Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-4890
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 08 March 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Ognjen
Ozegovic
BY:
Alejandro Atilio Taraborelli, Argentina
CLAIMANT:
Ognjen Ozegovic, Serbia
Represented by Coskun Hukuk ve Dansmanhk
RESPONDENT:
Adanaspor, Turkey
Page 2
REF FPSD-4890
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 24 December 2021, the Serbian player, Mr Ognjen Ozegovic (hereinafter: the player or
the Claimant), and the Turkish club, Adanaspor (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent),
concluded a termination agreement in connection to the employment relationship previously
maintained between them (hereinafter: the termination agreement).
2.
In accordance with the termination agreement, the club undertook to pay the player EUR
40,000 net until 5 January 2022.
3.
In addition, the termination agreement also read as follows: “The Player hereby releases the
Club from its all obligations derived from all the contracts including but not limited to the
Professional Football Player Contract with the starting date of 09.09.2020 and its annexes in
full and irrevocably. In sake of clarity, the Player hereby declares and accepts that he will not
have any claims from the Club; as compensation, remuneration or in any other name. The
Club also releases the Player from his obligations arising from the contracts in full and
irrevocably and accepts, declares and undertakes that it will not request the Player to pay any
other amount apart from the compensation for the premature termination of the
employment contract which is being collected by being deducted from the Player’s
receivables”.
4.
On 7 January 2022, the player put the club in default and requested payment of EUR 40,000
within 10 days.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
5.
On 21 January 2022, the player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. In his claim, the player
referred the content of the termination agreement and art. 12bis of the FIFA Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). In doing so, he requested to be awarded EUR 40,000
net plus 5% interest p.a. as from 5 January 2022.
6.
In its reply, the club stressed that the player was not entitled to receive any additional
remuneration in connection with the termination agreement since it was expressly released
from any and all remaining financial obligations. In addition, the club argued that art. 12bis
of the FIFA RSTP should not be applicable to the case at hand.
Page 3
REF FPSD-4890
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
7.
First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (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 21 January 2022 and
submitted for decision on 8 March 2022. 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.
8.
Subsequently, the Single Judge 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 (March 2022 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 Serbian player and a Turkish club.
9.
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 (March 2022 edition), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 21 January 2022, the August 2021 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b. Burden of proof
10. 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 he 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
11. 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 he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which
he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
Page 4
REF FPSD-4890
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
12. The foregoing having been established, the Single Judge moved to the substance of the
matter and took note of the fact that this is a claim for outstanding remuneration in
connection to the termination agreement concluded between the player and the club on 24
December 2021.
13. In this context, the Single Judge outlined that it remained undisputed between the parties
that the amount claimed by the player was not paid by the club. On the other hand, the
Single Judge observed that the club alleged that the player was not entitled to any payment
under the termination agreement because he agreed to release it from any obligation arising
from their employment relationship.
14. In view of this dissent between the parties, the Single Judge went on analysing the wording
of the termination agreement. By doing so, he stressed that the contract must be read as a
whole, taking into consideration the mutual intention of the parties.
15. With the above in mind, the Single Judge was satisfied with the conclusion that the club
expressly undertook to pay the player the total amount of EUR 40,000 net until 5 January
2022. Moreover, the parties established that – apart from the aforementioned debt – there
would be no outstanding remuneration between them for the period of the employment
relationship.
16. To this extent, the Single Judge decided that the club’s argumentation should be set aside.
Likewise, in line with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Single Judge
concluded that the player should be awarded the outstanding remuneration sought.
17. Finally taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Single Judge decided to award the player
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 6 January 2022 until the
date of effective payment.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
18. 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.
19. 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
Page 5
REF FPSD-4890
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
20. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Single Judge 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.
21. 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.
22. 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
23. 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 Single Judge decided that no procedural costs were
to be imposed on the parties.
24. 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.
25. Lastly, the Single Judge rejected any other requests for relief made by any of the parties.
Page 6
REF FPSD-4890
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Ognjen Ozegovic, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Adanaspor, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount:
- EUR 40,000 net as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 January 2022
until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in
the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
5.
Pursuant to art. 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 the ban shall
be of three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not
made by the end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
6. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with article 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
7. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 7
REF FPSD-4890
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 8