Dispute Resolution Chamber
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-117
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 25 March 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player RUBEN RAYOS SERNA
COMPOSITION:
Omar Ongaro (Italy), Deputy Chairman
Alexandra Gómez Bruinewoud (Uruguay), member
Daan de Jong (Netherlands), member
CLAIMANT:
RUBEN RAYOS SERNA, Spain
Represented by Mrs. Rosario Sevillano
RESPONDENT:
Anorthosis Famagusta FC, Cyprus
Page 2 of 14
REF FPSD-117
I.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1.
On 15 May 2018, the Spanish player, Ruben Rayos Serna (hereinafter: “the player” or “the
Claimant”) and the Cypriot club, Anorthosis Famagusta (hereinafter: “the club” or “the
Respondent”) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: “the contract”), valid as from 1
June 2018 until 31 May 2020.
2.
Clause 1.3 of the contract provides: “The present contract will be automatically renewed one
more season, i.e. from 01/06/2020 until 31/05/2021 if the player participates in at least 25
(twenty five) official championship or official European games during the seasons 2019-20”.
3.
In accordance with clause 1.4 of the contract, the club undertook to pay to the player a net
monthly salary amounting to EUR 12,500.
4.
Clause 13 of the contract provides: “Any employment dispute between the Club and the Player
shall fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Dispute Resolution Chamber of the CFA
and shall be resolved according to the applicable regulations of the CFA”.
5.
On 6 July 2018, the parties signed a Supplementary Agreement (hereinafter: “the Annex”) to
the contract.
6.
Points 1); 2) and 3) of the Annex provide that the club will pay the player the total net amount
of EUR 125,000 per season, payable in 10 instalments of EUR 12,500 net each in the seasons
2018/2019; 2019/2020 and 2020/2021.
7.
Points 4) and 5) of the Annex provide that the club will cover the player´s agent expenses in the
amount of EUR 25,000 net per season payable on or before 15 August 2018 and 15 August
2019 respectively.
8.
Point 6) of the Annex states that in case the contract would be extended (cf. its clause 1.3) an
amount of EUR 25,000 net to cover player´s agent expenses would be payable by the Respondent
to the Claimant on or before 15 August 2020.
9.
Point 7) 6.1 of the Annex provides that the player will receive an annual total amount of EUR
10,000 payable in ten instalments of EUR 1,000 each to cover any personal expenses of any
kind. “These personal expenses include, but are not limited to apartment and car rental (selected
by the Club) and/or expenses and/or medical insurance and/or travelling expenses and/or meals
and/or medical expenses not related to his duties at the Club”.
10.
Point 7) 6.2.5. of the Annex provides that the player will receive a bonus of EUR 30,000 net if
the club qualifies to the Europa or Champions’ League Group Stage during the period this
contract is valid and the player is part of the team.
11.
Point 13 of the Annex provides: “All and every disputes the Parties explicitly and irrevocably
agree that will be introduced exclusively (“exclusively agreed jurisdiction”) before the competent
authority and/or committee and/or body of the Cyprus FA. Any decision of the competent
Page 3 of 14
REF FPSD-117
committee and/or authority and/or body of the Cyprus FA might be appealed only before Court
of Arbitration of Sports based in Lausanne, Switzerland by a Panel consisting on one (1) member
and using the English language. The Regulations of FIFA and Cyprus FA and the legislation of
Republic of Cyprus will be used by the hearing committees at all stages”.
12.
By means of his correspondence dated 22 July 2020, the player put the club in default of
payment in the amount of EUR 155,800, corresponding to outstanding remuneration, and
granted the Respondent a 15 days’ deadline to remedy the default; however to no avail.
13.
In his request for relief, the player requested to condemn the club to pay the total amount of
EUR 155,800 as outstanding remuneration plus an 5% interest p.a. as from the respective due
dates until the date of effective payment. Said claimed amount is breakdown as follows:
1) EUR 25,000 as monthly salary related to May 2019 (cf. clause 1.4 of the contract and points
1); 2) and 3 of the Annex);
2) EUR 12,500 as half of the salary related to March 2020 (cf. clause 1.4 of the contract and
points 1); 2) and 3 of the Annex);
3) EUR 25,000 as monthly salary related to April 2020 (cf. clause 1.4 of the contract and points
1); 2) and 3 of the Annex);
4) EUR 25,000 as monthly salary related to May 2020 (cf. clause 1.4 of the contract and points
1); 2) and 3 of the Annex);
5) EUR 30,000 as bonus (cf. point 6.2.5 of the Annex) for having qualified to the Europa League;
6) EUR 3,300 as personal expenses (cf. point 6.1 of the Annex) composed by EUR 800
(2018/2019) and EUR 2,500 (season 2019/2020);
7) EUR 35,000 as funds to pay his agent’s fees [cf. points 4), 5) and 6) of the Annex] composed
by EUR 10,000 (2018/2019) and EUR 25,000 (2019/2020).
The Claimant also requested the imposition of sporting sanctions to the club in accordance with
arts. 12bis and 24bis of the regulations.
14.
The Claimant maintained not having received any payment of outstanding remuneration neither
from the Respondent nor from the Cypriot government as alleged by the Respondent.
15.
The Claimant added not having received any unemployment benefit from the Cypriot
government.
16.
In this respect the Claimant submitted an extract of his bank account (from 1 January 2020 until
30 September 2020) which shows the following:
not having received any payment from the Cypriot government and
that the Respondent only paid to the Claimant the monthly salaries related to January, February
and half of the month of March 2020.
17.
The Respondent argues that the FIFA deciding bodies are not competent to hear the present
dispute because the parties signed a valid and unambiguous arbitration clause, in both the
employment contract and the Supplementary Agreement (cf. clause 13 and point 13
respectively) granting exclusive competence to the NDRC of the Cyprus Football Association
(CFA) (hereinafter: “the NDRC”).
18.
In this respect, the club argues that the NDRC is an independent arbitration tribunal, established
at national level, which respects the principle equal representation of players and clubs, and
Page 4 of 14
REF FPSD-117
which has an independent chairman and vice-chairman (who is chosen by the club
representatives and player’s representatives).
19.
In addition, the Respondent argued that the NDRC fulfils the criteria indicated in the FIFA Circular
letter 1010, inter alia, impartiality and fair hearing; right to contentious proceedings; right to
equal treatment.
20.
The Respondent submitted a copy of the Regulations for the Registration and Transfer of Football
Players and the DRC Procedural Regulations (hereinafter: “the CFA RSTP”) which states: “These
Regulations were approved by the Council of the Cyprus Football Association (CFA) on 7 June
2005 and entered into force on 15 June 2005. These Regulations were amended with various
decisions of the BoD of the Cyprus Football Association (2019)”.
21.
From the submitted documentation, it can be noted that inter alia the following articles are
included in the CFA RSTP:
- Article 22.1.1: ‘The Dispute Resolution Committee shall have the competence to adjudicate
and/or resolve any financial and or other disputes which may arise […] A. between members
clubs of CFA and professional players regarding the employment and stability in their contractual
relations’;
- Article 22.2: ‘The decisions of the DRC can be appealed before the Appeal Committee of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber’;
- Article 22.4.1:’The Appeal Committee and the Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC) shall consist
of five members and more specifically of the Chairman, Vice- Chairman and three members […].
- Article 22.4.3: ‘The two members of the Appeal Committee and DRC respectively will be elected
from the Board of Directors of CFA and two members of the Appeal Committee and DRC
respectively will be elected by the Pancyprian Football Players' Association. The election procedure
must be approved by the CFA. The four elected members of both the Appeal Committee and the
DRC respectively will have to elect within 15 days, the Vice-Chairman of the Appeal Committee
and DRC respectively. Accordingly the Vice-Chairman and all members will elect the Chairman of
the Appeal Committee and the DRC respectively. In case where the four members of the Appeal
Committee or DRC cannot elect Vice-President and/or Chairman of the Appeal Committee of DRC
respectively within the deadline that is defined in the present regulation, then the Chairman of
the Cyprus Bar Association will appoint within fifteen (15) days the Vice-Chairman and/or
Chairman of the Appeal Committee or the DRC respectively”.
- Article 22.4.4: ‘The members elected by the Pancyprian Players’ Association should be reported
promptly to the CFA for approval of their appointment’.
- Article 22.4.5: ‘If the Pancyprian Football Players’ Association refuses or fails to elect any
member to the DRC within the prescribed period the Council of the CFA shall elect the member
or members depending of the case’.
- Article 22.5: “The members of the Appeal Committee and of DRC must have high moral
standards, an impeccable character and possess experience and skills in respect of sports and
football in particular. The members of the Appeal Committee must have at least ten years´
experience as lawyers and the members of the DRC at least five years respectively. Persons that
have a law degree but are not registered as lawyers in the bar association, can, provided that
there is a mutual written consent from CFA and PASP, be appointed in DRC or Appeals´
Committee of DRC”.
- Article 22.13: “During procedure all fundamental rights of the parties shall be respected and
especially the right to equal treatment and the right of hearing”.
Page 5 of 14
REF FPSD-117
22. The Respondent underlined that “concerning the composition of the NDRC and its Appeal Body
are the result of an agreement between the CFA and the PASP following the social dialogue. The
CFA and the PASP agreed that the NDRC and its Appeal Body would respect and implement the
principle of equal representation. Until 2015, there was no equal representation in the CFA NDRC.
As can be seen in the CFA RSTP, art. 22.4.2, two of the ordinary members of the NDRC and its
Appeal Body are elected by the CFA and another two ordinary members are elected by PASP
(Cyprus Footballers’ Union).In order to avoid deadlock, the CFA and PASP agreed to authorise the
Cyprus Bar Association to appoint this person. Needless to say, the Cyprus Bar Association is an
office which is totally independent and has no ties either with the CFA, or with the PASP”.
23. The Respondent pointed out that arts. 22.4.2 and 22.4.3 of the CFA RSTP state that the election
procedure of the PASP representatives, as well as, their appointment shall be under the approval
of the CFA. The purpose of these provisions is not to limit in any way the PASP’s autonomy and
independence in choosing or appointing its representatives. Nor to give any authority to the CFA
to intervene or influence the election of the PASP’s representatives. These articles exist for purely
procedural formalities. That is, to safeguard the CFA’s right to prevent the appointment of
persons who have a conflict of interest (cf. art. 22.5 of the CFA RSTP).
24.
The Respondent added that the vice chairmen do not have any rights or powers other than those
of ordinary members, except for the cases when the chairman is absent. In such a case, they have
the casting vote. This right of the vice chairmen does not in any way affect the principle of equal
representation. The vice chairmen have been duly elected by the four members of the NDRC and
its Appeal Body following democratic elections and due process. They can either be a CFA or
PASP representatives. From the moment that they are legitimately elected and acceptable by both
sides, there is no reason why this would in any way affect the principle of equal representation.
25. With regard to the substance of this matter, the Respondent argued not owing any monies to
the player because he did not clarify in his claim which months are allegedly unpaid.
26. The Respondent added that even if there do exist any due payments, these were related to a
player´s previous employment contract concluded for the seasons 206/2017 and 2017/2018. In
this regard, the Respondent argued that the player cannot request these due payments because
his right to do it is time barred.
27. Furthermore, the Respondent argued that since 15 March 2020 when the national competitions
stopped due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the club participated in the Cyprus Government Scheme
assisting businesses which fully suspended their activities due to the pandemic. According to this
scheme businesses participating therein, were no longer obliged to pay their employees, whose
employment contract were temporarily suspended.
28. The Respondent added that the provisions of said Scheme were explained to the PASP on 12
April 2020 with a directive published on its website.
29. The Respondent stated that they do not have a letter of acceptance proving that they were
officially accepted by the Ministry of Employment to be part of said Scheme. However, the
Respondent argued that the Claimant can confirm that the club participated in said scheme
because during the suspension of competitions he was paid the special unemployment benefit
Page 6 of 14
REF FPSD-117
directly by the government. Therefore, the club requested FIFA to ask the player to present
evidence in this respect.
II.
CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as “the Chamber or the
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 17 August 2020. Taking into account
the wording of art. 21 of the 2021 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’
Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: “the Procedural Rules”),
the edition 2020 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 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition February 2021), the Dispute Resolution
Chamber is, in principle, competent to deal with the matter at stake. The matter concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Spanish player and a
Cypriot club.
3.
The Chamber acknowledged that the club contested the competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies
on the basis of clause 13 of the contract and point 13 of the Annex highlighting that the CFA
has an independent deciding body to deal with the matter, i.e. the National Dispute Resolution
Chamber.
4.
As a result, the Chamber deemed appropriate to focus its attention to the wording of the
aforementioned clauses of the contract and the Annex since both regulate the employment
relationship between the parties.
5.
In this respect, the Chamber took note that while the wording of the clause 13 of the contract
refers to a clear and exclusive deciding body, i.e. the NDRC, point 13 of the Annex referred to
different deciding bodies, i.e. “competent authority and/or committee and/or body of the Cyprus
FA”.
6.
The DRC remarked that both provisions (clause 13 of the contract and point 13 of the Annex)
do not specify the same deciding bodies.
7.
Moreover, the DRC noted that point 13 of the Annex provides the possibility to appeal “Any
decision of the competent committee and/or authority and/or body of the Cyprus FA” before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) based in Lausanne, Switzerland.
8.
In this respect, the DRC observed that article 22.2 of the CFA RSTP states “The decisions of the
DRC can be appealed before the Appeal Committee of the Dispute Resolution Chamber”.
9.
Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the possibility provided in point 13 of the Annex to
appeal national decisions before CAS was not in accordance with article 22.2 of the CFA RSTP
which establish the possibility to appeal to a national body.
Page 7 of 14
REF FPSD-117
10.
In view of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that there is not an exclusive choice of forum
made by the parties in the matter at stake, taking into account that the relevant clauses were
ambiguous by establishing different choices of jurisdiction.
11.
Therefore, the DRC decided that it was competent to enter into the substance and decide the
present matter.
12.
In continuation, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par.
1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (October 2020 edition), and
considering that the claim was lodged on 17 August 2020, the June 2020 edition of the
aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: “the Regulations”) is applicable to the matter at hand
as to the substance.
13.
The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the
Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation
submitted by the parties. 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.
14.
Having said that, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that on 15 May 2018, the
Claimant and the Respondent signed the contract valid from 1 June 2018 until 31 May 2020,
pursuant to which the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant a net monthly salary of
EUR 12,500.
15.
Moreover, the Chamber acknowledged that on 6 July 2018 the parties signed the Annex
pursuant to which the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant the following
remuneration, as follows:
EUR 125,000 per season payable in 10 instalments of EUR 12,500 net each;
EUR 25,000 to cover the player´s agent expenses per season payable on or before 15 August
2018; 15 August 2019 and 15 August 2020 respectively;
EUR 10,000 as annual total amount for personal expenses payable in 10 instalments of EUR
1,000 each;
EUR 30,000 as bonus if the club qualifies to the Europa or Champions’ League Group Stage.
16.
At this stage, the DRC observed that the Claimant lodged the present claim before FIFA
requesting outstanding remuneration for a total amount of EUR 155,800 plus interest.
17.
In this context, the DRC noted that on 22 July 2020, the Claimant put the Respondent in default
for the aforementioned amount corresponding to monthly salaries of May 2019, March 2020,
April 2020 and May 2020; bonus; personal expenses and funds to pay his agent´s fees. The DRC
further noted that the Respondent did not reply to the default notice.
18.
In continuation, the DRC acknowledged the Respondent´s allegation that the Claimant´s requests
should be rejected since they are not clearly specified and they are based on a previous
employment contract.
Page 8 of 14
REF FPSD-117
19.
In this regard, the DRC observed that the Claimant presented a clear and detailed breakdown
of the amounts claimed.
20.
With respect to the Respondent´s argument that the Claimant´s requests are based on a previous
employment contract, the DRC held that there is no evidence presented by the Respondent to
sustain its allegations (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules).
21.
What is more, the DRC pointed out that the Claimant´s requests were part of the remuneration
covered by the period of validity of the contract.
22.
As a result, the DRC concluded that the Respondent´s allegations stating that the Claimant´s
claim is not clear and based on a previous employment contract should be rejected.
23.
In continuation, the DRC noted that the Respondent maintained that it participated in the Cyprus
Governmental Scheme according to which, the club was no longer obliged to pay their
employees, whose employment contract were temporarily suspended and that instead the
government took care of its obligations.
24.
In this respect, the Chamber observed that the Respondent apparently informed the players’
union (i.e. PASP) about its involvement in the Scheme. However, the DRC highlighted that based
on the evidence at disposal it could be concluded that the Claimant was not personally informed
by the Respondent about its participation in the Scheme.
25.
Furthermore, the DRC remarked that the Claimant maintained not having received any payment
neither from the Respondent, nor from the government and presented bank statements to
sustain his allegations.
26.
What is more, the DRC pointed out that the Respondent even admitted not having an official
confirmation about its alleged inclusion in the Cyprus Governmental Scheme.
27.
In light of all the above, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent failed to prove its
participation in the Scheme organised by the Employment Ministry of Cyprus and as a
consequence its allegations cannot be upheld.
28.
As a result, the DRC focused its attention to the Claimant´s claims.
29.
To start with, the Chamber noted that the Claimant requested outstanding monthly salaries
related to the months of May 2019; March 2020; April 2020 and May 2020 taking EUR 25,000
as monthly salary. In this respect, the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant calculated the
monthly salary by adding the amount established in the contract to the amount established in
the Annex.
30.
In this context, the DRC noted that the Respondent did not contest the amounts requested by
the Claimant as monthly salaries.
31. In view of the above, the DRC concluded that based on the general legal principle of “pacta sunt
servanda”, the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent a total amount of EUR 87,500
as outstanding monthly salaries.
Page 9 of 14
REF FPSD-117
32. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s claim as well as the Chamber’s longstanding
jurisprudence in this respect, it was decided to award the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. as of the
respective due dates, i.e. the 1st day of the following month.
33.
With regard to the Claimant´s claim for bonus for qualification of the Respondent to the Europa
League, the DRC recalled that this additional remuneration was agreed by the parties in the
Annex, i.e. point 7) 6.2.5.
34. The DRC observed that the Claimant failed to present evidence related to the qualification of the
Respondent to the Europa League.
35. However, the Chamber referred to art. 12 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules which states that the
Players’ Status Committee and the DRC may also consider evidence not presented by the parties.
36. The DRC pointed out that according to media reports and information at disposal in official
websites, the Respondent qualified for the Europa League 2019/2020.
37.
What is more, the Chamber highlighted that the Respondent did not contest in particular this
request of the Claimant.
38.
In light of the above, the DRC decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive from the
Respondent the relevant bonus amounting to EUR 30,000.
39. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s claim as well as the Chamber’s longstanding
jurisprudence in this respect, it was decided to award the Claimant an annual interest of 5%. The
DRC further noted that the Claimant did not specify since which date the relevant interest should
apply. Therefore, the DRC decided to grant the requested interest to the Claimant as from the
end of the respective season.
40. As to the Claimant´s requests for personal expenses for a total amount of EUR 3,300 allegedly
related to the seasons 2018/2019 and 2019/2020, the DRC underlined that said amount was
contractually agreed by the parties [cf. point 7) 6.1 of the Annex]. The DRC pointed out that
based on said provision the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent an annual
amount of EUR 10,000 payable in ten instalments of EUR 1,000 each to cover any personal
expenses.
41. In this respect, the DRC observed that the Respondent did not present any reasonable justification
not to pay said part of the Claimant´s remuneration.
42. As a consequence, the DRC decided to grant EUR 3,300 to the Claimant as personal expenses
divided in two parts, EUR 800 and EUR 2,500 corresponding to the seasons 2018/2019 and
2019/2020 respectively.
43.
With regard to the Claimant´s request for interest, the DRC decided to grant an interest at a rate
of 5% per annum on said personal expenses. In this respect, The DRC noted that the Claimant
did not specify since which dates the relevant interest should apply. Therefore, the DRC decided
to grant the requested interest to the Claimant as from the end of the respective season.
Page 10 of 14
REF FPSD-117
44.
In continuation, the DRC focused its attention to the Claimant´s request for EUR 35,000 (EUR
10,000 + EUR 25,000) as expenses to cover his agent´s fees.
45.
In this respect, the DRC pointed out that this part of the remuneration was contractually agreed
by the parties [i.e. points 4) and 5) of the Annex]. The DRC remarked that based on cited
provisions the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent an amount of EUR 25,000
net payable on 15 August 2018 and a second payment of the same amount on 15 August 2019.
46.
In this context, the DRC was keen to emphasise the content of art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations
which states that the FIFA decision-making bodies shall not hear any dispute if more than two
years have elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute.
47. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that taking into account that the Claimant lodged the present
claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent on 17 August 2020, i.e. more than 2 years after
the first amount of EUR 25,000 was effectively due (15 August 2018), the request of the
Claimant’s claim for an amount of EUR 10,000 is time-barred.
48. Having established the aforementioned, the DRC went on to address the Claimant’s request for
the amount of EUR 25,000 to cover his agent´s expenses, which was due on 15 August 2019.
49. The Chamber concluded that since said expense is contractually agreed by the parties and taking
into account that the Respondent did not present any justified reasons for not paying it, the
Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent the amount of EUR 25,000 to cover the costs
of his agent.
50. Moreover, the DRC took note of the Claimant´s request for interest and decided to grant an
annual interest at a rate of 5% on EUR 25,000 as from its due date (i.e. 16 August 2019) until
the date of effective payment.
51. At this stage, the DRC established that the Respondent had delayed due payments for
more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis.
52. In view of all the above, the Chamber concluded 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 145,800 plus an interest of 5% p.a. as from the respective due dates.
53. In continuation, taking into account the consideration under number II./51. above, the Chamber
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.
54. In this respect, the DRC noted that the conditions established in art. 12bis of the Regulations
were met. In particular, the Chamber pointed out that on 22 July 2020, the Claimant put the
Respondent in default for overdue payables (EUR 155,800) for more than 30 days granting it
more than 10 days to remedy its default.
Page 11 of 14
REF FPSD-117
55. The DRC established that in virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations he has competence
to impose sanctions on the Respondent.
56. Therefore, and in the absence of the circumstance of repeated offence, the DRC decided
to impose a warning on the Respondent in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. a) of the
Regulations.
57. In this respect, the DRC wished to highlight that a repeated offence will be considered
as an aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty in accordance with art.
12bis par. 6 of the Regulations.
58. Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./12. above, the Chamber
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.
59. In this regard, the Chamber pointed out 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.
60. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the Respondent
does not pay the amounts due to the Claimant within 45 days as from the moment in which the
Claimant, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank
details to the Respondent, 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 Respondent in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the
Regulations.
61. Finally, the Chamber 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.
62. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter stipulating
that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. In conclusion, the Claimant’s claim is
partially accepted.
III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Ruben Rayos Serna, is partially accepted insofar it is admissible.
2.
The Respondent, Anorthosis Famagusta FC, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amounts:
1) EUR 25,000 plus 5% annual interest as from 1 June 2019 until the date of
effective payment;
2) EUR 12,500 plus 5% annual interest as from 1 April 2020 until the date of
effective payment;
Page 12 of 14
REF FPSD-117
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
EUR 25,000 plus 5% annual interest as from 1 May 2020 until the date of
effective payment;
EUR 25,000 plus 5% annual interest as from 1 June 2020 until the date of
effective payment;
EUR 30,000 plus 5% annual interest as from 1 June 2020 until the date of
effective payment;
EUR 800 plus 5% annual interest as from 1 June 2019 until the date of effective payment;
EUR 2,500 plus 5% annual interest as from 1 June 2020 until the date of effective payment;
EUR 25,000 plus 5% annual interest as from 16 August 2019 until the date of effective
payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
A warning is imposed on the Respondent.
5.
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.
6.
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).
7.
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.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Players Status Committee:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 13 of 14
REF FPSD-117
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 14 of 14