Dispute Resolution Chamber
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-622
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 17 June 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Anton Putsila
COMPOSITION:
Omar Ongaro (Italy), Deputy Chairman
Philippe Diallo (France), member
Roy Vermeer (Netherlands), member
CLAIMANT:
Anton Putsila, Belarus
RESPONDENT:
Altay SK, Turkey
Represented by Talat Emre Kocak
Page 2
REF FPSD-622
I.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
On 1 June 2020, the Belarusian player Anton Putsila, (hereinafter: Claimant), and the Turkish
club, Altay SK (hereinafter: Respondent) signed an employment contract valid as from said
date until 31 May 2022.
2.
In accordance with the employment contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the
Claimant inter alia the following amounts as remuneration for the sporting season
2020/2021:
EUR 100,000 by August 2020
EUR 100,000 by November 2020
EUR 100,000 to be split in 10 instalments (EUR 10,000) to be paid within the first
week of each month, for the total of 10 months, as of August 2020 to May 2021.
3.
Similarly, for the 2021/2022 season, the Parties agreed the following payment scheme:
EUR 110,000 by August 2021
EUR 110,000 by November 2021
EUR 110,000 to be split in 10 instalments (EUR 10,000) to be paid within the first
week of each month, for the total of 10 months, as of August 2021 to May 2022
4.
On 5 December 2020, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent, requesting the latter
to fulfil its financial obligations within 14 December 2020.
5.
By correspondence dated 15 December 2020, the Claimant put the Respondent in default
of payment of EUR 190,000 as outstanding remuneration, setting a time limit expiring on
30 December in order to remedy the default.
6.
On 31 December 2020, the Claimant notified the Respondent of the unilateral termination
of the contract with just cause, namely for overdue payables.
7.
On date 5 January 2021, the Claimant and the Belarusian club, Dynamo Minsk FC
(hereinafter: FC Dynamo) signed an employment contract valid as from 20 January 2021
until 31 December 2021.
8.
According to the new employment contract, the Claimant is entitled to a fixed monthly
salary of BYN 6,065.96 (Byelorussian Roubles), corresponding to about EUR 1,917.
Page 3
REF FPSD-622
II.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFA
9.
On 11 January 2021, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of
the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a.
The claim of the Claimant
10.
According to the Claimant, the Respondent is liable for severe overdue payables and,
consequently breach of contract without just cause.
11.
In this context, the Claimant alleged that, until the date of termination, the Respondent did
not pay any of the monthly instalments of EUR 10,000 due as of August 2020 (namely 5
out of 10), nor the instalment of EUR 100,000 due by November 2020 and only 50% of
the instalment due by August 2020 (i.e. EUR 50,000).
12.
Accordingly, the requests for relief of the Claimant, were the following:
EUR 200,000 as outstanding remuneration
EUR 380,000 as compensation for the breach of contract by the Club
EUR 60,000 as additional compensation for breach of contract due to overdue
payables
5% per annum interest over the claimed amounts as of the respective due dates.
b.
Position of the Respondent
13.
In its reply, the Respondent alleged to have paid all the amounts due to the Player until the
moment of the termination, therefore the latter would have not been entitled to terminate
the contract with just cause.
14.
In support of the above allegations, the Respondent produced copies of several payment
receipts
15.
The request for relief of the Respondent, was therefore to reject the claim as groundless.
c.
16.
Reaction to the alleged payments of the Claimant
In replica to the Respondent’ statement of defence, the Claimant alleged that the former
tried in bad faith to deceive the FIFA DRC.
Page 4
REF FPSD-622
17.
In this respect, the Claimant accused the Respondent of having enclosed misleading
evidence of payment, as the submitted payment receipts would be indeed referring only to
a previous contractual relationship between the Parties and to the amount of EUR 50,000
(i.e. 50% of August instalment) that, as already acknowledged by the same Claimant, the
Respondent paid.
18.
Finally, the Claimant underlined that the Respondent refused and obstructed the issuance
of the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) in relation to the transfer of the Player to the
new club FC Dynamo.
III.
CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
a.
Competence and applicable legal framework
19.
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 11 January 2021 and submitted
for decision on 17 June 2021. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the January
2021 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and
the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned
edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
20.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules
and observed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. a) and
b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition February 2021), the
Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns
an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an Belarusian
player and a Turkish club.
21.
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 Player (edition February 2021), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 11 January 2021, the January 2021
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
b.
22.
Burden of proof
The Chamber 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 stressed the
wording of art. 12 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties.
Page 5
REF FPSD-622
23.
In this respect, the Chamber 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.
24.
Merits of the dispute
The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the
DRC entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the DRC started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation on file. However, the DRC 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
25.
The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that the parties strongly dispute the legitimacy of the unilateral
termination of the employment contract by the Claimant.
26.
In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to establish whether at the
moment of the termination, the Respondent held outstanding remuneration towards the
Claimant and if the latter had just cause to terminate the contract.
27.
In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Respondent alleged to have fully complied with
its financial obligations before the Claimant decided to terminate the employment contract,
hence the latter would have had no just cause to interrupt the labour relationship with the
Club.
28.
However, the Chamber observed that the Respondent completely failed to provide evidence
in support of its allegations.
29.
In particular, the Chamber realized that all the payment receipts produced by the
Respondent were indeed referring to different transactions which do not pertain to the
claimed amounts and periods in dispute, therefore said receipt have been considered
irrelevant.
30.
Once assessed the lack of evidence in support of the Respondent’s allegations, the Chamber
acknowledged the existence of several overdue payables in line with the Claimant’s request.
31.
Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant had just cause to terminate the
employment contract on 31 December 2020 due to the consistency of the outstanding
remuneration, namely in the amount of EUR 200,000.
Page 6
REF FPSD-622
ii. Consequences
32.
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
Respondent during the protected period.
33.
In this context, the Chamber recalled that, as of the date of termination (i.e. 31 December
2020) until the natural expiry date stipulated under the employment contract, the Claimant
would have been entitled to a total remuneration of EUR 380,000 as guaranteed payments.
34.
Therefore, the Chamber established that said amount shall serve as a basis for the
computation of the overall compensation amount to which the Claimant shall be entitled.
35.
Furthermore, in line with art. 17 of the FIFA RSTP, the DRC recalled that in case the Claimant
signed a new contract by the time of the decision, the value of the new contract for the
period corresponding to the time remaining on the prematurely terminated contract shall
be deducted from the residual value of the contract that was terminated early, hence
defining the so called “Mitigated Compensation”.
36.
In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Claimant concluded a new employment
contract as of 5 January 2021, according to which the latter is entitled to a monthly salary
of BYN 6,065.96 until 31 December 2021.
37.
Accordingly, the Chamber calculated that the total value of the Claimant’s new
employment contract amounts to BYN 72,791.52, corresponding to about EUR 23,751,
hence such amount shall be deducted from the overall compensation to which the Claimant
is entitled.
38.
Moreover, the Chamber established that, being the early termination of the contract due
to overdue payables, the Claimant shall be entitled to an additional compensation,
corresponding to three monthly salaries, namely EUR 33,000 (3*EUR 11,000), in accordance
with art. 17 RSTP.
39.
Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber observed that despite the afore mentioned
mitigation, the overall compensation amount would exceed the residual value of the
prematurely terminated contract.
40.
Therefore, in line with art. 17.1 ii), the Chamber established that the Claimant shall be
awarded a total compensation of EUR 380,000.
Page 7
REF FPSD-622
41.
Furthermore, the Chamber decided that, as per long-standing DRC jurisprudence as well as
in line with the Claimant’s request, a 5% per annum interest shall be charged over the
awarded amounts, as of the respective due dates.
42.
As a result, by virtue of art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations and considering that the
Respondent was found in breach of the employment contract, the Chamber decided that
the Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, for the two next entire and consecutive registration periods following the
notification of the present decision. In this regard, the Chamber emphasised that apart from
the Respondent having clearly acted in breach of the contract within the protected period
in the present matter, the Respondent had also on several occasions in the recent past been
held liable by the Chamber for the early termination of the employment contracts, namely
in the case ref. 20-01371 (DRC Decision passed on 25 March 2021), ref. 20-01138 (DRC
Decision passed on 20 May 2021), ref. 19-00062 (DRC Decision passed on 9 April 2020)
and ref. 19-00218 (DRC Decision passed on 21 February 2020).
d.
Costs
43.
The Chamber 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, the Chamber decided that no procedural
costs were to be imposed on the parties.
44.
Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 18
par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
45.
Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
Page 8
REF FPSD-622
IV.
DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Anton Putsila, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Altay SK, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amount:
EUR 10,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as of 10 August 2020 until
effective payment;
EUR 50,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as of 1 September 2021 until
effective payment;
EUR 10,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as of 7 September 2020 until
effective payment;
EUR 10,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as of 5 October 2020 until
effective payment;
EUR 10,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as of 9 November 2020 until
effective payment;
EUR 100,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as of 1 December 2020 until
effective payment;
EUR 10,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as of 7 December 2020 until
effective payment;
EUR 380,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as of 31 December
2020 until effective payment;
3.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account set out in the
enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
4.
The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally- or
internationally, for the two next entire and consecutive registration periods following the
notification of the present decision.
5.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 9
REF FPSD-622
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 10