Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
DRC Judge
passed via videoconference, on 12 June 2020,
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Nestor Nicolas Trecco
BY:
Daan de Jong (Netherlands), DRC Judge
CLAIMANT:
Nestor Nicolas Trecco, Argentina
RESPONDENT:
Mons Calpe SC, Gibraltar
REF 20-00114
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
1. On 1 January 2019, the Argentine player, Nestor Nicolas Trecco, (hereinafter: the Claimant), and
the club from Gibraltar, Mons Calpe SC, (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded an employment
contract valid as from the date of signature until 30 May 2019 (hereinafter: the contract), pursuant
to which the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant a monthly salary of EUR 2,800.
2. According to art. 1.1 of the contract, the Respondent “has the right to automatically extend this
Contract due to international competitions for the term in which the Club continues to participate
in such competitions. The Club shall have two separate and independent exclusive and irrevocable
options to renew the Term herein for additional independent seasons (the “Additional Seasons”)
under the same terms and conditions as the initial Term of the Contract. The option shall be
deemed automatically exercised unless the Club notifies player at any time during the Term its
intention not to renew the Term herein. In the event the Club does not notify the Player otherwise,
then such Additional Season(s) shall automatically begin on the date the then current Term ends
and shall be for a new Season (a single “season” is the period of a full season of the Gibraltar
Premier League, traditionally, but not always exactly, from 1 September Through 31 May of the
following year).”
3. Art. 3.6 of the contract provides the following: “This Contract may be terminated either (a) upon
the expiration of its natural term; (b) if the player violates any of his obligations under this Contract,
including those set forth in Exhibit A; (c) pursuant to Section 3,5; (d) by mutual agreement between
the parties; (e) unilaterally by one of the parties for reasons of just cause or sporting just cause; (f)
unilaterally by the Club for any acts of indiscipline, mutiny or intent to revolt, suppress or intimidate
anyone within the Club and or the Club’s staff or related parties, and; (g) according to the Club
regulations, the regulations of the GFA and/or FIFA. The infringement of this Section’s sub-article;
(f) will be treated as just cause for the unilateral termination of this Contract without any
responsibility by the Club and without any right to get any further payments to the Player.
4. Moreover, in accordance with art. 3.7 of the contract, “Should just cause or sporting just cause
exist (other than the ones mentioned in this Agreement as just causes) for the premature unilateral
termination of this Contract, then such party claiming just cause or sporting just cause shall file a
complaint with the Dispute Settlement Committee of the GFA claiming such just cause or sporting
just cause. This Contract shall be deemed terminated only upon the publication of a decision of
the competent GFA judicial body decreeing such termination, unless the Club pursuant to the
terms of this Contract terminates it.”
5. The Claimant, in his claim, considered that the contract had been extended to the season
2019/2020 since, in application of art. 1.1 of the contract, the Respondent had not notified the
Claimant of its intention not to renew the terms of the contract. The Claimant added that as of 31
May 2019, he did not receive any information about the date of start of the next season and did
not receive the salaries as of April 2019.
Page 2 of 9
REF 20-00114
6. On 9 August 2019, via letter sent to the Claimant, the Respondent unilaterally terminated the
contract (“in addition to the termination or non-renewal of your player contact”) arguing that it
had fulfilled its obligations toward the Claimant, but the Claimant had a bad attitude, missed
several trainings and participated in a “sit down” protest before a match. In continuation, the
Respondent held that it might file a claim against the Claimant for 3 monthly salaries.
7. The Claimant deemed that by sending the abovementioned letter, the Respondent implicitly
recognized that the contract had been extended to the 2019/2020 season.
8. On 16 January 2020, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA for
outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract, claiming the payment of EUR
61,093.33, plus 5% interest p.a. as from as from the due dates, corresponding to:
a. EUR 12,040 as outstanding remuneration, corresponding to the salaries of April to July
2019 as well as 9 days of August 2019;
b. EUR 44,053.33 as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to:
EUR 27,253.33 as residual value of the contract for the 22 days of August 2019
and the salaries from September 2019 to May 2020
EUR 16,800 as additional compensation corresponding to 6 monthly salaries
c. EUR 5,000 as legal costs.
9. The Respondent submission to the claim was received outside the time limit granted by the FIFA
Administration, therefore, in accordance to art. 9 par. 3 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of
the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the Respondent’s reply to the
claim shall not be taken into account.
II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DRC JUDGE
1.
First of all, the DRC judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the matter at stake.
In this respect, the DRC judge took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 16
January 2020. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the 2019 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.
2.
Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that,
in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players, the DRC judge is competent to deal with the matter at stake,
which concerns an employment–related dispute with an international dimension.
3.
Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC judge
confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the said Regulations and
considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 16 January 2020, the January
Page 3 of 9
REF 20-00114
2020 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (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. In this respect, the DRC judge started by
acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation
submitted by the parties. However, the DRC judge emphasised that in the following considerations
it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which he considered pertinent
for the assessment of the matter at hand.
5.
In this respect, the DRC judge acknowledged that, on 1 January 2019, the Claimant and the
Respondent concluded an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 30 May
2019, pursuant to which the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant a monthly salary of
EUR 2,800. The DRC judge also noted that it remained undisputed that the contract was extended
until 31 May 2020, in accordance with art. 1.1 of the contract.
6.
Moreover, the DRC judge took that on 9 August 2019, via letter, the Respondent unilaterally
terminated the contract invoking just cause on the basis of the Claimant’s conduct, mainly by
having a bad attitude, having missed several trainings and participated in a “sit down” protest
before a match.
7.
Having recalled the above, the DRC judge observed that, the Claimant, in his claim, requested
outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract in the total amount of EUR
61,093.33, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the due dates.
8.
The DRC judge further noted that the Respondent submitted its response to the claim outside the
time limit granted by the FIFA Administration. Therefore, in accordance to art. 9 par. 3 of the
Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution
Chamber, the Respondent’s reply shall not be taken into account.
9.
The DRC judge considered the documentation on file and deemed that the main issue of the
present dispute is to determine whether the employment contract was unilaterally terminated
with or without just cause by the Respondent.
10. In this respect, the DRC judge referred to the termination letter of the club dated 9 August 2019,
in which it stated inter alia that the reasons for the termination were the player’s alleged bad
attitude, his alleged absence to several trainings sessions and his participation in a “sit down”
protest before a match.
11. In continuation, the DRC judge was eager to emphasise that only a breach or misconduct which
is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract without prior warning. In other words,
only when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect a continuation of
the employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely.
Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken in order for an employer to assure
Page 4 of 9
REF 20-00114
the employee’s fulfilment of his contractual duties, such measures must be taken before
terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of an employment contract can
always only be an ultima ratio.
12. Referring to the concrete circumstances of the case, the DRC judge noted that not only no
evidence was provided of the Respondent’s accusations against the player or of any attempt of
the club to preserve the contract before unilaterally terminating it. The player disputed the
Respondent’s accusations and the termination of the contract and the claim remained
unanswered by the Respondent. Thus, the DRC judge concluded that the Respondent did not
have just cause to prematurely terminate the employment contract with the Claimant, since from
the documentation and argumentation on file it appears that there would have been more lenient
measures to be taken in order to sanction any eventual misconduct of the player, if any, which is
at the basis of the termination of the employment contract by the Respondent.
13. Furthermore, the DRC judge noted that the player claims that on the date of termination his
salaries for April to July 2019 as well as 9 days of August 2019 were outstanding, which remained
undisputed by the Respondent.
14. On account of the above, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent did not have a just cause
to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship with the Claimant on 9 August 2019 and,
consequently, the latter must bear the financial and/or sporting consequences of the early
termination, in addition to any outstanding payments on the basis of the relevant employment
contract.
15. First of all, the DRC judge concurred that the Respondent must fulfill its obligations as per
employment contract in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”.
Consequently, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the
remuneration that was outstanding at the time of the termination, i.e. the amount of EUR 11,200.
This amount consists of the Claimant’s monthly salary for April, May, June and July 2019.
16. Furthermore, considering the Claimant’s claim for interest and also taking into account the DRC
judge’s longstanding jurisprudence, the DRC judge ruled that the club must pay 5% interest p.a.
on the amount of EUR 11,200 as indicated in point III 2. of the present decision.
17. Having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the
employment contract without just cause, 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 decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent an amount of
money as compensation for breach of contract.
18. 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
Page 5 of 9
REF 20-00114
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.
19. In application of the relevant provision, the DRC judge held that he first of all had to clarify as to
whether the pertinent employment contract 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.
20. As a consequence, 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 nonexhaustive 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.
21. 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
him to be essential. The DRC judge deemed it important to emphasise that the wording of art. 17
par. 1 of the Regulations allows him to take into account both the existing contract and the new
contract in the calculation of the amount of compensation.
22. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the DRC judge proceeded with the calculation of the monies
payable to the Claimant under the terms of the employment contract as from its date of
termination without just cause by the Respondent, i.e. 9 August 2019, until the end of the
contract, and concluded that the Claimant would have received in total EUR 28,000 as
remuneration had the contract been executed until its expiry date. Consequently, the DRC judge
concluded that the amount of EUR 28,000 serves as the basis for the final determination of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.
23. 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 the constant practice of the DRC judge,
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. The DRC judge noted that the Claimant signed an
employment contract with the Argentine club, Cipolletti, valid as from August 2019 until June
2020, i.e. 10 months, in accordance with which he would be remunerated with a monthly salary
of ARS 25,000, corresponding approx. to EUR 500. Consequently, in accordance with the constant
practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber and the general obligation of the Claimant to mitigate
Page 6 of 9
REF 20-00114
his damages, such remuneration under the new employment contract – total EUR 5,000 – shall
be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
24. In view of all of the above, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of
EUR 23,000 to the Claimant as compensation for breach of contract without just case, which is
considered by the DRC judge to be a reasonable and justified amount as compensation.
25. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request and the DRC’s well-established
jurisprudence, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of
5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 23,000 as of 16 January 2020, i.e. the date of claim, until the date
of effective payment.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC judge 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.
29. Finally, the DRC judge recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior
to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis par. 3
of the Regulations.
30. The DRC judge concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that Claimant’s
claim is partially accepted and that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
III. DECISION OF THE DRC JUDGE
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Nestor Nicolas Trecco, is partially accepted.
Page 7 of 9
REF 20-00114
2.
The Respondent, Mons Calpe SC, has to pay to the Nestor Nicolas Trecco, the following amount:
- EUR 11,200 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. calculated as follows:
a. Over the amount of EUR 2,800, as from 1 May 2019 until the date of effective
payment;
b. Over the amount of EUR 2,800, as from 1 June 2019 until the date of effective
payment;
c. Over the amount of EUR 2,800, as from 1 July 2019 until the date of effective
payment;
d. Over the amount of EUR 2,800, as from 1 August 2019 until the date of effective
payment;
- EUR 23,000 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest p.a.
as from 16 January 2020 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4.
The Claimant is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent of the relevant bank
account to which the Respondent must pay the due amount.
5.
The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with this
decision to [email protected], duly translated, if applicable, into one of the official FIFA languages
(English, French, German, Spanish).
6.
In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established above is not paid by the Respondent
within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the
Respondent, the following consequences shall arise:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three
entire and consecutive registration periods. The aforementioned ban mentioned will be
lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.
(cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).
2. In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is still not paid by the end of
the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
7. The ban mentioned in point 6. above will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving,
once the due amounts are paid.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Page 8 of 9
REF 20-00114
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 9 of 9