. As from 18 May 2020, the
Respondent submits that clubs could once again organize training sessions for their football teams,
provided that they follow important guidelines.
39. Important to emphasize, according to the Respondent, is that professional football enjoyed an
exceptional regime compared to other sectors in Belgium. The Belgian and Flemish Governments,
the RBFA, the Pro League and the professional football clubs involved therefore rigorously supervised
these privileges and did not tolerate any violation of these guidelines. It goes without saying that all
Belgian clubs were terrified of another temporary suspension/cancellation of the competition, which
would entail a financial disaster.
40. The Respondent submits that it wanted to avoid an outbreak of the virus within its teams at all costs.
This is why it maintained a strict policy and closely checked that its players complied with all measures.
All players were aware that the club had a zero-tolerance policy towards violations. The Respondent
adds that it implemented its strict, but fair policy as seen from the immediate termination of the
employment agreement of its player Yaya Vieux Sané on 28 April 2020, following a severe violation
of the existing measures in force.
Page 7
REF FPSD-1960
41. The Respondent adds that all players, including the Claimant were informed of the dismissal and
warned on the consequences of breaching the rules, but that the Claimant failed to respect the rules
as instructed.
42. On 22 October 2020, the Respondent submits that the Claimant did not show up for a compulsory
COVID-19 test and failed to justify this unlawful absence and was sent a letter in this regard, to
which he did not respond (note: document on file).
43. To top this all, the Respondent adds that the Claimant organised a so-called ‘lockdown party’ in his
apartment with no less than 10 persons, despite there being a ban on assembly of more than 4
people in force at the time pursuant article 15 of the Ministerial Decree of 28 October 2020 on
urgent measures to limit the spread of COVID-19. The Respondent adds that this gathering did not
fall within the scope of the regulations and as a result, the police was summoned and found a total
of 10 people in the apartment.
44. Given the grave situation and the involvement of the Belgian press, there was a call for tougher
sanctions to be imposed on perpetrators by the Federal Minister (note: document on file).
45. The Respondent adds that after it conducted an investigation on 13 and 14 December 2020, the
local police as well as the mayor of Ostend confirmed to the club that the news bulletins were correct
and the player had indeed committed a severe violation of the governmental measures in force, the
club had enough of the utter unprofessionalism of the player. Given the past behaviour of the
Claimant, this new offence was the “straw that broke the camel's back”.
46. As a result, the Respondent submits that on 15 December 2020, it terminated the contract with the
Claimant with immediate effect following the prescribed facts, which undoubtedly constitute an
‘urgent reason’ under Belgian Law as well as a ‘just cause’ under the FIFA Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players.
47. According to the Respondent, this decision was publicly supported by the mayor of Ostend who
commended it for taking the right decision.
48. The Respondent adds that under Belgian law (Article 35 of the law of 3 July 1978 on employment
contracts), one can immediately terminate the contract without notice or compensation if there is an
urgent reason to do so and that such an urgent reason exists whenever a party commits a serious
shortcoming that immediately and definitively makes any further professional cooperation between
both parties impossible (note: document on file).
49. The Respondent adds that the Claimant did not seem to understand the gravity of his actions and
did not show any remorse and his lawyer contested the termination in a letter dated 29 December
2020 and instead requested to be compensated, which request it rejected in a letter dated 4 January
2021 (note: document on file).
Page 8
REF FPSD-1960
50. The Respondent submits that in addition to the above legal and contractual obligations, following
the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the players obviously needed to comply with the important
supplementary guidelines of the RBFA, the Pro League and the club, as well as the standard
governmental measures contained in the Ministerial Decree on urgent measures to limit the spread
of the coronavirus COVID-19 (note: documents on file).
51. According to the Respondent, considering the repetition and persistence of the earlier breaches
which led to corresponding written warnings, considering the fact that the Claimant already failed
to adhere to the protocols by missing a COVID-19 testing appointment and considering the
seriousness of the violation committed in the night of 13 to 14 December 2020, where he not only
endangered his own health, but also the health of his team mates, the other employees of KV
Oostende, the public health in general, as well as the proper functioning of the club (risking
quarantines, possibly forfaiting games) and the Belgian Jupiler Pro League competition (losing its
privileged status that could again lead to a suspension of the competition) shows a to total lack of
sense of responsibility, moral ethics and professionalism on the part of the Claimant, it rightfully
terminated the contract due to urgent reasons / with just cause.
52. In view of the above, the Respondent submits that the claim of the Claimant is strongly contested
and his claim that he was dismissed only because he was a ‘redundant’ and expensive player for the
club is totally false.
53. The Respondent submits that it terminated the contract with just cause and that given the
reputational damage it suffered as a result of the Claimant’s actions, it reserves the right to claim for
compensation in this regard.
54. In the unlikely event that the FIFA DRC finds that the contract was terminated without just cause,
the Respondent submits that firstly, the sum of EUR 5,000 for airplane tickets is a total sum for the
entire duration of the contract and it has already paid well over EUR 5,000 and that this claim should
therefore be dismissed (note: document on file).
55. Secondly, in regards to the Claimant’s claim for group insurance, the Respondent submits that in the
present procedure, the Claimant is claiming a compensation pursuant article 17 of the FIFA RSTP,
which is a compensation for the breach of the contract. According to the Respondent, such
compensation for the termination of an employment agreement is not included in the reference
remuneration for the group insurance in accordance with article 3 of the contract. The Respondent
therefore submits that the claim for the amount of EUR 107,143.59 must be dismissed.
56. The Respondent also requests that the mitigated amount as per the Claimant’s new contract should
be taken into account.
57. In conclusion, the Respondent requests that the claim of the Claimant should be dismissed as it is
inadmissible due to lack of jurisdiction and competence, that it terminated the contract with just
cause and that the Claimant be ordered to pay for the costs of the proceedings.
Page 9
REF FPSD-1960
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
58. 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 9 March 2021 and submitted for decision
on . 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.
59. 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 a player
and a club.
60. However, the Chamber noted that the Respondent challenged the competence of FIFA to
hear the dispute at stake, as Belgian courts allegedly have exclusive jurisdiction in labour
matters.
61. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the contract at the basis of the dispute did not contain
any jurisdiction clause whatsoever in favour of the Belgian labour courts.
62. Moreover, in accordance with the long-standing jurisprudence of the DRC, the Chamber held
that FIFA’s regulations prevail over any national law chosen by the parties. The main objective
of the FIFA regulations is to create a standard set of rules to which all the actors within the
football community are subject to and can rely on. This objective would not be achievable if
the DRC would have to apply the national law of a specific party on every dispute brought to
it.
63. As a consequence, the Chamber was of the opinion 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 lit. b) of the Regulations, to consider
the present matter as to the substance.
64. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Player (August 2021 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 9 March 2021, the February 2021 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
Page 10
REF FPSD-1960
b. Burden of proof
65. 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 Transfer
Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
66. 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
67. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute that the Respondent had just cause
to terminate the contract on 15 December 2020.
68. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it its task to determine as to whether the
contract was terminated by the Respondent with or without just cause and to decide on the
consequences thereof.
69. Having established the above, the Chamber went on to analyse the allegation of the club –
disputed by the player – that it had just cause to terminate the contract.
70. The Chamber noted that the Respondent submits that it terminated the contract with just
cause considering the repetition and persistence of breaches by the Claimant despite several
written warnings, considering the fact that he already failed to adhere to the protocols of the
RBFA, Pro League and the club by missing a COVID-19 testing appointment; and considering
the seriousness of the violation committed in the night of 13-14 December 2020, where he
failed to respect the COVID-19 restrictions by having a “lockdown party”, endangering his
own health, that of his team mates and other members of the club.
71. According to the Respondent, the Claimant’s actions show a to total lack of sense of
responsibility, moral ethics and professionalism and that as a result, it rightfully terminated
the contract due to urgent reasons / with just cause.
Page 11
REF FPSD-1960
72. In this scenario, the Chamber recalled its long-standing jurisprudence, according to which
only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract
without prior warning. In other words, only when there are objective criteria which do not
reasonably permit to expect the continuation of the employment relationship between the
parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient measures
which can be taken in order for an employer to assure the employee’s fulfilment of his
contractual duties, such measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract.
A premature termination of an employment contract can only be an ultima ratio.
73. With the above in mind and after having carefully analysed the parties’ submissions, the
Chamber concluded that the infringements of the player were not sufficient to justify a
termination under the circumstances of the present case and cannot be deemed as a
substantial breach of an employment contract capable of triggering the consequences of an
unlawful termination.
74. The Chamber took into account that the zero tolerance policy regarding infringements
against the COVID-rules was in place during the first wave, but changed in December 2020.
In this context, the DRC held that a fine and a clear warning that the next offense would lead
to a termination would have been appropriate in the matter at hand.
ii. Consequences
75. 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.
76. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination, no
remuneration was outstanding.
77. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the player by the club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber
firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of
compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country
concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including in particular, the
remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new
contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and
depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.
Page 12
REF FPSD-1960
78. 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.
79. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the club to the player had to be assessed in application of the other
parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said
provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration
when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
80. 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 355,250 (i.e. the residual value of the contract) serves as the basis
for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
81. 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.
82. Indeed, the player found employment with the Croatian club, NK Istra. In accordance with
the pertinent employment contract, the player was entitled to approximately EUR 1,180 per
month. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the player mitigated his damages in the total
amount of EUR 4,720.
83. Furthermore, as outlined before, the Chamber decided that the player’s misbehaviour, shall
be considered as a mitigating circumstance in light of the particularities of the case at hand
as well as the specificity of sport.
84. Consequently, the DRC decided that the compensation payable by the Respondent to the
Claimant should be reduced by 10%. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the amount of
compensation the player is entitled to receive corresponds to EUR 315,530, i.e. EUR 355,250
less EUR 4,720 reduced by 10%.
Page 13
REF FPSD-1960
85. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities
of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount of EUR 315,530
to the player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation
for breach of contract in the present matter.
86. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said compensation
at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of claim, i.e. 9 March 2021, until the date of effective
payment.
87. Equally, as regards the Claimant’s claim pertaining to air tickets, on the basis of the
information provided by FIFA Travel, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay to
the Claimant the amount of EUR 590 for one return air ticket to Cameroon.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
88. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24bis
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.
89. 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.
90. 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.
91. 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.
92. 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. 24bis par. 8 of
the Regulations.
Page 14
REF FPSD-1960
d. Costs
93. 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.
94. 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.
95. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
Page 15
REF FPSD-1960
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Fabrice Ondoa, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, KV Oostende NV, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount:
- EUR 315,530 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 9 March 2021 until the date of effective payment.
- EUR 590 as a return flight ticket to Cameroon.
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. 24bis 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 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.
7. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24bis par. 7 and 8 and art. 24ter 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
Page 16
REF FPSD-1960
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