Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-9793
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 7 July 2023
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning
the player Yohan Roche
COMPOSITION:
Frans DE WEGER (the Netherlands), Chairperson
André dos Santos MEGALE (Brazil), Member
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
CLAIMANT:
Yohan Roche, France
Represented by Jérémie Delattre
RESPONDENT:
Adanaspor A.S., Türkiye
Represented by Ismet Bumin
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-9793
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 20 July 2021, the French player, Yohan Roche (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant)
and the Turkish club, Adanaspor (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent) concluded an
employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid until 31 May 2023.
2.
In accordance with the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant inter
alia the following amounts:
-
3.
For the 2021/2022 season: EUR 90,000.
For the 202/2023 season: EUR 100,000 in case the club is competing the TFF 1st (second
tier) league or EUR 50,000 in case the club is competing in the TFF Super (top tier)
league.
Clause 9 of the contract reads as follows:
“Disputes:
Any and all disputes arising out or in connection with this Contract shall be dealt with
exclusively by the Courts and Enforcement Offices of Adama and shall be resolved
definitely in accordance with Turkish law”.
4.
Following the earthquake in Türkiye on 6 February 2023, the training/competitions of the
club were suspended.
5.
By correspondence dated 17 February 2023, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of
payment of EUR 32,000 corresponding to EUR 2,000 as remaining salary of the 2021/2022
season and EUR 30,000 as salary of the first part of the season 2023.
6.
On 2 March 2023, the club informed the players that would resume trainings on 6 March
2023.
7.
On 6 March 2023, the Player and Mr. Karayel, responsible of the company managing the
club’s cars at the disposition of the players, exchanged WhatsApp messages, in which the
player asked information about his car and his personal items. Mr. Karayel replied that the
club “sent the car back”. The player argued that this situation was not normal as it was
without the player’s authorization and that he wants to recover his personal items.
8.
On the same date, 6 March 2023, the player and Mr. Karayel met in order to return the
player’s personal items and there was a dispute between them. A claim regarding this
incident was filed to the police.
9.
By correspondence dated 10 March 2023, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of
payment of EUR 42,000 corresponding to the remaining salary of the 2021/2022 season
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-9793
and the salary of the first part of the season 2023 and to provide him with a car; setting a
15 days’ time limit in order to remedy the default.
10. On 10 March 2023, the club unilaterally terminated the contract. However, the player
contested the notification of this letter.
11. On 12 March 2023, via the WhatsApp application, the player was informed by club’s
administrative officer, Mr. Anil Görkem Aksak, that there was a termination letter from the
club.
12. On 13 March 2023, the player sent an email to the club, indicating that he went to the club’s
premises, and he found out that the training was cancelled. He requested the club why he
was not informed about it and that “the situation is getting very confusing for [the player]. In
addition to the lack of payment of [the player’s] remuneration (for which [the player] had to
hire a lawyer), [the player has] to train with very small groups as many players have left the
club and on very bad quality pitches, with the risk of injury”.
13. On 14 March 2023, the player was informed that on 10 March 2023 the club had terminated
the contract.
II. Proceedings before FIFA
14. On 30 March 2023, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of
the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a. Position of the Claimant
15. In his claim, the player indicated that FIFA is competent in accordance with art. 22 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP).
16. In accordance with the player, the club terminated the contract without just cause as he
rejected the arguments provided in which it was mentioned that he aggressed a club
representative. Therefore, the player requested payment of the outstanding salaries and
compensation for breach of contract.
17. The Player requested the following relief:
-
To condemn the club to pay the player the amount of EUR 42,000 regarding the
salaries due to him until 10 March 2023.
To impose sanctions under art. 12 bis of the RSTP.
To indicate that the contract was terminated without just cause by the club.
To condemn the club to pay the player the amount of EUR 69,200 as
compensation for breach of contract.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-9793
-
To impose sanctions under art. 17.4 of the RSTP.
b. Position of the Respondent
18. On 2 May 2023, in addition to a request of a deadline extension, the Respondent argued
that FIFA has no jurisdiction to treat the present case. The Respondent referred to the clear
wording of clause 9 of the contract.
19. The Respondent requested the following relief:
“In light of the explanations given above, by reserving its right to submit its answers on
the substance of the matter and its counterclaim against the Claimant, the Respondent
hereby respectfully requests from the Honourable Chamber to rule that the Football
Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant and to declare that
the claim of the of the Claimant, Mr. Yohan Roche, is inadmissible”.
20. On 11 May 2023, as to the merits, the Respondent rejected the facts presented by the
player with regards to the discussions with Mr Karayel and considered that the contract
was terminated with just cause.
21. As to the outstanding remuneration, the Club argued that it paid all salaries to the Player
and provided with proofs of payment.
22. The Respondent requested the following relief:
“In light of the explanations given above, by reserving its right to submit its counterclaim
against the Claimant if the Honourable Chamber declares itself competent to hear the
claim of the Claimant, the Respondent hereby respectfully requests from the Honourable
Chamber to rule that the Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim of
the Claimant and to declare that the claim of the of the Claimant, Mr. Yohan Roche, is
inadmissible; or in subsidiary order, to reject all claims of the Claimant, in full”.
23. Upon FIFA secretariat general request to complete its counterclaim, following the request
for relief, on 16 May 2022, the Respondent provided with the following reply:
“(…)
Within this scope, [the club] respectfully inform your services that the Respondent, in light
of its strong opinion that the Honourable Chamber will rule that the Football Tribunal does
not have jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant and will declare the claim is
inadmissible, does not have a counterclaim against the Claimant before the FIFA Football
Tribunal.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-9793
For the sake of good order, the Respondent respectfully notes that its right to lodge a
claim, or a counterclaim against the Player Mr. Yohan Roche before the competent bodies
is reserved”.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-9793
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
24. 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 March 2023 and submitted
for decision on 7 July 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023
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.
25. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules
and observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 par. lit. b)
of the RSTP (May 2023 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is in principle competent
to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between a player from France and a club from Türkiye.
26. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent, on one hand, contested the
jurisdiction of FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of clause 9 of the contract, alleging that
the competent body to deal with any dispute deriving from the relevant employment
contract are the courts of Adana. On the other hand, the Chamber noted that the Claimant
stressed that FIFA has jurisdiction to deal with the dispute.
27. Taking into account all the above, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 22
par. 1 of the RSTP (edition May 2023), FIFA has jurisdiction to hear employment-related
disputes between a player and a club with an international dimension “without prejudice to
the right of any player (…) or club to seek redress before a civil court for employment related
disputes”.
28. In the present matter, the Chamber duly noted that the Claimant and the Respondent had
unambiguously and exclusively decided that any dispute that would arise from the contract
would be submitted to the “courts and enforcement offices of Adana”.
29. The Chamber recalled that parties may freely agree to give jurisdiction to a civil court, and
that such choice shall always prevail. In fact, the Chamber, recalling its jurisprudence as
well as the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)’ jurisprudence in this regard, highlighted
that even if the choice of law does not specify which courts are competent (e.g., a generic
reference is made to a region/city), FIFA is not competent when the parties have exclusively
agreed upon the jurisdiction of a civil court. In addition, the Chamber emphasized that art.
22 par. 1 of the RSTP provides a clear hierarchy in favour of contractual autonomy.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-9793
30. In view of all the above, the Chamber concluded that it does not have jurisdiction to hear
the dispute between the Claimant and the Respondent.
b. Costs
31. The Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 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.
32. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 25
par. 8 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in these proceedings.
33. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-9793
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim of the claimant, Yohan
Roche.
2.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-9793
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 Governing the Football
Tribunal).
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
pg. 10