DRC Overdue Payables
Texto da decisão
REF 20-01665
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) Judge
passed on 27 January 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Milovan Petrovikj
BY:
Alexandra Gómez Bruinewoud (Uruguay/the Netherlands), DRC Judge
CLAIMANT:
MILOVAN PETROVIKJ, North Macedonia
Represented by Toni Jovchevski
RESPONDENT:
ATHLITIKI ENOSI LARISSA FC, Greece
Page 2 of 8
REF 20-01665
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
On 3 July 2019, the North-Macedonian player, Milovan Petrovikj (hereinafter: the player or the
Claimant) and the Greek club, Athlitiki Enosi Larissa FC (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent)
signed a settlement agreement related to the decision rendered by the Dispute Resolution
Chamber (DRC) on case 18-02010/aos (hereinafter: the contract), according to which the player
was entitled to receive EUR 65,000 in 13 instalments of EUR 5,000 each.
2.
Under the contract, the first instalment was due on 31 July 2019 and the remainder ones on the
last day of each the subsequent months.
3.
On 11 September 2020, the player put in the club in default of payment of EUR 20,000,
corresponding to the last four instalments under the contract, which had fallen due respectively
between April and July 2020, granting it with a deadline of 10 days to cure the breach.
4.
The player filed the claim at hand seeking payment of EUR 20,000 corresponding to the last 4
instalments under the contract, which had fallen due respectively between April and July 2020,
plus 5% interest as from the dates of default until effective payment.
5.
The club did not reply to the claim.
II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER JUDGE
a.
Competence and legal applicable framework
6.
First of all, the DRC judge analysed whether she was competent to deal with the matter at hand.
In this respect, she took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 10 November
2020 and submitted to a decision on 27 January 2021. Consequently, the Rules Governing the
Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition January
2021; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the
Procedural Rules).
7.
Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and
confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b of
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition January 2021) she is competent to
deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between a North-Macedonian player and a Greek club.
8.
Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance
of the matter. In this respect, she confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition January 2021), and considering that
the present claim was lodged on 10 November 2020, the October 2020 edition of said regulations
(hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
Page 3 of 8
REF 20-01665
b.
9.
Burden of proof
The DRC judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 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 DRC judge stressed the wording of art.
12 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which she may consider evidence not filed by the
parties.
10. In this respect, the DRC judge also recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of
the Regulations, FIFA’s judicial bodies may use, within the scope of proceedings pertaining to the
application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or contained in TMS.
c.
Merits of the dispute
11. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the
DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation
on file. However, the DRC judge emphasised that in the following considerations she will refer
only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which she considered pertinent for the
assessment of the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
12. Having said this, the DRC judge acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent signed the
contract, in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent,
inter alia, EUR 20,000 in four instalments, respectively due between April and July 2020.
13. The Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, maintaining that the
Respondent has overdue payables towards him in the total amount of EUR 20,000 corresponding
to the aforementioned instalments under the contract.
14. Subsequently, the DRC judge took into account that the Respondent, for its part, failed to present
its response to the claim of the Claimant, in spite of having been invited to do so. In this way, the
DRC judge considered that the Respondent renounced its right to defence and thus accepted the
allegations of the Claimant.
15. Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the DRC judge concurred
that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules she shall take a decision upon the
basis of the documents already on file, in other words, upon the statements and documents
presented by the Claimant.
16. Having said this, the DRC judge acknowledged that, in accordance with the contract provided by
the Claimant, the Respondent was obliged to pay to the Claimant inter alia EUR 20,000 in four
instalments, respectively due between April and July 2020.
Page 4 of 8
REF 20-01665
17. Taking into account the documentation presented by the Claimant in support of his petition, the
DRC judge concluded that the Claimant had substantiated his claim pertaining to overdue
payables with sufficient documentary evidence.
18. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC judge established that the
Respondent failed to remit the Claimant’s remuneration in the total amount of EUR 20,000
corresponding to the last four instalments under the contract.
19. In addition, the DRC judge established that the Respondent had delayed a due payment for more
than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis.
20. Consequently, the DRC judge decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta
sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant overdue payables in the total
amount of EUR 20,000.
21. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent must pay to the
Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the said amount as from the day after their respective due dates
until the date of effective payment.
ii. Art. 12bis of the Regulations
22. In continuation, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the DRC judge referred to
art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations which stipulates that any club found to have delayed a due
payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis may be sanctioned in
accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations.
23. In this context, the DRC judge took particular note of the fact that, on 11 September 2020, the
Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the aforementioned amounts, setting a
time limit of 10 days in order to remedy the default.
24. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the Claimant had duly proceeded in accordance
with art. 12bis par. 3 of the Regulations, which stipulates that the creditor (player or club) must
have put the debtor club in default in writing and have granted a deadline of at least ten days for
the debtor club to comply with its financial obligation(s).
25. The DRC judge established that by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations she has
competence to impose sanctions on the Respondent. Therefore, and in the absence of the
circumstance of repeated offence, the DRC judge decided to impose a warning on the
Respondent in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. a) of the Regulations.
26. In this respect, the DRC judge wished to highlight that a repeated offence will be considered as
an aggravating circumstance and lead to a more severe penalty in accordance with art. 12bis par.
6 of the Regulations.
Page 5 of 8
REF 20-01665
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
27. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the DRC judge referred to par. 1 and 2 of
art. 24bis of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA deciding
body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the concerned party to pay
the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or compensation in due time.
28. In this regard, the DRC 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 and for the maximum
duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.
29. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC judge decided that, in the event that the club does
not pay the amounts due to the player within 45 days as from the moment in which the player
communicates the relevant bank details to the club, 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 the club
in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
30. The DRC 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. 24bis par. 3 of the
Regulations.
d.
Costs
31. The DRC judge referred to article 18 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “DRC
proceedings relating to disputes between clubs and players in relation to the maintenance of
contractual stability as well as international employment related disputes between a club and a
player are free of charge”. Accordingly, she decided that no procedural costs were to be imposed
on the parties.
32. Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the DRC judge recalled the contents of art. 18 par. 4
of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be awarded in these
proceedings.
Page 6 of 8
REF 20-01665
III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER JUDGE
1.
The claim of the Claimant, MILOVAN PETROVIKJ, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, ATHLITIKI ENOSI LARISSA FC, has to pay to the Claimant the following amounts:
- EUR 5,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2020 until the
date of effective payment;
- EUR 5,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2020 until the
date of effective payment;
- EUR 5,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2020 until the
date of effective payment;
- EUR 5,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 August 2020 until the
date of effective payment.
3.
A warning is imposed on the Respondent.
4.
The Claimant is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent of the relevant bank
account to which the Respondent must pay the due amount.
5.
The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with this
decision to [email protected], duly translated, if applicable, into one of the official FIFA languages
(English, French, German, Spanish).
6.
In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established above is not paid by the Respondent
within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the
Respondent, the following consequences shall arise:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three
entire and consecutive registration periods. The aforementioned ban mentioned will be
lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.
(cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).
2. In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is still not paid by the end of
the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
7. This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 7 of 8
REF 20-01665
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 8 of 8