Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
passed on 9 April 2020,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thom ps on (England), Chairman
Roy Verm eer (The Netherlands ), member
Daan de Jong (The Netherlands ), member
on the claim presented by the player,
Abdelkader Oueslati, France ,
represented by Mr Ali Abbes & Mr Mohamed Rokbani
as Claimant / Counter-Respondent
against the club,
Al Fateh, Saudi Arabia,
represented by Mr Nasr El-Din Azzam
as Respondent / Counter-Claimant
and the club,
Club Africain, Tunisia
as intervening Party
regarding an employment-related dispute
between the parties
I.
Facts of the cas e
1.
On 14 July 2017, the French player, Abdelkader Oueslati (hereinafter: the player or the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent) and the Saudi club, Al Fateh (hereinafter: the club or
the Respondent/Counter-Claimant) signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the
contract) valid as from 15 July 2017 until 14 July 2020.
2.
In accordance with the contract, the player was entitled to the total amount of USD
1,650,000 payable as follows:
a)
b)
“The first year of the contract, which begins in 15/07/2017 until 14/07/2018”:
USD 99,960 on 30 August 2017:
SD 29,170 as monthly salary payable at the end of the month.
“The second year of the contract, which begins in 15/07/2018 until 14/07/2019”:
USD 199,960 in 2 installments:
USD 99,960 on 30 August 2018;
USD 100,000 on 30 January 2019
USD 29,170 as monthly salary payable at the end of the month.
c) “The third year of the contract, which begins in 1/07/2016 till 30/06/2017”
USD 299,960 payable in 2 instalments:
USD 149,960 on 30 August 2019;
USD 150,000 on 30 January 2020
USD 29,170 as monthly salary payable at the end of the month
3.
According to art. 8 of the contract: “[the club] may take decisions and issue sanctions
against [the player] in case of violating his obligations stipulated in the contract
without prejudice to regulations, provided that he shall inform the second party in
writing, and the latter may object according to regulations and rules”.
4.
On 4 September 2019, the player put the club in default arguing that the club had
outstanding toward him in the amount of USD 179,130 corresponding to the 1st
instalment due on 30 August 2019 and to the salary of August 2019. The player further
held that the club was trying to convince him into signing a termination agreement,
and that the list of foreign players allowed to be registered with the club was already
filled without him in it. The player gave 15 days for the club to remedy its default.
Player Abdelkarder Oueslati, France / Club Al Fateh, Saudi Arabia / Club Africain, Tunisia
2/14
5.
On 8 September 2019, the player reiterated his default granting 24 hours for the club
to remedy its default. He reiterated on 12 and 15 September 2019 as well requesting
to be re-registered.
6.
In a letter dated 10 September 2019, the club replied to the player that he was put in
a “special fitness program” as the head coach decided that his fitness level was too
low following an injury. The club further held that the player accepted to be in such
program.
7.
On 20 September 2019, the player unilaterally terminated the contract arguing that
despite his default notice, the amounts claimed had not been paid to him.
8.
On 14 October 2019, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA for
outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of the contract, requesting
the total amount of USD 634,441 corresponding to the following:
USD 198,576 as outstanding remuneration corresponding to:
USD 149,960 as instalment due on 30 August 2019 plus 5% interest
as from the date of the default notice, 4 September 2019;
USD 29,170 for the salary of August 2019, plus 5% interest as from
the date of the default notice, 4 September 2019;
USD 19,446 for the 20 days of September 2019, which were worked by
the player, plus 5% interest as from 30 September 2019.
USD 435,865 as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to the
residual value of the contract, no interest requested.
9.
In reply to the claim of the player, the club lodged a counterclaim, for compensation
for breach of the contract, requesting the total amount of USD 1,625,040 plus interest
as compensation for breach of the contract, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the date of
breach. It further requester that the new club of the player should be jointly liable and
that sporting sanctions should be imposed on the player. The club further requested
legal costs in its favor.
10.
For the calculation of the compensation, the club used the following elements:
Residual value of the contract: USD 650,000
Loss of transfer fee/replacement value: USD 800,000 “in accordance with
his important role in the club’s first team, and according to the relevant
indicators of the market, broadly used and recognized such as
transfermarkt.com, the value of the services of the Player can set at the
amount of USD 800,000. Keeping in mind the duration left on the contract,
the Claimant could reasonably have expected to make an economic profit
Player Abdelkarder Oueslati, France / Club Al Fateh, Saudi Arabia / Club Africain, Tunisia
3/14
if it would have sold the Player which in turn could have compensated for
the sporting loss”
Specificity of sport: USD 175,040 (6 monthly salaries).
11.
The club argued that the player was well aware that since the beginning of the
contract, the payments had been performed later than provided in the contract and
the player never complained, so now he cannot use that argument to terminate the
contract (the club invoked the doctrine of “venire contra factum proprium”. More
specifically, the club explained that it had up to 74 days delay in the payment of some
salaries.
12.
The club held that beginning of the season 2019/2020, it authorized the player to join
his wife who was having a baby, the player then returned to Saudi Arabia but without
his wife, which according to the club demonstrate the intent of the player to plan his
unilateral termination.
13.
The club alleged that since 7 September 2019, the player was absent from trainings
following his default notice of 4 September 2019.
14.
On the default notice of 4 September 2019, the club held that it was not valid since it
was sent by a lawyer without a power of attorney, which the club replied on 8
September 2019 (requesting the correspondence to be held in English and not in
French since the default was in French), and that on the same date, it received a second
default notice with a power of attorney but still in French, which the club considered
to be bad faith on the part of the player.
15.
The club held that due to his absence, it imposed sanctions on the player in application
of art. 8 of the contract.
16.
The club considered that since the first default notice was without a valid power of
attorney, it should not be valid and only the one of 8 September should be taken into
account, and since the player terminated on 20 September 2019, it was before the end
of the 15 days deadline of the default of 8 September 2019.
17.
On the overdue amounts claimed by the player, the club held that the instalment of
30 August 2019 and the salary of August 2019 are not two salaries in the sense of art.
14bis of the FIFA RSTP. The club argued that it paid all the salaries due under the
contract for the first 2 seasons and that it paid the salary of July 2019 due on 15 August
2019 because allegedly the season started on 15 July 2019.
18.
The club further underlined that since both default notices were in French and not in
one of the two language of the contract (Arabic and English), the default notices were
not valid and as such the player did not warn the club before unilaterally terminating
the contract.
Player Abdelkarder Oueslati, France / Club Al Fateh, Saudi Arabia / Club Africain, Tunisia
4/14
19. In reply to the counterclaim of the club, the player amended his claim, requesting
the following:
Outstanding as claimed in the initial claim;
Compensation for breach : USD 415,306;
Residual value of the contract: USD 435,865;
Mitigation: USD 20,559 (Tunisian Dinars 58,000 from 20 January
2020 to 14 July 2020). The player held that the “prime de
rendement” could not be considered as a remuneration and
depended on the team’s performance.
Additional compensation 175,020 6 monthly salaries.
20. The player held that the club did not contest the outstanding amounts, and that total
of outstanding is higher than 2 salaries and that as such 14bis applies.
21. The player underlined that the constant lateness in the payment of his salaries did
not mean the acceptation of the player, especially on the basis of “nemo auditor
propriam suam turpitudinem allegans”
22. The player contested the absence and underlined that the club provided no evidence
in that sense.
23. According to the information provided by the player, on 18 January 2020, the player
and the Tunisian club, Club Africain (hereinafter: Club Africain), signed an
employment contract valid as from 20 January 2020 until 30 June 2022, with a
monthly remuneration of DT 10,000 (approx. USD 3,550) and a “prime de
rendement” of DT 78,000 for the season 2019/2020 and a monthly remuneration of
DT 20,000 and a “prime de rendement” of DT 78,000 (approx. USD 27,690) for the
season 2020/2021
24. Despite being invited to provide its comments, Club Africain did not reply.
II.
Cons iderations of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1.
First of all, the DRC analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand.
In this respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was first submitted to
FIFA on 14 October 2019. Consequently, the 2018 edition of the Rules Governing the
Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber
(hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of
the Procedural Rules).
Player Abdelkarder Oueslati, France / Club Al Fateh, Saudi Arabia / Club Africain, Tunisia
5/14
2.
Subsequently, the DRC referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed
that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of the
Regulations (edition 2020), it is competent to decide on the present litigation, which
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a
French player, a Saudi club and a Tunisian club.
3.
Furthermore, the DRC analysed which edition of the Regulations should be applicable
as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber confirmed that, in
accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations (edition 2020) and considering
that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 14 October 2019, the 2019 edition
of said Regulations is applicable to the present matter as to the substance.
4.
The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established,
the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, it started to
acknowledge the facts of the case as well as the documents contained in the file.
However, the Chamber emphasized 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. In particular, the Chamber recalled that in
accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, FIFA may use, within the
scope of proceedings pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any
documentation or evidence generated or contained in the Transfer Matching System
(TMS).
5.
In this respect, the DRC acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had signed an
employment contract, valid as from 15 July 2017 until 14 July 2020.
6.
The DRC recalled that in accordance with the contract, the player was entitled inter
alia for the season 2019/2020 to a first advance payment of USD 149,960 on 30 August
2019, a second advance payment of USD 150,000 on 30 January 2020 and to a monthly
salary of USD 29,170 payable at the end of the month.
7.
In continuation, the Chamber took note that it is undisputed that on 20 September
2019, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent unilaterally terminated the contract
following several default notices on 4, 8, 12 and 15 September 2019 by means of which
the Claimant/Counter-Respondent requested to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant the
payment of the first instalment of the advance payment due on 30 August 2019 and
the salary of August 2019, and further requested to be registered with the first team
and giving the club 15 days to remedy its default in its default dated 4 September 2019.
8.
The Chamber then reviewed the amended claim of the player, who requested the total
amount of USD 788,882 plus interest corresponding to outstanding remuneration in
the amount of USD 198,576 and USD 590,306 as compensation for breach of the
contract.
Player Abdelkarder Oueslati, France / Club Al Fateh, Saudi Arabia / Club Africain, Tunisia
6/14
9.
Moreover, the DRC took note that the club lodged a counterclaim against the player,
requesting the total amount of USD 1,625,040 as compensation for breach of contract
by the player plus interest and sporting sanctions to be imposed on the player.
10.
In its counterclaim, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant argued that the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent had not followed the FIFA Regulations to unilaterally
terminate the contract, in particular, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant considered
that the default notices of the player were not valid since they were in French, a
language not understood by the club, while the official language of the contract were
English and Arabic. The Respondent/Counter- Claimant further held that the player
had been absent without authorization and argued that it had been late on multiple
occasion to pay the salaries without any complaints from the player before that claim.
11.
The Chamber took note of the argumentation of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent I
in reply to the counterclaim, and in particular noted that the player rejected the
counterclaim and held that the constant delays in the payments of salaries in the past
did not mean that an acceptation of the player for that practice, and further held that
the club did not provide evidence as to his alleged absences.
12.
The DRC took note despite a request of the FIFA’s administration, Club Africain did not
provide its comments on the counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant.
13.
In view of the foregoing and of the diverging opinions of the parties, the Dispute
Resolution Chamber was of the opinion that the issue at stake, considering the claim
and counterclaim lodged respectively by the parties against each other, was to
determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with
or without just cause by the player on 20 September 2019, and which party was
responsible for the early termination of the contractual relationship in question. The
DRC also underlined that, subsequently, if it were found that the employment contract
was breached by one of the parties without just cause, it would be necessary to
determine the consequences for the party that caused the unjust breach of the
relevant employment contract.
14.
Reviewing the argumentations of both parties, the DRC took note that the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent considered that he had just cause to terminate the
contract as the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not pay him an advance payment as
well as the salary of August 2019.
15.
On the other hand, the DRC took note that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant deemed
that the termination was not valid as the Claimant/Counter-Respondent did not duly
warn the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to allow it to remedy its default since the
default notices were in French and the player was absent from trainings without
authorization.
Player Abdelkarder Oueslati, France / Club Al Fateh, Saudi Arabia / Club Africain, Tunisia
7/14
16.
With regard to the claim of the player that he did not receive the part of the advance
payment due on 30 August 2019 and the salary of August 2019, the DRC took note
that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not contest the allegations but held that
the termination occurred too early taking into account that the Respondent/CounterClaimant was usually late in paying the salaries of the player. On the alleged absences
of the player, the DRC took note that the player had allegedly been fined by the club.
17.
On the allegation that the player had missed some trainings without authorization,
the DRC noted that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent held that it was not aware of
any disciplinary sanctions taken against him for alleged absences that he contests and
which he deemed, were not substantiated by the club.
18.
Following this, the DRC recalled the content of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural
Rules, according to which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact
shall carry the respective burden of proof, in that sense, the DRC considered that
the Respondent/Counter-Respondent did not provide any evidence substantiating
the alleged absences of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. The DRC deemed that
the
two
disciplinary
proceedings
notifications
provided
by
the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant (one of which is not dated), could not be considered
as sufficient evidence of the alleged absences of the player, since it could not
corroborate that the player had been made aware of said proceedings since both
documents are not signed by the player.
19.
Moreover, with regard to the disciplinary sanctions imposed on the player, the DRC
found it important to highlight that fines cannot be used as a mean to set-off
outstanding debts. In this regard, and since the Respondent/Counter-Claimant
does not contest having outstanding toward the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, it
found that said disciplinary sanctions should be left aside and disregarded.
20.
In continuation, the members of the DRC took into account the argumentation of the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant according to which the default notices of the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent were not valid since those were in French, a language
that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant does not understand, and that French is not
even an official language of the contract.
21.
In this respect, the DRC took note that the default notices were sent on 4, 8, 12 and 15
September 2019 by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to the Respondent/CounterClaimant. It acknowledged that said correspondence, termination letter included,
were all in French, and that the player is a French player. The DRC also underlined that
the default notices raised the issue that outstanding amounts not paid to the player,
i.e. the first installment of the advance payment and the salary of August 2019, both
payments due on 30 August 2019.
22.
With this in mind, the Dispute Resolution Chamber was of the firm opinion that despite
French not being an official language of the club and allegedly not understood by the
Player Abdelkarder Oueslati, France / Club Al Fateh, Saudi Arabia / Club Africain, Tunisia
8/14
Respondent/Counter-Claimant, due to the nationality of the Claimant/CounterRespondent, one could understand that he would be likely to use that language in his
communication with the club. Moreover, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was in
breach as from 1 September 2019, as the two payments were due by no later than 30
August 2019, as such it should have been obvious for the Respondent/CounterClaimant that the 4 letters sent to it by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent were default
notices related to the delay in the payment of the two amounts.
23.
On the other hand, the DRC took note of the argumentation of the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant according to which it was always paying the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent with delays and that the default notices came as a
surprise since it considered that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had accepted the
possibility to be paid with delays. In this regard, the DRC wished to underline that
payments should be done in due time, following the due dates provided by the
contract. The DRC did not find the argumentation of the Respondent/CounterClaimant convincing, as it deemed that the constant delays in the payment of the
salaries and advance payments of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent were breaches of
the contract which could not be used by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to contest
the termination of the player.
24.
The DRC was therefore of the firm opinion that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had
duly notified the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on several occasions of its delays
regarding the advance payment due on 30 August 2019 and the salary of August 2019.
25.
On the amounts in itself. the DRC recalled that at the time of termination, the
outstanding due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent amounted to USD 149,960 for
the advance payment and USD 29,170 for the salary of August 2019, taking into
account that this is uncontested by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. The Chamber
was eager to highlight that that amount of the advance payment is a consequent
amount since it represents 5 monthly salaries unpaid, so that in total the equivalent of
6 monthly salaries were outstanding.
26.
Therefore, the members of the DRC highlighted that, at the moment the player
terminated the contract, and taking into account the large amount that remained
outstanding at the date of termination, representing for the advance payment 5
monthly salaries, plus the salary of August 2019 and the constant delay in the payments
of the salaries, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent could have legitimately lost faith in
the ability and will of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to fulfill its contractual
obligations in due course.
27.
Consequently, and considering the circumstances of the case at hand and the situation
of the player at the time of termination, the Chamber was of the opinion that the
objective circumstances at the time did provide the player with just cause to terminate
the employment contract.
Player Abdelkarder Oueslati, France / Club Al Fateh, Saudi Arabia / Club Africain, Tunisia
9/14
28.
In light of all of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC came to the conclusion
that the player had terminated the contract on 20 September 2019, with just cause.
29.
Having established that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the
early termination of the employment contract, the Chamber focused its attention on
the consequence of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the
Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is entitled
to receive from the Respondent/Counter-Respondent an amount of money as
compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding payments on the
basis of the relevant employment contract.
30.
First of all, the Chamber reverted to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim, in
which he claimed the outstanding amounts of USD 198,575, amounts which is not
contested by the Respondent.
31.
Consequently, taking into account that the contract was terminated on 20 September
2019, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the
Chamber decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is liable to pay the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent the total amount of USD 198,576, corresponding to the
advance payment of USD 146,960, the salary of August 2019 for an amount of USD
29,170 and part of the salary of September 2019 in the amount of USD 19,446.
32.
In addition, taking into account the player’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Chamber decided that the club
must pay to the player interest of 5% p.a. on USD 176,130 as of 4 September 2019, i.e.
the date of the default notice, and interest of 5% p.a. on USD 19,446 as of the due
date, i.e. 1 October 2019, until the date of effective payment.
33.
In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount
of compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members
of 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.
34.
In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to
clarify as to whether the pertinent 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 the contract did not contained such a provision.
Player Abdelkarder Oueslati, France / Club Al Fateh, Saudi Arabia / Club Africain, Tunisia
10/14
35.
As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by Respondent/Counter-Claimant to the Claimant/CounterRespondent 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.
36.
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 until 14 July 2020, taking into account that the player’s remuneration
up to 20 September 2019 is included in the calculation of the outstanding
remuneration (cf. point II. 32 above). Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the
amount of 422,254 (i.e. second installment of the advance payment, and part of the
salary of September 2019 and salaries of October 2019 to June 2020) serve as basis for
the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
37.
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 able to reduce his loss of income. According to the
constant practice of the DRC, 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.
38.
In this context, the Chamber noted that the player had signed on 18 January 2020 an
employment contract with Club Africain, valid as from 20 January 2020 until 30 June
2022, by means of which he was entitled to receive a monthly remuneration of DT
10,000 and a “prime de rendement” of DT 78,000 for the season 2019/2020 and a
monthly remuneration of DT 20,000 and a “prime de rendement” of DT 78,000 for the
season 2020/2021. The DRC noted the argumentation of the Claimant/CounterRespondent according to whom the “prime de rendement” should not be taken into
account, but was of the opinion that those amounts were not bonuses since the
conditions provided in the contract regarding the payment of those were not specific
enough in the sense that the contract does not provide a definitive scale of payment
or that said scale was not provided alongside the contract, and therefore the DRC
considered that it was a definitive payment to be included in the remuneration of the
player. The DRC consequently noted that for the overlapping period, the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent had been able to mitigate his damages in the amount
of USD 45,440.
39.
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 USD 376,814 as mitigated compensation to the player.
Player Abdelkarder Oueslati, France / Club Al Fateh, Saudi Arabia / Club Africain, Tunisia
11/14
40.
Moreover, taking into account art. 17 par.1 (ii), the DRC recalled that it had found the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent had unilaterally terminated the contract due to
overdue payables and took note that the player had been able to mitigate his
damages. Consequently, the Chamber decided that on top of the mitigated
compensation, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had to pay to the Claimant/CounterRespondent an additional compensation in the amount of USD 87,510 corresponding
to the equivalent of 3 monthly salaries of the player. However, this amount added to
the mitigated compensation being superior to the residual value of the contract, the
DRC was eager to remind the parties that in account of art. 17 par.1 (ii), the overall
compensation may never exceed the rest value of the prematurely terminated
contract.
41.
Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent/CounterClaimant must pay the amount of USD 422,254 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
which was considered reasonable and proportionate as compensation for breach of
contract in the case at hand.
42.
In addition, taking into account the player’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Chamber decided that the club
must pay to the player interest of 5% p.a. on the total amount of compensation, i.e.
USD 422,254 as of 14 October 2019 until the date of effective payment.
43.
Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./3. above, the DRC
judge referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis 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.
44.
In this regard, the DRC pointed out 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
and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.
45.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant does not pay the amounts due to the Claimant/CounterRespondent within 45 days as from the moment in which the Claimant/CounterRespondent, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the
relevant bank details to the Respondent/Counter-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 effective on the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the
Regulations.
Player Abdelkarder Oueslati, France / Club Al Fateh, Saudi Arabia / Club Africain, Tunisia
12/14
46.
Finally, 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. 3 of the Regulations.
47.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by
establishing that any further request filed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is
rejected. Equally and considering that the club was, overall, found to be in breach of
contract, the counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is rejected.
III.
Decision of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Abdelkader Oueslati, is partially
accepted.
2. The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Al Fateh, is rejected.
3. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent,
outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 198,576 plus 5% interest p.a. until the
date of effective payment as follows:
a. 5% interest as from 4 September 2019 on USD 149,960;
b. 5% interest as from 4 September 2019 on USD 29,170;
c. 5% interest as from 1 October 2019 on USD 19,446.
4. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent,
compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 422,254 plus 5% interest p.a.
on said amount as from 14 October 2019 until the date of effective payment.
5. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is rejected.
6. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent/CounterClaimant, immediately and directly, preferably to the e-mail address as indicated on the
cover letter of the present decision, of the relevant bank account to which the
Respondent must pay the amounts mentioned under points 3 and 4 above.
7. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant shall provide evidence of payment of the due
amounts in accordance with points 3 and 4 above to FIFA to the e-mail address
[email protected], duly translated, if need be, into one of the official FIFA languages
(English, French, German, Spanish).
8. In the event that the amounts due plus interest in accordance with points 3 and 4 above
are not paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant w ithin 45 day s as from the
notification by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent of the relevant bank details to the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant shall be banned from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due
amounts are paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive
Player Abdelkarder Oueslati, France / Club Al Fateh, Saudi Arabia / Club Africain, Tunisia
13/14
registration periods (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players).
9. The ban mentioned in point 8 above will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete
serving, once the due amounts are paid.
10. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is still not paid by the end of the
ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a
formal decision.
*****
Note related to the publication:
The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the Players’ Status Committee or the
DRC. Where such decisions contain confidential information, 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 20 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the
Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).
Note relating to the appeal procedure:
According to art. 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS
directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the
elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS. Within another 10 days
following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file
a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4
of the directives).
The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:
Court of Arbitration for Sport
Avenue de Beaumont 2
1012 Lausanne, Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00
Fax: +41 21 613 50 01
e-mail: [email protected] / www.tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Player Abdelkarder Oueslati, France / Club Al Fateh, Saudi Arabia / Club Africain, Tunisia
14/14