Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-4430
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 21 June 2022
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Costel
Fane Pantilimon
COMPOSITION:
DE WEGER, Frans (The Netherlands), Chairperson
DOS SANTOS MEGALE, Andre (Brazil), Member
VAN GAALEN, Johan (South Africa), Member
CLAIMANT / COUNTER-RESPONDENT:
Denizlispor Külübu Dernegi, Turkey
RESPONDENT / COUNTER-CLAIMANT:
Costel Fane Pantilimon, Romania
Represented by Mikail Hasbek
INTERVENING PARTY:
Olympiacos F.C., Greece
Represented by Lucas Ferrer and Luis Torres
Page 2
REF FPSD-4430
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 28 August 2020, the Romanian player, Mr Costel Fane Pantilimon (hereinafter: the
player or the Respondent / Counter-Claimant) and the Greek club, Olympiacos F.C.
(hereinafter: Olympiacos or the intervening party) concluded an employment agreement
valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2022 (hereinafter: the Olympiacos
Agreement).
2.
Under the Olympiacos Agreement, the player would be entitled to a monthly salary of
EUR 750 net, plus a fixed payment of EUR 579,000 net, payable as follows:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
EUR 97,375 net on 15 October 2020;
EUR 97,375 net on 15 January 2021;
EUR 97,375 net on 15 April 2021;
EUR 97,375 net on 15 June 2021;
EUR 47,375 net on 15 October 2021;
EUR 47,375 net on 15 January 2022;
EUR 47,375 net on 15 April 2022; and
EUR 47,375 net on 15 October 2022.
3.
On 29 August 2020, Olympiacos and the player concluded a private agreement by
means of which they established their rights and obligations in the event the player was
subsequently loaned to the Turkish club, Denizlispor Külübu Dernegi (hereinafter:
Denizlispor or the Claimant / Counter-Respondent).
4.
In particular, clauses 1 and 2 of said private agreement read as follows:
“1. The Player irrevocably and without any reservation, declares states and recognizes that
by signing the present Agreement there will be no financial or sporting demand or claim
pending towards Olympiacos as of today, and for the whole duration of the Loan Period,
fully waives all amounts, bonuses and additional benefits as stipulated and agreed under
articles 4.1., 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 of his employment contract with Olympiacos, the Club’s Internal
Regulation and in general any amount in connection with his employment relationship with
Olympiacos as of today and for the Loan Period.
2. The parties hereby agree that in the event that [Denizlispor] exercises the option for the
permanent transfer in accordance with the loan transfer agreement to be signed between
the Player, Denizlispor and Olympiacos, Olympiacos shall pay to the Player as compensation
for the Loan Period the total amount of EUR 200.000 (two hundred thousand euros) within
thirty (30) days from the exercise of the option.”
5.
On 4 September 2020, the player, Olympiacos, and Denizlispor concluded a “Loan &
Conditional Agreement” by means of which the player’s registration was temporarily
Page 3
REF FPSD-4430
transferred from Olympiacos to Denizlispor from the date of signature until 30 June
2021 (hereinafter: the loan agreement).
6.
Pursuant to clause 6 of the loan agreement, the player’s temporary transfer would be
free of any charges.
7.
Additionally, clause 7 of the loan agreement read as follows:
“7. Option for the permanent transfer
Olympiacos and the player hereby grant to [Denizlispor] the exclusive option (‘the Option’)
to acquire the player’s registration on a permanent basis at any time during the Loan Period
without any fee (fixed or conditional) under the following terms and conditions:
a)
In the event the player participates in less than five (5) official matches with
[Denizlispor] team, then [Denizlispor] may exercise the Option by service of a notice in
writing to Olympiacos at any time during the period from the date hereof until 23:59 (CET)
on 31.05.2021.
b)
In the event the payer participates in five (5) official matches with [Denizlispor] team,
the option shall automatically become binding and [Denizlispor] will be under the obligation
to proceed immediately with the permanent transfer of the player within the first transfer
window following the match by which the participation clause is fulfilled.
c)
It is agreed should the option conditions are met accordingly as agreed herein then
this shall place a binding and irrevocable commitment of [Denizlispor] in respect of the
permanent transfer of the player.
d)
In the event the Option is exercised (under any of the conditions set out in Clauses
12 (a) and (b) herein the transfer is agreed as free of any fee, with the exception of Clause
13 herein”.
8.
On 4 September 2020, the player and Denizlispor also concluded an employment
contract valid as from the date of the signature until 31 May 2021 (hereinafter: the
employment contract).
9.
In accordance with clause 3 of the employment contract, Denizlispor undertook to pay
the player the following amounts for the 2020/2021 football season:
a. EUR 550,000 net as salary, payable as follows:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
EUR 90,000 net on the signing date;
EUR 60,000 net on 30 September 2020;
EUR 50,000 net on 30 October 2020;
Page 4
REF FPSD-4430
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
EUR 50,000 net on 30 November 2020;
EUR 50,000 net on 31 December 2020;
EUR 50,000 net on 31 January 2021;
EUR 50,000 net on 28 February 2021;
EUR 50,000 net on 31 March 2021;
EUR 50,000 net on 30 April 2021; and
EUR 50,000 net on 31 May 2021.
b. Other benefits, described as follows:
“A) If the team is ranked among the first 1-3 teams at the end of the season, the player
shall be entitled to get 100,000 EURO.
B) If the team is ranked among the first 4-6 teams at the end of the season, the player
shall be entitled to get 50,000 EURO.
C) A clean sheet bonus will be 1,500 EURO per game.
D) The club will, at the player’s request, provide to the player, at the club’s own costs, 4
(four) return business tickets in Europe.
E) The club will provide to the player suitable accommodation up to 1.500 Euros per
month (excluding electricity / gas / water / other expenses) basic furnished. All utility
expenses will be paid by the Player.
F) The club will provide to the player a car (excluding fuel / traffic penalty / defective
traffic accident by player / other expenses). All utility expenses will be paid by the Player.
G) If the club decides to pay a collective bonus / premium for the whole A team, the
Player is also entitled to receive these bonuses / premiums, without prejudice to the
amounts due to the Player according to articles set forth herein”.
10.
In addition, clause 3 of the employment contract also established the following: “If the
player plays 5 games in the 2020-2021 season either by starting eleven or substituted in later,
the contract will extend with obligation for 2021-2022 season on the terms below. If the
player does not play 5 games in the 2020-2021 season, the contract will end automatically
on 31.05.2021. The player can not want any salary, other benefits, etc. in the 2021-2022
season”.
11.
In the event that the player reached the abovementioned goal, Denizlispor undertook
to pay him the following amounts for the 2021/2022 football season:
a. EUR 550,000 net as salary, payable as follows:
Page 5
REF FPSD-4430
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
EUR 90,000 net on 31 August 2021;
EUR 60,000 net on 30 September 2021;
EUR 50,000 net on 30 October 2021;
EUR 50,000 net on 30 November 2021;
EUR 50,000 net on 31 December 2021;
EUR 50,000 net on 31 January 2022;
EUR 50,000 net on 28 February 2022;
EUR 50,000 net on 31 March 2022;
EUR 50,000 net on 30 April 2022; and
EUR 50,000 net on 31 May 2022.
b. Other benefits, described as follows:
“A) If the team is ranked among the first 1-3 teams at the end of the season, the player
shall be entitled to get 100,000 EURO.
B) If the team is ranked among the first 4-6 teams at the end of the season, the player
shall be entitled to get 50,000 EURO.
C) A clean sheet bonus will be 1,500 EURO per game.
D) The club will, at the player’s request, provide to the player, at the club’s own costs, 4
(four) return business tickets in Europe.
E) The club will provide to the player suitable accommodation up to 1.500 Euros per
month (excluding electricity / gas / water / other expenses) basic furnished. All utility
expenses will be paid by the Player.
F) The club will provide to the player a car (excluding fuel / traffic penalty / defective
traffic accident by player / other expenses). All utility expenses will be paid by the Player.
G) If the club decides to pay a collective bonus / premium for the whole A team, the
Player is also entitled to receive these bonuses / premiums, without prejudice to the
amounts due to the Player according to articles set forth herein”.
12.
Clause 3, lit. r), p) and bb) of the employment contract stipulated the following:
“r) Any advance payments already made for the related season shall be returned to the club
pro-rata basis, if the Contract is terminated unjustly by the player or just cause by the club.
In other words, advance payments are made with the condition that the player shall serve
in the club for the whole year and advance payment shall be returned by calculating the
accrued amount from the leaving date until the end of the season if the player leaves the
club without a just cause.
Page 6
REF FPSD-4430
[…]
p) the player may or may not be included in the A team list at the coach’s discretion. In case
the player is not included in the A team list, the player hereby accepts that the decision is
unavoidable.
[…]
bb) Any premium payments to be made to the player are exclusive are exclusive for Super
League competitions of A Team of the club as determined with the relevant provision and
no premium shall be paid for Turkish Cup, Super Cup and special games with UEFA,
preparation matches, A2 team matches and other competitions.
When the player is present in competition squad as starting 11 or substituted later and the
player receives double yellow card or direct red card due to its fault, the player shall be
entitled 50% of the premium amount provided that the player plays for 45 minutes. If the
player stays in the pitch less than 45 minutes, the player agrees, declares and undertakes
that no premium amount shall be made”.
13.
Finally, clause 6 of the employment contract read as follows:
“6. DEFAULT OF PAYMENT
In case the club fails into a default for any payment for more than sixty (60) days, the player
shall notify the club in writing and provide 15 days to the club for payment, if the club does
not pay the unpaid amount then the player has the option to terminate the contract
unilaterally. In this case the player shall be entitled to take legal actions before FIFA
competent bodies in order his remuneration / compensation etc.”
14.
On 7 September 2020, Olympiacos entered a transfer instruction in the Transfer
Matching System (TMS) to release the player on loan to Denizlispor until 30 June 2021.
The International Transfer Certificate (ITC) was issued on 11 September 2021, following
the confirmation from Denizlispor and the Turkish Football Federation (TFF).
15.
On 26 October 2020, the player participated in his fifth official match in the 2020-2021
football season.
16.
On 8 January 2021, the player sent Denizlispor a notarized notice by means of which he
acknowledged having played in 11 matches during the 2020/2021 football season,
therefore certifying that the employment contract was extended for one extra season
in accordance with its article 3. A copy of said correspondence was also forwarded to
the TFF.
Page 7
REF FPSD-4430
17.
In spite of the above, no transfer instruction was entered into the TMS neither by
Olympiacos nor by Denizlispor in order for the player to be registered on a permanent
basis with the latter.
18.
On 1 February 2021, the player put Denizlispor in default via notarized notice for the
payment of EUR 100,000, corresponding to his salaries of December 2020 and January
2021. He granted the club a 30 days’ deadline in order to remedy the breach, under
penalty of termination of the employment contract.
19.
Subsequently, on 4 March 2021, Denizlispor (a) paid EUR 100,000 to the player; and (b)
sent the player a letter with, inter alia, the following content:
“Due to your lack of concentration, low training and match performance, in line with the
opinion of our Board of Directors, it has been decided that you will continue to work with
the U-19 team within our club and individually for a temporary period within the date range
that will be given to you, until the specified deficiencies are eliminated.
Your training program will be sent by the club to your e-mail address written in your contract
and via WhatsApp”.
20.
On 9 March 2021, the player sent Denizlispor another notarized notice referring to his
previous correspondences and claiming that he was being punished due to his
complaints. In doing so, the player requested to participate “in teamwork within 3 (three)
days at the same time”, as well as payment of EUR 50,000 as outstanding salary for
February 2021 plus EUR 3,000 plus TRY 45,000 as outstanding bonuses within 15 days.
21.
On 29 March 2021, the player notified Denizlispor the termination of the employment
contract due to overdue payables (i.e. EUR 50,000 as outstanding salary, plus EUR 3,000
and TRY 45,000 as outstanding bonuses). A copy of the termination notice was sent to
the TFF.
22.
On 29 June 2021, Olympiacos entered a transfer instruction in TMS to engage the player
back from his loan to Denizlispor. In this opportunity, Olympiacos filed inter alia a copy
of the loan agreement and the Olympiacos Agreement dated 28 August 2020.
23.
On 1 July 2021, the Hellenic Football Federation (HFF) requested the ITC from the TFF.
24.
On 9 July 2021 and following the TFF’s failure to respond to the ITC request within 7
days, the player was provisionally registered with Olympiacos as per article 8.2,
paragraph 6 of the Annexe 3 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (RSTP).
Page 8
REF FPSD-4430
II. Proceedings before FIFA
25.
On 30 November 2021, Denizlispor filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary
of the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Claim of Denizlispor
26.
In its claim, Denizlispor argued that the player terminated the employment contract on
29 March 2021 without just cause. In this respect, Denizlispor pointed out that, at the
time of the termination, only one salary and the bonus of EUR 3,000 were outstanding.
Moreover, it claimed that the bonus of TRY 45,000 mentioned by the player “is not
written in the contract and never accepted or promised by the club” – but even if taken into
consideration, would not change the fact that less than 2 monthly salaries were
outstanding.
27.
Consequently, Denizlispor held that the player should be liable to pay compensation for
breach of contract of EUR 700,000, corresponding to the residual value of the
employment contract (i.e. EUR 150,000 for the 2020-2021 football season and EUR
550,000 for the 2021/2022 football season).
28.
Taking into consideration that the termination took place during the protected period,
Denizlispor also requested sporting sanctions to be imposed on the player in line with
article 17, paragraph 3 of the FIFA RSTP.
b. Reply and counterclaim of the player
29.
On 10 January 2022, the player filed his reply to Denizlispor’s claim together with a
counterclaim against it.
30.
According to the player, he was firstly transferred from Olympiacos to Denizlispor on a
temporary basis, subsequently converted to a permanent transfer in accordance with
clause 7 of the loan agreement. In this context, the player maintained that the club
repetitively breached the employment contract, as follows:
a. Denizlispor failed to timely pay his salaries of December 2020 and January 2021,
amounting to EUR 100,000. Consequently, he served Denizlispor with a notice
requesting the outstanding amount and the relevant interest. Nevertheless,
Denizlispor did only pay the total of EUR 100,000 on 4 March 2021, entailing that
EUR 670 remained outstanding corresponding to the interest between the due
dates and the date of effective payment;
b. following the delivery of his notice of 1 February 2021, Denizlispor “shelved” him
from the A team to the U-19 team, for subjective reasons and as a punishment for
his complaint. Such behaviour, in the player’s opinion, is “clearly against the goodwill
Page 9
REF FPSD-4430
and football’s spirit. It is unacceptable for a football player who is very successful to be
punished only for demanding the receivables he deserved and to be out of shape by not
going to training with his teammates”;
c. as described in his notice of 9 March 2021, Denizlispor failed to pay him: (i) his salary
of February 2021; (ii) EUR 3,000 as clean sheet bonuses; and (iii) payment of team
winning bonuses for two matches in a total amount of TRY 45,000.
31.
Specifically, regarding the bonus of TRY 45,000, the player clarified that despite not
being mentioned in the employment contract, the amounts were promised by
Denizlispor as a match wining bonus on 31 January 2021 (TRY 27,500) and 20 February
2021 (TRY 27,500).
32.
In light of the above, the player argued that he terminated the employment contract on
29 March 2021 with just cause and said termination “has been finalized on 1 April 2021
by the TFF”.
33.
Therefore, the player claimed that the official date of the termination should be 1 April
2021, when the following amounts were outstanding, in quoted verbatim:
“- Remaining Balance from December 2020 and February 2021 Salaries: 670 EUR
- 28.02.2021 Salary Instalment: EUR 50,000 EUR (February 2021 Salary)
- 31.03.2021 Salary Instalment: EUR 50,000 EUR (March 2021 Salary)
- Clean Sheet Bonuses: EUR 3,000 EUR (2 Matches)
- Team Wining Bonus: 45,000 TL (2 Matches)
IN TOTAL: EUR 103,670 + 45,000 TL”
34.
Moreover, the player is of the opinion that Denizlispor “seems to have lodged a claim
against the player just to show their debts as a legal dispute in FIFA. With this method, clubs
often delay paying their debts and avoid from TFF’s Financial Fair Play Rules and they can
take ‘Club License’ from TFF […] this case filed by the club without any argument or evidence
at the end of the year (nearly 31 December) is also the use of this classical method and this
is clearly an abuse of rights”.
35.
In view of the foregoing, the player referred to clause 6 of the employment contract
together with art. 14bis of the FIFA RSTP and the principle of pacta sunt servanda. He
requested to be awarded outstanding remuneration broken down as follows:
“Overdue payable salaries are:
- 31.12.2020 EUR 438 (Remaining Balance from December 2020 Salary)
- 31.01.2021 EUR 232 (Remaining Balance from January 2021 Salary)
- 28.02.2021 EUR 50,000 (Overdue February 2021 Salary)
Page 10
REF FPSD-4430
- 31.03.2021 EUR 50,000 (Overdue March 2021 Salary)
Overdue payable other benefits are:
- 19.09.2020
- 04.10.2020
- 31.01.2021
- 20.02.2021
EUR 1,500 (Clean Sheet Bonus)
EUR 1,500 (Clean Sheet Bonus)
TL 20,000 (Match Winning Team Bonus)
TL 25,000 (Match Winning Team Bonus)
Contractual remaining salaries for the year 2021 are:
- 30.04.2021 EUR 50,000
- 31.05.2021 EUR 50,000
Remaining contractual other benefits are;
- As a result of other benefits are the part of the Player’s salary, accommodation cost of
monthly EUR 1,500 (EUR 3,000 for two months) shall pay the player as a compensation (April
2021, May 2021)
= 2 x EUR 1,500
EUR 3,000
- According to Other Benefits titled Article of the Contract ‘The club will at the player’s
request, provide to the player, at the club’s own costs, 4 (four) return business flight
tickets in Europe’. In this regard, club should have provided 4 return business flight tickets
in Europe if the Contract wasn’t terminated. Therefore, the club must pay the cost the cost
of these tickets as compensation. According to Turkish Airlines’ website, the price of a
business return ticket from Istanbul to Madrid (Europe) is EUR 2,750 […] However, the club
should have bought 4 business return tickets according to the Contract. As a result, EUR
11,000 shall pay the player as a compensation.
= 4 x EUR 2,750
36.
EUR 11,000.”
Furthermore, the player requested compensation for breach of contract in line with art.
17 of the FIFA RSTP, broken down as follows:
Overdue Salaries of the Season 20/21
Overdue Other Benefits of the Season 20/21
Remaining contractual salaries of the Season 20/21
Remaining contractual other benefits of the Season 20/21
Remaining contractual salaries of the Season 21/22
Remaining contractual other benefits of the Season 21/22
Additional compensation (3 months salaries)
EUR 100,670
EUR 3,000 + TRY 45,000
EUR 100,000
EUR 14,000
EUR 550,000
EUR 26,000
EUR 150,000
Page 11
REF FPSD-4430
TOTAL COMPENSATION AND PAYABLES
37.
EUR 943,670 + TRY 45,000
Likewise, he claimed to be entitled to 5% interest p.a. on the outstanding amounts, as
well as EUR 25,000 “as for the legal fees”.
c. Reply to the counterclaim of Denizlispor
38.
On 18 February 2022, Denizlispor submitted its reply to the player’s counterclaim and
reiterated its argumentation as to the absence of just cause for the termination.
39.
In this regard, Denizlispor initially recalled the content of article 14bis of the FIFA RSTP
and the jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on the matter.
Accordingly and in the club’s view, the player’s monthly salary should be calculated on
a pro rata basis, hence amounted to EUR 61,000. Consequently, for the threshold
described in article 14bis of the FIFA RSTP to be met, at least EUR 122,000 should have
been overdue.
40.
Having established the above, Denizlispor moved to the analysis of the notice dated 29
March 2021 and pointed out that the player based the termination exclusively on the
non-payment of his salary of February 2021 (EUR 50,000), clean-sheet bonuses (EUR
3,000), and match bonuses (TRY 45,000).
41.
In doing so, Denizlispor made, inter alia, the following remarks:
a. “bonus payments which are condition due to their nature cannot be taken into
account in the calculation of two monthly salaries”;
b. “in any case, even if such bonuses are taken into consideration, the sum (EUR 50,000
February salary + EUR 3,000 clean sheet bonuses) on which [the player] relied in the
Termination Notice is still well below the amount determined for the two monthly
salary payments calculated in line with the CAS jurisprudence as EUR 122,000”; and
c. as to the bonuses of TRY 45,000 (TRY 25,000 on 31 January 2021 and TRY 20,000
on 20 February 2021), the club firstly clarified that they would amount to
respectively EUR 2,840 and EUR 2,380 taking into consideration the official
exchange currency for the due dates. Subsequently, it held that the player “did
not adduce any evidence that such bonuses had been undertaken by [the club] or
actually entitled by himself”. Moreover, he referred to art. 3, lit. bb) of the
employment contract and mentioned that, as the player was not fielded, his claim is
“devoid of legal or contractual basis”.
42.
In continuation, Denizlispor outlined that the player added new amounts to his
statement of defence – which had not been mentioned in any of the previous default
Page 12
REF FPSD-4430
notices – namely the interest of EUR 670 and the salary of March 2021 (EUR 50,000). To
this extent, Denizlispor argued, inter alia, that:
a. neither of the amounts were previously mentioned, hence could not be
considered in line with the jurisprudence of the Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT) and
CAS; and
b. the salary for March 2021 would only fall due on 31 March 2021 i.e. after the
termination of the employment contract on 28 March 2021. The player “in an
attempt to rationalise his argument, assumed 01.04.2021 as the termination date”
but “he did not adduce any official evidence as regards the existed of such act of TFF”,
which moreover would be an “administrative process” only.
43.
In parallel, Denizlispor mentioned that it had already paid the player TRY 69,910 in
bonuses for the duration of the employment contract. Thus, Denizlispor claims that it
has always acted in good faith towards the player, whereas he “turned out to be more
than eager to terminate the employment contract, at every (possible) opportunity”.
Likewise, the player’s termination could not be considered as an ultima ratio. He did not
discharge his burden of proof to demonstrate otherwise.
44.
Denizlispor then moved to the player’s allegations as to his participation in trainings
with the U-19 team. In this regard, Denizlispor clarified that the measure was only
implemented for 7 days, since the player was immediately reinstated to the main team
after his notice of 9 March 2021. Proof of this, in accordance with the club, is the fact
that the player did not mention this allegation in his termination notice. Additionally,
Denizlispor also referred to clause 3, lit. p) of the employment contract and argued that
it had never violated its contractual duties.
45.
Subsequently, Denizlispor also challenged the player’s allegations as to its intention to
deviate from the TFF regulations. In this regard, the club concluded that the player
position is “nothing but a futile attempt to justify the termination”, since it was merely
pursuing its legal rights before the Football Tribunal.
46.
Lastly, Denizlispor went on analysing the player’s players for relief:
a. Outstanding remuneration: the club reiterated its argumentation as to the
bonuses, legal interest and the salary of May 2021 and stressed that the player
“is merely entitled to request the payment of the salary for February-2021 and clean
sheet bonuses (the sum of which falls far below the threshold set in Art. 14bis)”. As
to the flight tickets, the club stated that they were conditional to the player’s
request, which was never made – hence should be rejected. Likewise, it
mentioned that all the amounts attributable to accommodation allowance had
already been paid until the date of the termination;
Page 13
REF FPSD-4430
b. Compensation: the club alleged that the player failed to mitigate his damages
and did not seek employment with another employer. Therefore, considering
the lack of mitigation, the club requested the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC)
to “set aside [the club’s] requests with regard to ‘contractual remaining salaries’”;
c. Additional compensation: as the player did not mitigate his damages, the club
argued that no additional compensation should be granted.
47.
In light of the above, Denizlispor reiterated his requests for relief. In addition, the club
amended its claim and pointed out that the player should also return the advance
payment of EUR 20,000 with 5% interest p.a. as from the termination, in line with article
3, lit. r) of the employment contract.
d. Additional comments of the player
48.
Taking into consideration, Denizlispor’s amendment to the claim, the player was invited
to provide additional comments on the matter.
49.
On 14 March 2022, the player challenged the club’s additional request to be awarded
extra EUR 20,000 corresponding to the advance payment set out in article 3, lit. r) of the
employment contract. Accordingly, he argued inter alia that:
a. such request for a new compensation “constitutes an infringement of the
Respondent’s right to be heard” and should be ruled inadmissible;
b. the “advance payment” referred by the club was indeed a first instalment of the
player’s annual salary, therefore it could not be returned under penalty of being
illegal; and
c. due to the fact that the player terminated the employment contract with just
cause, the club has no right to request the return of the advance payment nor
compensation for breach of contract.
50.
Subsequently, the player reiterated his argumentation as to the just cause for the
termination and requested Denizlispor’s claim to be entirely rejected.
e. Position of Olympiacos
51.
On 28 April 2022 and due to the possibility of being deemed jointly liable for the
payment of the compensation in accordance with article 17, paragraph 4 of the FIFA
RSTP, Olympiacos was invited by the FIFA general secretariat to submit its position to
the file, in line with article 9 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football
Tribunal.
Page 14
REF FPSD-4430
52.
On 27 May 2022, Olympiacos filed its petition and challenged its standing to be sued in
the case at hand. In accordance with the club, “on 29 June 2021, following Denilzspor’s
failure to convert the loan into permanent transfer in the TMS during the winter transfer
window, the player returned from his loan to Olympiacos […] since the player was not in
Olympiacos’ sporting plans, both the parties agree to early terminate the Professional
Player’s Contract. Finally, as from the date Olympiacos and the Player agreed on the
termination of his Professional Player’s Contract, the player has not been registered again in
any team, being currently unemployed”.
53.
Taking the above into consideration, Olympiacos pointed out that the player’s
registration “should have remained with Denizlispor -at least – until the end of the 202/1/22
season” however the latter breached the loan agreement by failing to execute the
permanent transfer as stipulated in clause 7. In this respect, Olympiacos referred, inter
alia, to the legal doctrine of “ex turpi causa non oritur actio” according to which “a party
cannot pursue any legal relief and/or damages if they arise in connection with their own
previous breach of an obligation”.
54.
Consequently, Olympiacos concluded inter alia that:
a. “the player should have never returned to Olympiacos since the condition to convert
his loan into a permanent transfer was unmistakably fulfilled”;
b. Denizlispor agrees with the abovementioned understanding because it has
never called Olympiacos as a respondent; and
c.
it “cannot be held responsible for the infringements committed by Denizlispor”,
likewise that it shall not be considered as a party in these proceedings.
55.
Notwithstanding the above, Olympiacos further argued that it shall not be considered
as a “new club” for the purposes of article 17, paragraph 4 of the FIFA RSTP due to the
specific circumstances of the case. In particular, Olympiacos pointed out that “there is
simply no room to allege that [it] would be obtaining any benefit or unjust enrichment”. On
the contrary, Olympiacos held that it acted diligently and in good faith using the TMS.
Moreover, “once the player returned to Olympiacos, he was immediately released.
Olympiacos found itself with a player who was not in their sporting plans, as such the player
should have been part of Denizlispor’s discipline in a permanent basis since the 2021 winter
transfer window in accordance with the contractual arrangements agreed between all
parties, and instead was forced to – immediately – find an amicable agreement with the
Player to terminate his employment contract dated 28 August 2020”.
56.
Finally, and once again based on the factual framework of the case, Olympiacos stressed
that it could not be found to have induced the player to terminate the employment
contract and therefore no sporting sanctions should be imposed.
Page 15
REF FPSD-4430
57.
Olympiacos’ requests for relief were as follows:
“a. Remove Olympiacos as a party in these proceedings.
b. Subsidiarily,
i. Conclude that Olympiacos shall not be considered jointly and severally liable of any
potential compensation due to Denizlispor under article 17.2 RSTP; and/or
ii. Conclude that Olympiacos did not induce the Player’s termination of the Employment
Contract and therefore, no sanctions are warranted under article 17.4 RSTP.
c. Dismiss all other prayers for relief.”
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 30 November 2021 and
submitted for decision on 21 June 2022. Taking into account the wording of article 34 of
the June 2022 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 article 2, paragraph 1 of the
Procedural Rules and observed that in accordance with article 23, paragraph 1 in
combination with article 22, paragraph 1, lit. b) of the FIFA RSTP (June 2022 edition), the
DRC is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a Romanian player and a
Turkish club, with the intervention of a Greek club.
60.
At this point, the DRC observed that the player challenged the admissibility of
Denizlispor’s amendment to its claim on 18 February 2022.
61.
Nevertheless, the Chamber considered that such amendment was made in the club’s
response to the counterclaim, therefore while the submission-phase of the proceeding
was ongoing (cf. article 23 of the Procedural Rules). Equally, the player was awarded the
opportunity to present his position to the amended claim.
62.
Therefore, the DRC decided that the amendment is admissible, and thus its contents
should be examined.
Page 16
REF FPSD-4430
63.
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 Players (June 2022 edition)
and considering that the present claim was lodged on 30 November 2021, 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
64.
The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis
of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber
stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may
consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence
generated by or within the TMS.
c. Merits of the dispute
65.
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
66.
The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the
matter, and took note that while the player terminated his employment contract with
Denizlispor on 29 March 2021, the parties strongly dispute whether he had just cause
to do so, and the consequences that follow. Equally, the DRC noted Olympiacos’
objection to its standing in the matter at hand.
67.
In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine the following:
a. Does Olympiacos have standing to be sued in the case at hand?
b. Did the player have just cause to terminate the employment contract?
c. What are the consequences that follow?
68.
The members of the DRC proceeded then to the analysis of each matter.
Page 17
REF FPSD-4430
a. Does Olympiacos have standing to be sued in the case at hand?
69.
First and foremost, the DRC observed that Olympiacos challenged its standing to be
sued in the case at hand on the basis that (i) Denizlispor was the one to breach the loan
agreement by not registering the player on a definitive basis; and (ii) it was forced to
engage the player back from loan and subsequently terminate the contractual
relationship; therefore (iii) it cannot be considered as the new club of the player for the
purposes of the Regulations, nor to have induced the termination of the employment
contract.
70.
Against this background, the DRC deemed it essential to preliminarily remark, on
general level, that standing to be sued is attributed to a party in which it can be validly
placed the legal consequences deriving from the rights brought forward with a claim on
the basis of a legally protectable and tangible interest at stake in the matter concerned.
According to the CAS jurisprudence – to which the Chamber adheres – the notion of
“standing to sue” is generally used to designate the holder of the claim, i.e. the person
entitled by an underlying substantive right to challenge a decision. Similarly, an
individual or entity has “standing to be sued” if it is personally obliged by the “disputed
rights” at stake, i.e. the party against whom the claimant must direct its claim in order to
be successful (cf. CAS 2013/A/3140, para. 8.12 and CAS 2015/A/3999 & 4000, para. 73).
In this respect, the DRC pointed out that cases CAS 2006/A/1189; CAS 2006/A/1192, CAS
2013/A/3301, CAS 2008/A/1518, 2007/A/1329-1330, CAS 2007/A/1206, all confirmed
that “(…) the defending party has standing to be sued (legitimation passive) only if it is
personally obliged by the ‘disputed right’ at stake”.
71.
Equally, the DRC highlighted that its solid jurisprudence establishes that the joint and
several liability of the professional player and their new club is automatic as it derives
from article 17, paragraph 2 of the Regulations as also confirmed by the CAS (see, inter
alia, CAS 2019/A/4977, CAS 2018/A/5693 & 5694 and CAS 2016/A/4843) and the SFT (see
SFT 4A_32/2016). That is to say that whenever the player signs a new employment
contract or resume an existing one, a presumption is created that the new club must be
involved in a matter (whether ex officio or upon request). What is more, in accordance
with article 9, paragraph 4 of the Procedural Rules, “the FIFA general secretariat may, at
any stage of a procedure, request the intervention of any natural or legal person as a party
in a procedure”.
72.
The DRC wishes to bring in mind, as also follows from the Commentary on the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players – Edition 2021 (hereinafter: the
Commentary), pp. 171, that article 17 paragraph 2 is “aimed at avoiding any debate or
evidentiary difficulties regarding any potential involvement of the new club in the breach of
contract. It makes clear that the new club will be held liable, together with the player, to pay
the compensation due to the player’s former club, regardless of whether the club provided
any inducement to the player to breach their contract, and without considering its good or
Page 18
REF FPSD-4430
bad faith”. In this regard, the DRC also wishes to note that the joint and several liability
also applies to loans, which is also the case here, and that a parent club may be
considered a “new club” (see, inter alia, CAS 2016/A/4408).
73.
Against the above legal background, the Chamber turned its attention to the
documentation on file and took due consideration of the following:
a. on 28 August 2020, the player initiated an employment relationship with
Olympiacos and on 4 September 2020, his federative rights were temporarily
transferred to Denizlispor until 31 May 2021. What is more, the parties agreed
upon an automatic conversion of the loan into a permanent agreement in case
the player reached a specific performance goal (cf. clause 7 of the loan
agreement);
b. on 26 October 2020, the player undisputedly reached the goal set out in the loan
agreement. The player continued rendering services to Denizlispor (suggesting
that the employment contract was extended), however no transfer instruction
was included in the TMS;
c. on 29 March 2021, the player terminated the employment contract with
Denizlispor; and
d. on 29 June 2021, Olympiacos started a new transfer instruction in the TMS to
engage the player back from Denizlispor (based both on the loan agreement and
the employment contract previously concluded between the player and
Olympiacos on 28 August 2020). The registration of the player with Olympiacos
was confirmed in the TMS on 9 July 2022.
74.
Against this background, the DRC acknowledged that the player undoubtedly returned
to Olympiacos following the termination of the employment contract with Denizlispor.
In particular, the Chamber was mindful that Olympiacos itself confirmed such
occurrence, which was also corroborated by both the HFF and the TFF. What is more,
the DRC found it pivotal that Olympiacos as the parent club: (i) took proactive steps to
engage the player back from loan – in spite of not being necessary to do so, in that the
conditions set forth in the loan agreement and employment contract had been
(undisputedly) triggered; and (ii) confirmed that the employment contract signed with
the player was resumed and subsequently terminated (allegedly by mutual consent).
75.
Put simply, the parties do not dispute that the employment contract was automatically
extended once the player played in 5 matches, with the player’s transfer also
automatically converted from loan to permanent. As a consequence, it is clear and
unequivocal – in the DRC’s view – that Olympiacos is the new club of the player within
the scope of article 17.2 of the Regulations. As such, the arrangements between the
parties, as well as whether the player continued rendering services to Olympiacos or
Page 19
REF FPSD-4430
not, are irrelevant to this dispute. Equally, potential breach of the loan agreement by
Denizlispor also pertains to a different matter (i.e. club v. club contractual dispute).
76.
In light of the foregoing, the members of the DRC unanimously decided that Olympiacos
shall be considered as a party to the case at stake. Whether it is liable to any
consequence arising from the termination of the employment contract (vis-à-vis the
factual framework of the case) is a different matter and shall be analysed as to the
substance of the matter.
77.
Lastly and for the sake of completeness, the DRC also wished to clarify that the fact that
Denizlispor did not specifically address any claim against Olympiacos does not object
its standing to be sued in this case nor turns a potential conviction in a violation of the
legal principle of ne ultra petita insofar as its standing to be sued derives from the
Regulations and the Procedural Rules.
b. Did the player have just cause to terminate the employment contract?
78.
Having established the above, the DRC moved to the issue of the termination. In doing
so, the Chamber initially recalled its well-established jurisprudence according to which
only a breach or misconduct that is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a
contract. In other words, only when there are objective criteria that do not reasonably
permit the expectation that the employment relationship between the parties can
continue, a contract may be terminated prematurely (ultima ratio measure).
79.
On this note, the Chamber observed that the player (in his reply and counterclaim)
based the termination of the employment contract on the allegations that Denizlispor:
(i) “shelved” him from the A team to the U-19 team, for subjective reasons and as a
punishment for his complaint for the outstanding remuneration; and (ii) failed to pay
him a significant part of his remuneration. On the other hand, the DRC was also
observant of Denizlispor’s allegations according to which: (i) the player was
subsequently reinstated to its first team, so that it could not be considered to have
breached the contract; and (ii) the amount owed to the player was lower than two
monthly salaries.
80.
In view of this dissent between the parties, the Chamber initially turned to the player’s
argumentation as to his relegation to the U-19 team. In this respect, the members of
the DRC wished to outline that the following facts remained undisputed between the
parties:
a. on 4 March 2021, Denizlispor issued a letter informing the player that he should
train with the U-19 team;
b. on 9 March 2021, the player put Denizlispor in default and inter alia requested to
be reinstated with the first team; and
Page 20
REF FPSD-4430
c. no further messages were exchanged between the parties to this end; and
d. on 29 March 2021, the player terminated the employment contract based
exclusively on overdue payables.
81.
Based on the foregoing, the Chamber was convinced that even if Denizlispor’s
behaviour could be considered a breach of the employment contract, it was promptly
remedied after the player’s warning notice of 9 March 2021, and within a reasonable
time limit. This is especially confirmed since the player never made any reference
thereto after his notice on 9 March 2021. In fact, as also no reference thereto was made
in the termination notice of 29 March 2021, the DRC decided that such conduct by
Denislispor could not be considered as a valid reason for the termination of the
employment contract. Therefore, the player’s argumentation in this regard should be
set aside.
82.
Thereafter, the DRC acknowledged that the core issue of the case at stake befalls on the
analysis of the overdue payables at the time of the termination (i.e. 29 March 2021), and
the player’s connected notices in this regard.
83.
Accordingly, the Chamber recalled its jurisprudence, as detailed by the Commentary,
pp. 123, which establishes the following:
“Article 14bis refers to unpaid and outstanding salaries. However, this certainly does not
imply that delayed payment of other forms of (frequent, non-conditional) remuneration
cannot constitute a just cause for a player to terminate their contract prematurely. A player
invoking other outstanding remuneration as just cause to terminate their contract may still
have a strong case. The pertinent circumstances will have to be assessed against the general
definition of what constitutes a just cause in accordance with the terms of article 14, along
with the relevant general criteria set out in jurisprudence and described above. Particular
attention should be paid factors such as whether the outstanding amount is significant (i.e.
that it is neither negligible nor totally subordinated), the extent of the delay, the general
attitude of the parties in the specific case, and other relevant factors”.
84.
With the above in mind, the DRC once again turned to the documentation brought
forward by the parties, this time aiming to establishing all the amounts that were
outstanding at the time of the termination (i.e. 29 March 2021). In doing so, the Chamber
determined that:
•
Firstly, it remained undisputed that the player’s salaries of December 2020
and January 2021 were paid late by the club (although incorrect reference
was made by the player to the “February” salary instead of the “January”
salary, as also cited under point 33 of this decision), entailing that he shall be
entitled to the default interest of 5% between the due date and the date of
Page 21
REF FPSD-4430
effective payment. As such, the DRC concurred with the player’s position
according to which the balance of EUR 670 is due and shall be considered for
the calculation;
85.
•
Secondly, it also remained undisputed that the player’s salary of February
2021 is outstanding and should be taken into consideration;
•
Thirdly, the salary of March 2021 only fell due on 31 March 2021, i.e. after
notification of the termination of the employment contract. Conversely to
the player’s argumentation, the fact that said termination was only
processed by TFF a few days later (i.e. 1 April 2021) was not relevant to the
analysis, as well as it was not supported by documentary evidence, hence it
could not be considered;
•
Fourthly, the clean sheet bonuses requested by the player are contractually
based and supported by documentary evidence. Likewise, the club
acknowledged its debt – in spite of alleging that the amounts could not be
allocated as salaries. As such, such bonuses were also relevant for the
calculation;
•
Finally, the “team winning bonus” of TRY 45,000 lacked contractual basis. The
player did not advance any documentary evidence capable of supporting his
claim in this respect (cf. article 13, paragraph 5 of the Procedural Rules).
Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject such requests.
It follows from the above that, at the time of the termination, the player would only be
entitled to the following amounts:
a. EUR 670 as the interest on late payment from the salaries of December 2020 and
January 2021;
b. EUR 50,000 as the salary of February 2021; and
c. EUR 3,000 as the clean sheet bonuses.
86.
Furthermore, the Chamber underlined that at the time the default notices of 1 February
2021 and 9 March 2021 were sent, less than two salaries were outstanding.
87.
Against this background, the DRC deemed that – even when adding all the outstanding
amounts, and not only the salaries – Denizlispor’s debt is far lower from the threshold
of two salaries mentioned in art. 14bis of the Regulations. Equally, the Chamber was
also of the opinion that the player could not meet his burden of proof to demonstrate
that the club’s breach was significant to the degree of constituting an ultima ratio
measure and giving cause to the termination vis-à-vis the jurisprudence of the Football
Tribunal.
Page 22
REF FPSD-4430
88.
Consequently, the members of the DRC unanimously decided that the termination of
the employment contract was premature, hence without just cause.
c. What are the consequences that follow?
89.
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
player.
90.
Initially, the Chamber considered that, in accordance with the general legal principle of
pacta sunt servanda, Denizlispor should be liable to pay to the player the amounts which
were outstanding under the employment contract at the moment of the termination.
91.
In addition, 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
at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as follows:
a. EUR 670 as the balance of the salary of January 2021, plus 5% interest p.a. as from
1 February 2021;
b. EUR 50,000 as the salary of February 2021, plus 5% interest as from 1 March 2021;
c. EUR 46,774.19 as the pro rata salary of March 2021, plus 5% interest as from 29
March 2021; and
d. EUR 3,000 as the clean sheet bonuses, plus 5% interest as from 29 March 2021.
92.
Subsequently, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of compensation
payable to Denizlispor by the player in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber firstly
recapitulated that, in accordance with article 17 paragraph 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, the fees and expenses paid or incurred by the former
club (amortised over the term of the contract) and depending on whether the
contractual breach falls within the protected period.
93.
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.
Page 23
REF FPSD-4430
94.
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. As a consequence, the
Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the player to
Denizlispor had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in article
17 paragraph 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.
95.
Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the club, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the
employment contract until its term. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the
amount of EUR 653,225.81 net (i.e. EUR 103,225.81 net for the 2020/2021 season plus
EUR 550,000 net for the 2021/2022 season) serves as the basis for the determination of
the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
96.
In continuation, the Chamber verified whether the player had signed an employment
contract with another club during the relevant period of time. According to the constant
practice of the Chamber as well as article 17 paragraph 1 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 due by a player to his
former club. In particular, the Chamber explained that its standard practice is to
calculate the average between the player’s remuneration with his former club and his
remuneration with the new club, for the exact same period of time comprised between
the early termination of the employment contract with the old club and the original
expiry date of such contract.
97.
In this respect, the Chamber noted that the player returned from the loan to Olympiacos
after the termination of the employment agreement. Moreover, in accordance with the
Olympiacos Agreement signed by the parties on 28 August 2020, the player was entitled
to EUR 151,875 net (i.e. EUR 8,250 as the 11 salaries plus EUR 1,500 as fixed bonuses
plus EUR 142,125 as the remaining instalments of the fixed payment) for the
overlapping period – i.e. between 1 July 2021 until 31 May 2022.
98.
Thus, the Chamber concluded that between the date of early termination of the player’s
contract with Denizlispor and its original expiry date, the average between his
remuneration with the latter and his remuneration with Olympiacos amounts to EUR
402,550.40 net.
99.
At this point, the Chamber also recalled that in case substantial evidence thereof was
provided by the club (i.e. Denizlispor), the Chamber might additionally grant the
damaged club the non-amortised transfer fee paid for the player in breach and/or the
actual costs incurred by the damaged club in order to replace the leaving player.
Page 24
REF FPSD-4430
However, the DRC considered that no documentation was advanced by Denizlispor in
this respect, hence no additional amount should be granted.
100. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the player must pay the
amount of EUR 402,550.40 net to Denizlispor, which was to be considered a reasonable
and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.
101. Taking into consideration the Denizlispor’s request as well as the constant practice of
the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the club interest on said
compensation at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of the claim until the date of effective
payment.
102. Furthermore, in accordance with the unambiguous contents of article 17 paragraph 2
of the Regulations, the Chamber established that the player’s new club (i.e. Olympiacos)
shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of compensation. In this respect, the
Chamber was eager to point out that – in spite of Olympiacos’ allegations – the joint
liability of the player’s new club is independent from the question as to whether the new
club has committed an inducement to contractual breach or any other kind of
involvement by the new club. In particular, the Chamber found it important to remark
that Olympiacos proactively sought the player’s services by entering the transfer
instruction to engage the player back from the loan – which sufficiently entails that any
allegation by Olympiacos aiming at rebutting the presumption of having induced a
breach of contract must be set aside.
103. On top of the compensation for breach of contract, the DRC also noted that Denizlispor
requested the player to return the advance payments received in connection to the
employment contract. Nevertheless, the members of the Chamber observed that the
sum due as “advance payment” was not properly specified in the employment contract
nor was substantiated by the Denizlispor. As a consequence, the DRC confirmed that
this specific part of Denizlispor’s claim should be rejected on the grounds of unclear
contractual basis and lack of evidence.
104. Lastly, the Chamber focused on the further consequences of the breach of contract in
question and, in this respect, addressed the question of sporting sanctions against the
player and Olympiacos in accordance with article 17, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the
Regulations. In this respect, the DRC was mindful to determine that, due to the specific
circumstances of this case and, specifically considering the content of the loan
agreement, the outstanding remuneration due by Denizlispor to the player and
consistent late payment of the player’s monthly remuneration – no sporting sanctions
should be imposed on the player or Olympiacos. It was clear to the DRC that neither
Denizlispor nor the player had any further interest in each other.
Page 25
REF FPSD-4430
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
105. Finally, the Chamber referred to par. 1 and 2 of article 24 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.
106. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against players, the consequence of the failure
to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a restriction on playing in official
matches up until the due amounts are paid and for the maximum duration of six
months.
107. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the player
does not pay the amounts due to the club within 45 days as from the moment in which
the club communicates its relevant bank details, provided that the decision is final and
binding, a restriction on playing in official matches, for the maximum duration of six
months shall become effective on the player in accordance with article 24 paragraphs 2
and 4 of the Regulations.
108. In parallel, the DRC also outlined 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.
109. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that
Olympiacos or Denizlispor does not pay the amounts due to the club within 45 days as
from the moment in which the club or the player communicates its relevant bank
details, provided that the decision is final and binding, 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 Olympiacos in
accordance with article 24b, paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
110. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned restrictions will be lifted immediately and
prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with
article 24, paragraph 3 of the Regulations.
d. Costs
111. The Chamber referred to article 25, paragraph 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.
Page 26
REF FPSD-4430
112. Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of article
25, paragraph 8 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation
shall be awarded in these proceedings.
113. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief
made by any of the parties.
Page 27
REF FPSD-4430
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Denizlispor Külübu Dernegi, is
partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Costel Fane Pantilimon, has to pay to the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent the amount of EUR 402,550.40 as compensation for breach of
contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 November 2021 until the date of effective
payment.
3.
The Intervening Party, Olympiacos F.C., is jointly and severally liable for the payment of
the aforementioned compensation.
4.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Costel Fane Pantilimon, is
partially accepted.
5.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent has to pay to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant,
the following amounts:
-
EUR 670 as outstanding remuneration;
-
EUR 50,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 March 2021
until the date of effective payment;
-
EUR 46,774.19 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 29 March
2021 until the date of effective payment; and
-
EUR 3,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 29 March 2021
until the date of effective payment.
6.
Any further claims of the parties are rejected.
7.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank accounts
indicated in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
8.
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:
On the Claimant / Counter-Respondent:
1. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent shall be banned from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The
Page 28
REF FPSD-4430
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.
On the Respondent / Counter-Claimant:
1. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall be imposed with a restriction on playing
in official matches up until the due amounts are paid. The overall maximum
duration of the restriction shall be of up to six months on playing in official matches.
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 six months.
On the Intervening Party:
1. The Intervening Party 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.
9.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the respective creditor in
accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players.
10. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 29
REF FPSD-4430
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 30