Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF 20-01585
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 February 2021,
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Aliaksandr PAULAVETS
COMPOSITION:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Stefano Sartori (Italy), member
Joseph Antoine Bell (Cameroon), member
CLAIMANT:
ALIAKSANDR PAULAVETS, Belarus
Represented by Mr. Yury Yakhno
RESPONDENT:
DYNAMO BREST, Belarus
Page 2 of 9
REF 20-01585
I. FACTS
1.
The Belarussian player Aliaksandr Paulavets (hereinafter: the player or Claimant) explained that he
and the Belarussian club Dynamo Brest (hereinafter: the club or Respondent) are of the same
nationality (Belarussian) and that the default notice he sent was ‘guided by the Association
Football Federation of Belarus (ABFF) Regulations’.
2.
However, the player is of the opinion that FIFA – as of 13 October 2020, the date of the ITC
request of the player’s new club Rostov - is competent to deal with the matter at hand, based on
art. 22 a) of the FIFA Regulations, as the prerequisites of said article are met as follows:
-
-
The parties are a club and a player;
There is a dispute concerning contractual stability
There has been an ITC request (by the player’s new club, the Russian club Rostov (hereinafter:
Rostov) and the Football Union of Russia (FUR));
There is a claim from an interested party in relation to said ITC request, in particular regarding
the issue of the ITC, sporting sanctions or compensation for breach of contract (claimed by
the player from the club).
There was a request for the provisional registration of the player.
3.
The player also argues that the Belarussian NDRC does not meet the criteria of the FIFA Standard
Regulations on National Dispute Resolution Chambers.
4.
The club, on the other hand, contests that FIFA is competent to deal with the matter at hand and
refers to the contents of art. 22 of the contract, which holds the following clause: ‘In the event of
a dispute between the parties on the execution of this contract, they will take all possible measures
for the peaceful settlement of such a dispute. In case of impossibility of an amicable settlement,
the dispute must be referred to the competent legal authorities of the ABFF in accordance with
the Chamber of the ABFF’.
5.
In addition, the club states that ‘taking into account the citizenship of the player, the membership
of the club in a national association, the dispute will be admissible to the national jurisdictional
body’.
6.
Moreover, the club argues that the national association validly rejected the ITC, as there was no
agreement between the parties as to the termination of the contract.
7.
On 10 January 2019, the player and the club signed an employment contract, valid from 11
January 2019 until 10 January 2020 (hereinafter: the contract), as well as an additional agreement
(hereinafter: the addendum), extending the original contract until 10 January 2021.
8.
Based on art. 4.6 of the Additional Agreement, the player was entitled to a monthly salary of BYN
18,837.36 gross, consisting of an official salary of Belarusian rouble (BYN) 1,633.53 and an
incentive payment of BYN 17,203.83.
Page 3 of 9
REF 20-01585
9.
Based on art. 4.7 of the agreement, the player’s monthly net salary amounted to BYN 16,200.13
net.
10. On 21 September 2020, the player put the club in default for the outstanding amount of BYN
64,766.64, proving a 10 days‘ deadline to remedy its default and indicating that in case of noncompliance he would be forced to terminate the contract, however to no avail.
11. On 2 October 2020, after the club promised again to settle its debts the player gave the club
another 15 days’ deadline to settle its debts, however to no avail.
12. On 6 October 2020, the club send a letter to the ABFF’s Players’ Status Committee, explicitly
confirming that the contract between the club and the player was terminated (by means of the
following wording: ‘In the current situation, taking into account the severity of violations
committed by the football player of the terms of the current employment contract, LLC FC Dynamo
Brest decided to terminate the employment contract №. 6 dated 10.01.2019 with A.V. Paulavets
due to violation of performance and labor discipline, which caused damage to the organization
in the amount of 350,000 euros.)’.
13. On 8 October 2020, the player unilaterally terminated the contract due to the outstanding salaries.
14. On the same day, 8 October 2020, the club informed the player that he is released for participation
in matches of national team until 14 October 2020 and that, since he is on an official journey, as
a result of which the contract cannot be terminated.
15. On 15 October 2020, the club requested the player to return to the club’s premises as the contract
as not terminated, to which the player replied that the contract was already terminated on 8
October 2020.
16. Allegedly on 6 November 2020, the ABFF passed a decision, on the basis of which it is confirmed
that the club had the right to terminate the contract with the player, and that it was entitled to
an amount of EUR 125,000.
17. On 29 October 2020, the player lodged a claim against the club, requesting the following
amounts:
Outstanding remuneration in the total amount of BYN 85,147, specified as follows:
- The amount of BYN 4,139.72 as outstanding part of the March 2020 salary, as well as 5%
interest p.a. as from 10 April 2020 until the date of effective payment;
- The amount of BYN 8,061.87 as outstanding part of the April 2020 salary, as well as 5%
interest p.a. as from 10 May 2020 until the date of effective payment;
- The amount of BYN 13,240.54 as outstanding part of the May 2020 salary, as well as 5%
interest p.a. as from 10 June 2020 until the date of effective payment;
- The amount of BYN 13,118.25 as outstanding part of the June 2020 salary, as well as 5%
interest p.a. as from 10 July 2020 until the date of effective payment;
Page 4 of 9
REF 20-01585
-
The amount of BYN 13,103.13 as outstanding part of the July 2020 salary, as well as 5%
interest p.a. as from 10 August 2020 until the date of effective payment;
The amount of BYN 13,103.13 as outstanding part of the August 2020 salary, as well as 5%
interest p.a. as from 10 September 2020 until the date of effective payment;
The amount of BYN 20,830.13 as outstanding part of the September 2020 salary, as well as
5% interest p.a. as from 10 October 2020 until the date of effective payment.
Compensation for breach of contract in the total amount of BYN 86,583.13, specified as follows:
- The residual value of the contract with the club in the period between October 2020 and
January 2021 in the amount of BYN 49,645.61;
- Minus the value of the player’s contract with Rostov in the period between October 2020 and
January 2021 in the amount of RUB 352,419.35, equivalent to BYN 11,662.77;
Additional compensation consisting of three monthly salaries of BYN 16,200 net, i.e. the total
amount of BYN 48,600.39;
5% interest p.a. as from 9 October 2020 until the date of effective payment.
18. In his claim, the player explains that as from Mach 2020, the club failed to pay him in full his
salaries for the months of March, April May June, July and August 2020, resulting in an
outstanding debt of BYN 64,766.64 as per 20 September 2020.
19. According to the player, on 24 September 2020, the club explained to him that he breached the
article 2.18 of the ABFF Regulations, ‘prohibiting negotiations with the other clubs on employment
without approval of the club’, but on the same day confirming that it would settle the debts with
the player. Furthermore, according to the player, the club explained that as from March 2020,
‘due to the spread of the COVID-19 virus, the amount of bonus part was reduced to all employees
of the organisation without an exception’.
20. The player denies that he was in breach of art. 2.18 of the ABFF Regulations, as said article entitles
him to negotiate with other clubs in the last 6 months of the contractual validity.
21. What is more, the player argues that he had a just cause to terminate the contract and that he is
entitled to outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract.
22. In its reply to the claim, the club asked that FIFA should declare the claim inadmissible and that
the player’s claim has no legal basis.
23. The club explains that it validly (temporary) reduce the bonus payment to all its employees in view
of the COVID-19 pandemic.
24. Furthermore, the club argues that the player should have duly explained the reason for the
termination of the contract, which then should consequently – based on art. 13 par. 4 of the ABFF
Regulations – verify and confirm such reason.
Page 5 of 9
REF 20-01585
25. The club argues that, since the player is obliged to compensate the club with EUR 125,000, his
claims against the club cannot be upheld.
26. In his response to the club’s latest allegations, the player insisted on the competence of FIFA based
on art. 22 a) of the Regulations, and refers in this respect to a CAS Award (CAS/A/5575), which
confirms said circumstance.
27. What is more, the player states that FIFA granted the provisional registration of the player with
Rostov.
28. Additionally, the player explains that he never recognized the competence of the ABFF to decide
on the present dispute, as he explicitly denied its competence in the dispute that took was dealt
with by the ABFF Players’ Status and Transfer Committee.
29. According to the player, the decision passed by the ABFF on 6 November 2020 was not final and
binding (as the club pointed out in its reply), as he appealed against said decision. However,
according to the player, the appeal ‘was left without consideration’ by the ABFF, according to the
player without valid reason.
30. Finally, the player confirms that he received the outstanding remuneration as initially claimed by
him, as the club made a payment to him on 17 November 2020 and drops this part of his claim.
However, the player insists that he is entitled to BYN 86,583.18 as compensation for breach of
contract.
31. On 9 October 2020, the player signed a new contract with Rostov, valid between 9 October and
31 December 2011, based on which the player was entitled to a monthly salary of Russian rouble
(RUB) 115,000 net.
32. On 13 October 2020, Rostov requested the player’s ITC, which request was however rejected by
the ABFF on 20 October 2020, as the previous contract of the player was allegedly not terminated.
33. On 22 October 2020, Rostov submitted a request for provisional registration of the player.
34. On 4 November 2020, FIFA rejected the cancellation of the transfer, as the reason provided by
the ABFF was not a valid reason based on art. 8.2.4 lit. b and 8.2.7 of Annexe 3 of the FIFA
Regulations.
II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DRC
1.
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 submitted to FIFA on 29 October 2020. Taking into account the wording
of art. 21 of the 2020 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status
Page 6 of 9
REF 20-01585
Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the
aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
2.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and
confirmed that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 a) of the Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition October 2020; hereinafter: the Regulations), the
Dispute Resolution Chamber shall, in principle, adjudicate on disputes between clubs and players
in relation to the maintenance of contractual stability when there has been an ITC request and a
claim from an interested party in relation to said ITC request.
3.
That being said, the Chamber noted that in the present matter, the player is of the opinion that
all requirements for the application of art 22 a) of the Regulations are met, whereas the club
argues that the claim should be considered inadmissible.
4.
Turning to the question whether or not the matter at hand falls within the scope of art. 22 a) of
the Regulations, the Chamber wished to point out that as per its well-established jurisprudence
and opposed to the CAS Award quoted by the player, its jurisdiction is limited to cases, in which
there exists a shared nationality between the player and the former club, and in which the former
club of the player which lodges a contractual claim against the player and his new club.
5.
In situations like the matter at hand, in which it was the player which lodged against his former
club, and where no consequences can arise for the new club of the player, the Chamber concluded
that no relation between the employment-related dispute and the ITC request exists. What is
more, in the matter at hand, it was the player, which terminated the contractual relationship with
his former club.
6.
Consequently, the Chamber concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to hear this dispute on the
basis of article 22 lit. a) of the Regulations.
7.
Subsequently, members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and
concluded that, pursuant to art. 24 par. 1 and art. 22 lit. b) from the Regulations, the Chamber is
the competent decision-making body to hear employment-related disputes between a club and a
player of an international dimension.
8.
In view of the foregoing, the Chamber has found it useful to stress that in principle, and without
prejudice to the right of any player, coach, association or club to seek redress before a civil court
for employment-related disputes, it is within its jurisdiction to deal with any employment-related
dispute of an international dimension between a club and a player, except in the case where a
independent arbitral tribunal was established at the national level.
9.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to the preliminary provisions of the
Regulations, and in particular article 1 thereof, according to which certain principles stipulated in
the Regulations are also binding on the national level and each association is required to draw up
its own regulations interior. Within the framework of their autonomy, associations are free to
adapt their internal regulations to the needs and particularities of the country concerned.
Page 7 of 9
REF 20-01585
10. Consequently, FIFA's jurisdiction is limited to disputes and transfers with an international
dimension.
11. In addition, in the context of labour disputes, the Chamber wished to point that as a general rule,
the international dimension is represented by the fact that the player concerned is not a national
of the country of the association to which the club concerned is affiliated.
12. However, when both parties have the same nationality, the dispute must be considered as national
or internal, which has the consequence that the rules and regulations of the association concerned
apply to the dispute and the proceedings decisions provided for by the said national rules and
regulations must decide the case. Any other interpretation would lead to a situation in which the
relevant FIFA decision-making body, dealing with such an internal matter, would infringe the
internal competence of FIFA members.
13. In light of the foregoing, and in particular considering the nationality of the parties (Belarussian)
to the present dispute, the Chamber has established that the present case is devoid of
international. As a result the Chamber deemed itself not competent to decide on the present
dispute.
14. In view of all the foregoing, the Chamber decided that the claim of the player is to be considered
inadmissible.
III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Aliaksandr Paulavets, is inadmissible.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 8 of 9
REF 20-01585
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 58 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 20 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 9 of 9