Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge
passed on 15 January 2020,
by
Om ar Ongaro (Italy),
on the claim presented by the player,
Milos S tojcev , Serbia,
represented by Mr Mirko Poledica
as Claimant
and the club,
FK Tuzla City , Bosnia and Herzegovina
regarding an employment-related dispute
arisen between the parties
as Respondent
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 4 June 2018, the player Milos Stojcev (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant)
concluded an “agreement of the professional engagement” (hereinafter: the engagement
agreement) with the club, FK Tuzla City (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent), valid as
from 4 June 2018 until 30 June 2020.
2.
In accordance with art. 3 of the engagement agreement, the player was entitled to the
total amount of BAM (Bosnian Mark) 100,000 per year, payable as follows:
- BAM 40,000 to be paid until “the start of the championship for the season
2018/2019”;
- BAM 12,000 to be paid “in equal instalments of KM [BAM] 1,000.00 per month”;
- BAM 48,000 to be paid until 25 February 2019.
- BAM 40,000 to be paid until “the beginning of the championship for the season
2019/2020”;
- BAM 12,000 to be paid “in equal instalments of KM 1,000.00 per month”;
- BAM 48,000 to be paid until 25 February 2020.
3.
Moreover, in art. 1 of the engagement agreement, the parties stipulated that “this
Agreement is concluded with an aim to regulate the rights and obligations that will not
be defined by the main Agreement of the professional PLAYER”.
4.
On 1 July 2018, the parties concluded an employment agreement (hereinafter: the
employment agreement), valid as from 1 July 2018 until 30 June 2020.
5.
In accordance with art. 8 of the employment agreement the player was entitled to “the
contracted payment of the Player’s personal income in the gross amount amounts to KM
1000.00”.
6.
Furthermore, art. 10 of the employment agreement stated that “when making the salary
payment, the financial service of the Club is obliged to hand a written statement of income
to the Player”.
7.
On 24 May 2019, the player put the club in default for the payment of BAM 47,180,
corresponding to the following:
Based on the employment agreement
BAM 1,000 each for the salaries of July 2018 and April 2019;
BAM 460 each for the unpaid part of the salaries of August 2018 to March 2019.
Based on the engagement agreement
BAM 1,000 each for the salaries of June 2018 to April 2019;
BAM 30,500 net for the instalment due on 25 February 2019.
The player set a deadline of 30 days.
Player Milos Stojcev, Serbia / Club FK Tuzla City, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Page 2 of 13
8.
On 24 June 2019, the player sent a further letter requesting that the player shall
immediately return “to train with first team and inform us officially”.
9.
On 25 June 2019, the player unilaterally terminated the contract invoking the club’s
breach of contract.
10.
On 2 July 2019, the Claimant lodged a claim for breach of contract and requested the
payment of BAM 162,700 (according to the player that’s EUR 83,0187) of the following
amounts:
Outstanding remuneration based on the employment agreement: BAM 6,600, plus 5%
interest p.a. as from the due dates, corresponding to the following:
BAM 1,000 for the salary of July 2018;
BAM 460 each for the salary for August 2018 until May 2019;
BAM 1,000 for the salary of June 2019.
Outstanding remuneration based on the engagement agreement: BAM 43,500, plus 5%
interest p.a. as from the due dates, corresponding to the following:
BAM 1,000 each for the salary for June 2018 until June 2019;
BAM 30,500 for the unpaid part of the instalment due on 25 February 2019.
Compensation: BAM 12,000 based on the residual value of the employment agreement
and BAM 100,000 based on the residual value of the engagement agreement, plus 5%
interest as from 25 June 2019.
11.
In his claim, the player deemed that instead of paying the instalments in accordance with
the engagement agreement, the club paid only EUR 10,000 per instalment (in total 3
payments).
12.
Furthermore, the player argued that the club “banned” him from training and despite his
written requested to be reinstated with the team, the club “did not allow the Claimant to
train with team”.
13.
In addition, the player stressed that he “fulfilled his duty out from the Agreements and
did neither violate against any provisions in the Agreements nor against any provision in
good faith and loyalty”.
14.
Consequently, the player claimed that he terminated the contract with just cause as the
club breached the contract “due to persistent non-compliance with the financial terms”.
15.
In its reply, the club rejected the player’s claim and deemed that the engagement
agreement “was not certified by the Authorized judge for registration of players and
hasn’t come into force according to the article 71 and 79 of Rulebook on registration,
status and transfer of the players’ of Football Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina”.
Player Milos Stojcev, Serbia / Club FK Tuzla City, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Page 3 of 13
16.
Furthermore, the club argued that despite the above, the club “paid 4 instalments by
10.000,00 Euro”.
17.
In addition, the club stressed that the “salaries are agreed in gross amounts of 1.000,00
BAM (with all insurances and contribution included) which is apx 540,00 BAM for payment
to the Claimant”.
18.
Moreover, the club deemed that “all this issue regarding Claimant Milos Sojcev started
when FC Tuzla City started disciplinary procedure against him on May 21st 2019 because he
refused to attend on the game and while his club FC Tuzla City played its championship
game against HSK Zrinjski Mostar, Milos Stojcev was present at the game of FK Sarajevo
and he was celebrating their championship title with them at the same time. When
Claimant was informed about the disciplinary procedure against him then he started to
request allegedly unpaid salaries and other amounts of money from FC Tuzla City”.
19.
Furthermore, the club argued that the player “refused to do workouts with the rest of the
team when suddenly he left the FC Tuzla City and never returned to Club”.
20.
In this respect, the club pointed out that the club “decided to terminate his contract”.
21.
In view of the above, the club highlighted that it “paid to Claimant 4 instalments by
10.000,00 Euro as well as 12 salaries in gross amount of 12.000,00 BAM which is
approximately 92.000,00 BAM”.
22.
Upon request, the player informed FIFA that on 27 June 2019, he signed an employment
contract with the Serbian club FC Vozdovac, valid as from 1 July 2019 until 31 May 2021,
and according to which he was entitled to get a total amount of EUR 13,050 for the period
between 1 July 2019 and 30 June 2020.
II.
Cons iderations of the DRC judge
1.
First, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge (hereinafter: DRC judge) analysed
whether he was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, he took note
that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 2 July 2019. Consequently, the Rules
Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution
Chamber (edition 2018; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand
(cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules).
2.
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 October 2019) he is
competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related
dispute with an international dimension between a Serbian player and a Bosnian club.
Player Milos Stojcev, Serbia / Club FK Tuzla City, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Page 4 of 13
3.
Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par.
1 and par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition January 2020),
and considering that the present claim was lodged on 2 July 2019, the June 2019 edition
of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to
the substance.
4.
The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established,
the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. Subsequently, the DRC judge
continued by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation
contained in the file in relation to the substance of the matter. However, the DRC judge
emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments
and documentary evidence, which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the
matter at hand.
5.
First of all, the DRC judge acknowledged that on 4 June 2018, the player and the club
signed an engagement agreement, valid as form 4 June 2018 until 30 June 2020.
6.
Furthermore, the DRC judge acknowledged that on 1 July 2018, the parties signed an
employment contract valid as from 1 July 2018 until 30 June 2020.
7.
The DRC judge then reviewed the claim of the player, who maintains that he had just cause
to terminate the contract on 25 June 2019, as the club failed to comply with its financial
obligations and excluded the player from the training. Consequently, the Claimant asked
to be awarded, inter alia, payment of his outstanding remuneration as well as
compensation for breach of contract.
8.
The DRC then turned its attention to the arguments of the club and acknowledged that
the latter did not dispute the existence of the two contracts but deemed that only the
employment contract signed on 1 July 2018 was registered with the Bosnian Football
Association and therefore, the only document to be considered as valid. Furthermore, the
DRC judge noted that the Respondent argued that it was the club that terminated the
contract as the player refused to train and left the club without permission.
9.
In view of the foregoing, the DRC judge deemed that the first issue to be solved is how the
contract was terminated, by which party and on which date. In so doing, the DRC judge
proceeded with an analysis of the parties’ arguments as well as of the documentation on
file, bearing in mind the wording of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance
with which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden
of proof.
10.
In this regard, the DRC judge noted that the player provided written evidence that the
termination letter had been sent to the club by e-mail on 25 June 2019. In this respect, the
Player Milos Stojcev, Serbia / Club FK Tuzla City, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Page 5 of 13
DRC judge deemed that the player provided sufficient and consistent evidence of having
sent the club the termination letter. Thus, the DRC judge concluded that the contract was
terminated by the player on 25 June 2019.
11.
Having established the termination of the contract by the player on 25 June 2019, the DRC
judge continued his analysis of the substance of the case by noting that, while the player
deems that there are 2 valid contracts of which both are applicable, the club on the other
hand sustains that only the employment agreement signed on 1 July 2019 is applicable, as
it is the only agreement that was registered with the Bosnian Football Association.
12.
The DRC judge proceed by analysing both contracts and noted that none of the
agreements excluded the validity of the other agreement and, in fact, the DRC judge
referred to art. 1 of the engagement agreement which stipulated the following: “this
Agreement is concluded with an aim to regulate the rights and obligations that will not
be defined by main Agreement of the professional Player”. Considering the wording of
said clause, the DRC judge concluded that the parties explicitly agreed that two contract
will be signed and both of them shall be valid.
13.
In addition, the DRC judge emphasised, that as a general rule, the registration of an
employment contract at a football association does not constitute a condition for its
validity.
14.
In continuation, the DRC judge then proceeded to the allegation of the player in regards
of the amount of BAM 50,100, which the player deemed that the club did not pay.
15.
Equally, the DRC judge took note of the reply of the Respondent, which asserted that it
had paid 4 instalments in the amount of EUR 10,000 each and paid the salary in the amount
of BAM 540 each month.
16.
In this respect, 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.
17.
Subsequently, the DRC judge first analysed the payments due in accordance with the
engagement agreement. In this regard, the DRC judge took note that the Claimant
acknowledged that he received 3 payments on 4 June 2018, 19 July 2018 and 18 April 2019,
in the amount of EUR 10,000 each. The DRC judge then recalled that the Respondent
claimed to have made an additional payment of EUR 10,000 on 10 April 2019. In this
respect, the club provided a document, which it deemed to be a payment confirmation.
However, having analysed said document, the DRC could not accept that the document
could be considered as proof of payment, in particular, as it differed to the payment
confirmation of the other three payments which were acknowledged by the player.
18.
In addition, the DRC judge emphasised that the amount of EUR 30,000, equals to around
BAM 57,500, and therefore, the DRC judge established that an amount of BAM 30,500
Player Milos Stojcev, Serbia / Club FK Tuzla City, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Page 6 of 13
remained unpaid from the 2 instalments in the amount of BAM 40,000 and BAM 48,000
due at the start of the 2018/2019 and on 25 February 2019.
19.
Moreover, the DRC judge recalled that the Respondent did not dispute that it did not pay
the monthly salary in the amount of BAM 1,000 net in accordance with the engagement
agreement, as it deemed that said agreement is not valid.
20.
Having established the above, the DRC judge concluded that a total amount of BAM 42,500
remained unpaid in accordance with the engagement agreement.
21.
The DRC judge then turned his attention to the amounts due in accordance with the
employment agreement and acknowledged that the player would be entitled to a monthly
salary in the amount of BAM 1,000 gross as from 1 July 2018. Moreover, the DRC judge
recalled that the Claimant acknowledged to have received BAM 540 as monthly salary from
August 2018 until May 2019.
22.
Continuously, the DRC judge referred to the document provided by the Respondent titled
“Annual report” which provided the calculation from the gross amounts to the net
amounts. In this regard, the DRC judge acknowledged that the Respondent paid to the
Claimant BAM 540 each month as from August 2018. Having said that, the DRC judge
noted that the Respondent calculated the net amounts based on a gross amount of BAM
869.57, instead of BAM 1,000.
23.
Therefore, the DRC judge proceeded to calculate the net salary based on a gross salary of
BAM 1,000 and came to a net amount of BAM 620.90.
24.
Considering the aforementioned, the DRC judge concluded that the Claimant would be
entitled to an additional BAM 80.98 on each salary as from August 2018, plus the full salary
in the amount of BAM 620.90 for July 2018.
25.
Based on the foregoing, the DRC judge concluded that on the date of termination, i.e. 25
June 2019, the total amount of total amount of BAM 43,930.70 remained unpaid.
26.
In continuation, taking into account the consideration under point II.3 above, the DRC
judged referred to art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, which, inter alia, stipulates that, in
case a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two monthly salaries on their due dates,
the player will be deemed to have had a just cause to terminate his contract, provided that
he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted it a deadline of at least
15 days to fully comply with its financial obligations.
27.
Consequently, on account of the above and considering that, when the player terminated
the contract, a total amount of BAM 43,930.70 were due despite the fact that the Claimant
put the Respondent in default, the DRC judge concluded that, on 25 June 2019, the
Claimant had a just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment contract.
Player Milos Stojcev, Serbia / Club FK Tuzla City, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Page 7 of 13
28.
As a result, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early
termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant.
29.
Having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of
the employment contract, the DRC judge focused his attention on the consequences of
such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the DRC judge
established that the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent compensation for
breach of contract, in addition to any outstanding payments on the basis of the relevant
employment contracts.
30.
Subsequently, prior to establishing the consequences of the termination of the
employment contract with just cause by the Claimant in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of
the Regulations, the DRC judge held the Claimant shall be entitled to the unpaid
remuneration as established above at the moment when the contract was terminated by
the Claimant, i.e. BAM 43,930.70.
31.
Furthermore, considering the player’s claim for interest and also taking into account the
DRC’s longstanding jurisprudence, the DRC judge ruled that the Respondent must pay
interest as follows:
a. 5% p.a. as from 1 July 2018 on the amount of BAM 1,000;
b. 5% p.a. as from 1 August 2018 on the amount of BAM 1,000;
c. 5% p.a. as from 1 August 2018 on the amount of BAM 620.90;
d. 5% p.a. as from 1 September 2018 on the amount of BAM 1,000;
e. 5% p.a. as from 1 September 2018 on the amount of BAM 80.98;
f. 5% p.a. as from 1 October 2018 on the amount of BAM 1,000;
g. 5% p.a. as from 1 October 2018 on the amount of BAM 80.98;
h. 5% p.a. as from 1 November 2018 on the amount of BAM 1,000;
i. 5% p.a. as from 1 November 2018 on the amount of BAM 80.98;
j. 5% p.a. as from 1 December 2018 on the amount of BAM 1,000;
k. 5% p.a. as from 1 December 2018 on the amount of BAM 80.98;
l. 5% p.a. as from 1 January 2019 on the amount of BAM 1,000;
m. 5% p.a. as from 1 January 2019 on the amount of BAM 80.98;
n. 5% p.a. as from 1 February 2019 on the amount of BAM 1,000;
o. 5% p.a. as from 1 February 2019 on the amount of BAM 80.98;
p. 5% p.a. as from 26 February 2019 on the amount of BAM 30,500;
q. 5% p.a. as from 1 March 2019 on the amount of BAM 1,000;
r. 5% p.a. as from 1 March 2019 on the amount of BAM 80.98;
s. 5% p.a. as from 1 April 2019 on the amount of BAM 1,000;
t. 5% p.a. as from 1 April 2019 on the amount of BAM 80.98;
u. 5% p.a. as from 1 May 2019 on the amount of BAM 1,000;
v. 5% p.a. as from 1 May 2019 on the amount of BAM 80.98;
w. 5% p.a. as from 1 June 2019 on the amount of BAM 1,000;
x. 5% p.a. as from 1 June 2019 on the amount of BAM 80.98.
Player Milos Stojcev, Serbia / Club FK Tuzla City, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Page 8 of 13
32.
In continuation, the DRC judge focused his attention on the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the DRC judge firstly
recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of
compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country
concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including, in particular,
the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contract
and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of
five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected
period.
33.
In application of the relevant provision, the DRC judge held that he first of all had to clarify
as to whether the pertinent employment contracts contains a provision by means of which
the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the
contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the DRC judge
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at
the basis of the matter at stake.
34.
As a consequence, the members of the DRC judge determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in application
of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The DRC judge recalled
that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into
consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable. Therefore, other
objective criteria may be taken into account at the discretion of the deciding body. In this
regard, the DRC judge emphasised beforehand that each request for compensation for
contractual breach has to be assessed by the DRC judge on a case-by-case basis taking into
account all specific circumstances of the respective matter.
35.
The DRC judge then turned his attention to the remuneration and other benefits due to
the Claimant under the existing contract and/or the new contract, which criterion was
considered by the DRC judge to be essential. The DRC judge deemed it important to
emphasise that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows the DRC judge to
take into account both the existing contract and the new contract, if any, in the calculation
of the amount of compensation.
36.
Bearing in mind the foregoing, the DRC judge proceeded with the calculation of the
monies payable to the player under the terms of the employment contract as from the
date of termination with just cause by the Claimant until its natural expiration, bearing in
mind that he would have received in total BAM 109,072 as remuneration for the period as
from June 2019 until June 2020. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the amount
of BAM 109,072 serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.
Player Milos Stojcev, Serbia / Club FK Tuzla City, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Page 9 of 13
37.
In continuation, the DRC judge verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to art. 17 par.
1 lit. ii) of the Regulations as well as the constant practice of the DRC, such remuneration
under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general
obligation to mitigate his damages.
38.
In this respect, the DRC recalled that the Claimant had found new employment with the
Serbian club, FC Vozdovac, as from 1 July 2019 until 31 May 2021, leading to total value
for the period corresponding to the time remaining on the prematurely terminated
contract of EUR 13,050, which is approximately BAM 25,000, which shall be deducted from
the above-mentioned residual value. As a result, the DRC judge established that the
“Mitigated Compensation” amounts to BAM 84,072.
39.
Subsequently, the DRC judge turned its attention once more to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the
Regulations, according to which a player is entitled to an “Additional Compensation” of
three monthly salaries on top of the “Mitigated Compensation”, subject to the early
termination of the contract being due to overdue payables. Furthermore, said provision
established that the overall compensation may never exceed the rest value of the
prematurely terminated contract.
40.
Therefore, taking into consideration the player’s monthly salary under the prematurely
terminated contract, which the DRC judge deemed to be BAM 9,100 calculated as an
average amount received per month, the DRC judge decided to award the Claimant
additional compensation in the amount of BAM 25,000, in accordance with the abovementioned provision.
41.
Consequently, on account of the above-mentioned considerations, the DRC judge decided
to partially accept the Claimant’s claim and held that the Respondent must pay the amount
of BAM 109,072 as compensation for breach of contract to the Claimant, which is
considered by the DRC judge to be a fair and reasonable amount.
42.
In addition, taking into account the player’s request and the DRC’s well-established
jurisprudence, the DRC judge decided that the club must pay to the player interest of 5%
p.a. on the amounts of BAM 109,072 as of the date on which the claim was lodged, i.e. 2
July 2019, until the date of effective payment.
43.
The DRC judge concluded its deliberations by rejecting any further claim of the Claimant.
44.
Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./3. above, 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.
Player Milos Stojcev, Serbia / Club FK Tuzla City, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Page 10 of 13
45.
In this regard, the DRC judge 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.
46.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC judge decided that, in the event that the
Respondent does not pay the amount 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.
47.
Finally, the DRC judge recalled that the above-mentioned sanction 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.
III.
Decis ion of the DRC judge
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Milos Stojcev, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, FK Tuzla City, has to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in
the amount of BAM 43,930.70, plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as
follows:
a. 5% p.a. as from 1 July 2018 on the amount of BAM 1,000;
b. 5% p.a. as from 1 August 2018 on the amount of BAM 1,000;
c. 5% p.a. as from 1 August 2018 on the amount of BAM 620.90;
d. 5% p.a. as from 1 September 2018 on the amount of BAM 1,000;
e. 5% p.a. as from 1 September 2018 on the amount of BAM 80.98;
f. 5% p.a. as from 1 October 2018 on the amount of BAM 1,000;
g. 5% p.a. as from 1 October 2018 on the amount of BAM 80.98;
h. 5% p.a. as from 1 November 2018 on the amount of BAM 1,000;
i. 5% p.a. as from 1 November 2018 on the amount of BAM 80.98;
j. 5% p.a. as from 1 December 2018 on the amount of BAM 1,000;
k. 5% p.a. as from 1 December 2018 on the amount of BAM 80.98;
l. 5% p.a. as from 1 January 2019 on the amount of BAM 1,000;
m. 5% p.a. as from 1 January 2019 on the amount of BAM 80.98;
n. 5% p.a. as from 1 February 2019 on the amount of BAM 1,000;
o. 5% p.a. as from 1 February 2019 on the amount of BAM 80.98;
p. 5% p.a. as from 26 February 2019 on the amount of BAM 30,500;
q. 5% p.a. as from 1 March 2019 on the amount of BAM 1,000;
Player Milos Stojcev, Serbia / Club FK Tuzla City, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Page 11 of 13
r. 5% p.a. as from 1 March 2019 on the amount of BAM 80.98;
s. 5% p.a. as from 1 April 2019 on the amount of BAM 1,000;
t. 5% p.a. as from 1 April 2019 on the amount of BAM 80.98;
u. 5% p.a. as from 1 May 2019 on the amount of BAM 1,000;
v. 5% p.a. as from 1 May 2019 on the amount of BAM 80.98;
w. 5% p.a. as from 1 June 2019 on the amount of BAM 1,000;
x. 5% p.a. as from 1 June 2019 on the amount of BAM 80.98.
3.
The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant compensation for breach of contract in the
amount of BAM 109,072, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 14 September 2018 until the date
of effective payment.
4.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
5.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent, immediately and directly, preferably
to the e-mail address as indicated on the cover letter of the present decision, of the
relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the amounts plus interest
mentioned under points 2. and 3. above
6.
The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amounts plus interest in
accordance with points 2. and 3. above to FIFA to the e-mail address [email protected], duly
translated, if need be, into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, German,
Spanish).
7.
In the event that the amounts due plus interest in accordance with points 2. and 3. above
are not paid by the Respondent w ithin 45 day s as from the notification by the Claimant
of the relevant bank details to the Respondent, 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
(cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).
8.
The ban mentioned in point 7 above will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete
serving, once the due amounts are paid.
Player Milos Stojcev, Serbia / Club FK Tuzla City, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Page 12 of 13
9.
In the event that the aforementioned sums plus interest are 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 FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal
decision.
*****
Note related to the publication:
The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the Players’ Status Committee or the
DRC. Where such decisions contain confidential information, 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 Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status
Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).
Note relating to the motiv ated decis ion (legal remedy):
According to art. 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly
within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in
accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS. Within another 10 days following
the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief
stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the
directives).
The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
Avenue de Beaumont 2, CH-1012 Lausanne
Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00
e-mail: [email protected]
www.tas-cas.org
For the DRC judge:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Player Milos Stojcev, Serbia / Club FK Tuzla City, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Page 13 of 13