Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF. FPSD-15054
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 3 April 2025
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the
player Donny van Iperen
COMPOSITION:
Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairwoman
Khadija TIMERA (Senegal), Member
Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), Member
CLAIMANT:
Donny van Iperen, The Netherlands
Represented by Linde Mayer
RESPONDENT:
FC Zimbru, Moldova
Represented by Berlin Sports Law
pg. 2
REF. FPSD-15054
I. Facts of the case
1.
On 1 July 2022, the Dutch player Donny van Iperen (hereinafter, the Claimant or the Player)
and the Moldovan club FC Zimbru (hereinafter, the Respondent or the Club) concluded an
employment contract (hereinafter, the Contract) valid as from 1 July 2022 until 30 June
2023.
2.
Pursuant to Clause 9 of the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player (hereinafter,
jointly referred to as the Parties) a monthly salary of MDL 9,900.
3.
In accordance with Clause 11.2 of the Contract, the Club also undertook, inter alia, the
following obligations:
“11.2 With the scope of performing the present Contract, the Club is assigned the following
obligations:
(…)
d) To conclude, from its account, an insurance contract for the Player related to the risks of
illness or injury arising from the training process and/or competitions;
e) To reimburse the costs of treatment and recovery, in case of injury of the Player in the
training process or competition;
(…)
n) To compensate the material and moral damage caused to the Player in accordance with
the provisions of the Labor Code of the Republic of Moldova”.
4.
Also on 1 July 2022, the Parties concluded the so-called “Additional agreement to the
individual employment contract of the football player Nr. 39/22/01.07.2022” (hereinafter, the
First Additional Agreement), in accordance with which:
“1. The Parties agree that, in addition to the amount stipulated in [the Contract], the Player
will be awarded monthly NETTO the amount of
o 7.602,72 MD the equivalent of 391,62 EURO.
o 15.368,04 MDL the equivalent of 791,62 EURO if more than 51% of official matches are
played per month.
o In case of injury the player’s monthly salary will constitute 1.000 EURO.
o Monthly salary for November – December 2022 and January 2023 will constitute 1.000
pg. 3
REF. FPSD-15054
EURO.
2. The Parties agree that the Club automatically extends the employment contract of the
player in case of qualification for the European competitions, for each month of the team’s
participation in the Conference League. With automatic contract renewal, the player’s salary
rises by 100 euros for each month of renewal.
5.
Pursuant to Clause 6 of the First Additional Agreement, the Player was also entitled to the
following additional payments:
“- 150 euros for renting an apartment in November.
- 150 euros per month for renting an apartment for February, March, April and May”.
6.
The Parties also concluded the “Additional agreement to the individual employment contract
of the football player Nr. 39/22/01.07.2022” (hereinafter, the Second Additional Agreement),
the date of which is disputed by the Parties. Whereas the Player contended that the
Second Additional Agreement was concluded on 1 July 2022, together with the Contract
and the First Additional Agreement, the Club sustained that the Second Additional
Agreement was signed on 2 January 2023.
7.
Under the Second Additional Agreement:
“[The Parties] have agreed to amend paragraph 9.1 of the contract and set them out in the
following wording: 9.1. The gros basic salary is 11.700,00 lei”.
8.
On 6 August 2022, the Player collided with an opponent during a match against DinamoAuto and was rushed to the National Institute of Neurology and Neurosurgery in Chisinau.
9.
According to the hospital discharge letter, the Player suffered “Multiple small hemorrhages
in the cerebral parenchyma of the cerebral hemispheres and in the brainstem. Diffuse axonal
brain injury”.
10.
Also on 6 August 2022, the Player was transferred to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), which
established that the Player’s general state was extremely grave.
11.
On 13 August 2022, the Player was discharged from the ICU in Chisinau and transferred
to the ICU of the Erasmus Medical Centre in Rotterdam, where he would be treated until
10 October 2022.
12.
On 23 August 2022, the Player’s brother sent an email to the Club requesting the Club’s
insurance policy for the Player.
pg. 4
REF. FPSD-15054
13.
On 24 August 2022, the Club replied to the aforementioned email informing that:
“Regarding the insurance policy: According to our Governmental Law, the medical care
insurance for foreign citizens is carried out on the base of a temporary residence permit for
foreign citizens in the Republic of Moldova. The necessary documents for obtaining the
residence permit were submitted to the Bureau of Migration and Asylum as soon as the
problem with Donny’s certificate of non-conviction (criminal record) was resolved. Probably
you know that initially, Donny presented the criminal record issued with a QR code, which
was not accepted by our Bureau of Migration and Asylum and it was necessary to find the
way out by completing an Application Form for the Certificate of Conduct and sending it to
Ministry of Justice and Security of Netherlands to obtain a criminal record to be accepted by
our Bureau of Migration and Asylum. Finally, everything was done, they issued the necessary
acts but, regretfully the club failed to complete the residence permit for Donny because the
procedure for issuing the temporary residence permit requires Donny's physical presence
at the Bureau of Migration and Asylum for finger digital prints, photo, and signature.
Unfortunately, the accident that happened with Donny did not allow us to complete the
procedure for completing the residence permit.
We also specify that, even if the residence permit had been issued before, the medical policy
was only valid on the territory of the Republic of Moldova.
The Club would like to pay Donny's salary for the month of July. In this respect, we kindly ask
you to provide us with bank details for remittance. Soon the team is going to receive the
salary and the salary transaction for Donny will be done as well”.
14.
Also on 24 August 2022, the Player’s brother insisted on his previous request regarding
the insurance policy.
15.
On 25 August 2022, the Club replied that:
“Concerning an insurance contract: It was in the process but unfortunately we didn’t manage
to conclude it. The accident with Donny already happened”.
16.
At the end of the 2022/2023 season, the Club qualified for the 2023/2024 UEFA
Conference League play-offs.
17.
On 15 June 2023, the Player’s brother sent a WhatsApp message to the Club stating that
the Contract had been extended following the Club’s qualification for European
competitions. In addition, the Player’s brother confirmed that the Player had received all
his salaries until June 2023, and refused to sign any waiver of payment obligations under
the Contract.
pg. 5
REF. FPSD-15054
18.
On 19 June 2023, the Club replied to the aforementioned WhatsApp message stating that
the Contract expired as stipulated in the Contract, informing as follows:
“Unfortunately, the club does not consider extending his contract reasonable considering
Donny is not present at training and matches. We understand the situation but, when the
annex to the contract was signed, no one knew that such an accident would occur. The club
considers that it has fulfilled its contractual obligations towards Donny. Regarding medical
insurance, this topic was discussed and explained when you were at Zimbru. Please note
that instead the Club fully covered Donny’s transportation expenses”.
19.
On 1 August 2023, the Club was eliminated from the UEFA Conference League 2023/2024
by the Turkish club Fenerbahçe in a play-off match.
20.
On 10 October 2023, the Player sent an email to the Club stating that the Contract had
been extended until 30 June 2024 in accordance with Clause 2 of the First Additional
Agreement. The Player also put the Club in default, requesting the payment of his monthly
remuneration for July, August and September 2023, as well as holding the Club liable for
the damages suffered in connection with his injury and for having failed to take out the
required insurance coverage in accordance with the Contract.
21.
On 25 October 2023, the Club replied to the aforementioned default notice informing the
Player that they were open to discussing the matter. Accordingly, the Club requested
details of what specifically was being requested from it.
22.
On 17 November 2023, the Player clarified and claimed EUR 5,500 as monthly
remuneration for July 2023 to June 2024. In addition, the Player requested the Club to
provide him with examples of insurance taken by it for other foreign players, while he
informed the Club that the exact extent of the damage was still being assessed.
23.
On 12 December 2023, the Player reiterated his request for information via email.
24.
Also on 12 December 2023, the Club replied that it was awaiting the Player’s full
assessment to have a final overview and proceed with discussions.
25.
On 15 December 2023, the Player insisted on his request for information regarding the
insurance policy for other foreign players.
pg. 6
REF. FPSD-15054
II. Proceedings before FIFA
26.
On 27 June 2024, the Player filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A summary of the Parties’
position is detailed below.
a. Position of the Claimant
27.
According to the Player, the Club breached several of its contractual obligations under the
Contract. In particular, the Player argued that the Club breached the following contractual
provisions:
a)
Clause 2 of the First Additional Agreement – Contract extension and outstanding
remuneration
28.
According to the Player, following the Club’s qualification for European competitions at
the end of the 2022/2023 season, the Contract was extended for an additional season,
i.e., until 30 June 2024. In this regard, even though Clause 2 of the First Additional
Agreement stipulates that the Contract was only extended “for each month of the team’s
participation in the Conference League”, such provision is incompatible with the mandatory
provisions of the regulations, in that the minimum length of a contract shall be from its
effective date until the end of the season.
29.
In addition, the Player sustained that Clause 2 of the First Additional Contract also
stipulated that in case of automatic renewal of the Contract, the Player’s salary would rise
by EUR 100.
30.
Based on the foregoing, the Player claimed to be entitled to the following amounts:
o MDL 140,400 as remuneration for July 2023 to June 2024 (i.e., MDL 11,700 each),
under Clause 1 of the First Additional Agreement;
o EUR 13,200 as remuneration for July 2023 to June 2024 (i.e., EUR 1,100 each), under
Clauses 1 and 3 in conjunction with Clause 2 of the Second Additional Agreement;
o EUR 750 as rent for November 2023 and for February to May 2024 (i.e., EUR 150
each), under Clause 6 of the First Additional Agreement).
b)
Clause 11.2 lit. e) of the Contract – reimbursement of medical expenses
31.
The Player asserted that it is well-established jurisprudence that clubs have a general duty
to provide their players with medical treatment. Based on the foregoing, and pursuant to
Clause 11.2 lit. e) of the Contract, the Player claimed to be entitled to EUR 37,403 as
reimbursement related to the medical costs associated with his injury.
pg. 7
REF. FPSD-15054
32.
In addition, the Player also claimed to be entitled to EUR 29,900 as future medical
expenses, corresponding to an estimate of medical costs for the next six months.
According to the Player, he will continue to incur medical expenses after 2024. In this
regard, “It is expected that the Player will require the following treatments on an ongoing basis,
most likely for the rest of his life: (i) physio, (ii) personal coach, (iii) eye4vision, (iv) health
insurance deductible, (v) personal training and (vi) neurophysio”. Moreover, the Player
argued that the future medical costs are pragmatically budgeted at EUR 5,785 per year. In
this regard, “Assuming an average life expectancy of 80 years for men, as the Player is currently
29 years old, the future damage amounts to a total of EUR 295,035.00”.
c)
Clause 11.2 lit. n) of the Contract – compensation for damages
33.
The Player asserted that the Club is liable for the damage resulting from the fact that the
Club allowed him to participate in the Moldovan competition without insurance.
According to the Player, he was not informed of this and was not aware of the associated
risk.
34.
The Player claimed to be entitled to EUR 2,046,955 as material damage for the loss of
working capacity. In support of his claim, the Player submitted a report from an
arithmetical expert.
35.
In addition, the Player also claimed to be entitled to immaterial damages as a result of the
Club’s unlawful acts in the amount of EUR 80,000. The Player argued having suffered lifethreatening brain injuries, having been in coma for several weeks and spent multiple
months in the ICU. The Player also argued that the recovery is still ongoing and will likely
continue for the rest of his life. The Player contended that he is suffering permanent
disabilities, which have ended his career both on and off the pitch, and that he was
declared permanently unfit for work.
d)
Clause 11.2 lit. d) of the Contract – insurance coverage
36.
Alternatively, the Player argued that the Club is liable for not having secured insurance
coverage for him, which also resulted in damage. The Player argued that the damage
amounts to the insurance benefits that the Player did not receive as a result of the Club’s
breach of this contractual provision.
37.
According to the Player, since it has proven impossible for him to determine the extent of
the insurance coverage, he sought a declaratory judgement that the Club is obliged to
reimburse the insurance benefits that the Player did not receive, imposing on the Club
the obligation to provide the necessary information for this purpose.
38.
The Player requested the following relief:
pg. 8
REF. FPSD-15054
“As a consequence of all the above, the Player is requesting the FIFA DRC to order the Club
to pay him the following amounts:
o LEI 140,400.00 and EUR 13,200.00 net as outstanding salaries for the 2023/2024 season
plus 5% interest as from the relevant payment dates until the date of effective payment;
o EUR 750 net as outstanding rent payments for the 2023/2024 season plus 5% interest as
from the relevant payment dates until the date of effective payment;
o EUR 362,338.00 for the reimbursement of incurred and future medical costs, or an
amount as determined by the FIFA DRC in the proper administration of justice, plus 5%
interest as from the due dates until the date of effective payment;
or alternatively to impose an obligation to the Club to reimburse the insurance
coverage for medical costs missed by the Player, the extent of which is yet to be
determined, imposing on the Club the obligation to provide the necessary information
for this purpose subject to a judicially imposed penalty of EUR 500 for each day or
part of a day that the Club fails to do so.
o EUR 2,046,955.00 for the compensation of material damage caused by the diminished
capacity to work, or an amount as determined by the FIFA DRC in the proper
administration of justice, plus 5% interest as from the due dates until the date of effective
payment;
or alternatively to impose an obligation to the Club to reimburse the insurance
coverage for loss of working capacity missed by the Player, the extent of which is yet
to be determined, imposing on the Club the obligation to provide the necessary
information for this purpose subject to a judicially imposed penalty of EUR 500 for
each day or part of a day that the Club fails to do so.
o EUR 80,000.00 for the compensation of immaterial damage, or an amount as determined
by the FIFA DRC in the proper administration of justice, plus 5% interest as from the due
dates until the date of effective payment.
o EUR 20,000.00 for the compensation of legal costs”.
b. Position of the Respondent
39.
In its reply, the Club first argued that any claims related to the reimbursement of medical
expenses and compensation for material and immaterial damages shall be disregarded
and deemed inadmissible, “as they are beyond the scope of employment-related disputes as
established by Art. 22 par. 1 b) of the FIFA RSTP”.
pg. 9
REF. FPSD-15054
40.
Alternatively, the Club rejected the Player’s entitlement to any of the amounts claimed.
a)
Contract extension and alleged outstanding remuneration
41.
The Club asserted that, due to the Player’s accident, he never effectively played after the
beginning of the second month of the Contract and, notwithstanding, the Club still paid
his full salaries until 30 June 2023, which was acknowledged by the Player.
42.
The Club sustained that, as the Player had to retire from his professional football career,
the Contract could not possibly be renewed after the 2022/2023 season. Alternatively, the
Club argued that the Contract could only have been renewed until 1 August 2023, when
the Club finished its participation in the UEFA Conference League. According to the Club,
this respects the regulatory minimum length as stipulated in the regulations. In addition,
the Player could have signed with another club if he was still playing, as the Contract would
have expired during the registration period.
43.
Based on the foregoing, the Club argued that, in case the Contract was extended, it would
be until 1 August 2023. In addition, the Club asserted that “as during the period the Player
was still injured (in reality, retired), his monthly salary was 11,700 Moldovan lei plus EUR 1,100.
Considering that the Player was not living in Moldova, obviously the additional payments for
renting an apartment are not due, as their only specific purpose could not possibly be fulfilled”.
44.
Accordingly, the Club sustained that the Player’s outstanding remuneration is at most
MDL 12,077.42 plus EUR 1,135.48, for July and the first day of August 2023.
b)
Reimbursement of medical expenses & insurance coverage
45.
The Club asserted that the insurance taken out for the Player was in the process of being
finalized at the time of the accident, but it was not possible to finalize it before then.
46.
The Club argued that it already covered the Player’s medical expenses in amounts far
higher than any possible insurance benefits the Player would have received in the
Republic of Moldova. According to the Club, “the insurance contracts that could possibly be
hired by the Club in the Republic of Moldova would only benefit the Player the annual amount
of 65,000 Moldovan lei, which corresponds to approximately EUR 3,383, while the Respondent
covered the Player’s medical expenses in an amount of at least EUR 29,000 – indeed, only with
the ambulance flight contract the Respondent spent EUR 27,980, being EUR 26,900 for the
principal amount of the contract and another EUR 1,080 with extra costs, plus all the medical
expenses of the Player in the Moldovan hospital in the amount of 25,045.44 Moldovan lei”.
47.
In addition, the Club sustained that after the Player’s accident, it invited the Player’s
relatives and provided accommodations for them free of charge in order to discuss the
Player’s treatment and costs.
pg. 10
REF. FPSD-15054
48.
In addition, the Club claimed that the Player’s family chose to seek medical treatment in
the USA without intervention or participation from the Club. Accordingly, the Club argued
that it neither caused nor consented to it.
49.
The Club also argued that the alleged medical expenses incurred by the Player lack any
documentary evidence and, therefore, should not be awarded. The Club asserted that
“considering that the medical expenses with the Player covered by the Club are in an amount
higher than the alleged expenses incurred by the Player with admissible evidence, it follows
that no amounts for reimbursement of medical expenses are due to the Claimant”.
50.
The Club also rejected the Player’s entitlement to “future medical expenses”, which lack any
legal basis and/or evidence.
c)
Compensation for damages
51.
The Club submitted that it is not liable for any alleged potential damages incurred by the
Player in accordance with art. 41.1 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (SCO). According to
the Club, it did not cause any damage to the Player, “as he, unfortunately and regretfully,
suffered a labour accident”.
52.
According to the Club, the Player’s claim for material and immaterial damages lacks any
legal basis and evidence or precedent awarding a similar request to players in the past.
53.
Furthermore, the Club claimed that, in support of his claim for material and immaterial
damages, the Player only relies on a unilateral and arbitrary document produced by a
non-impartial Dutch arithmetician concerning the Player’s alleged loss of working
capacity.
54.
Finally, the Club also rejected the Player’s entitlement to compensation for legal costs.
55.
The Club requested the following relief:
“Based on the factual and legal arguments developed above, the Respondent hereby
submits the present Answer to the Claim, with the petition for the order of the following
prayers for relief:
a. That the present Answer to the Claim be deemed admissible.
b. That the Player’s claim be deemed as inadmissible with regards to the requests of
reimbursement of alleged incurred and “future” medical expenses, of compensation for
material and immaterial damages, and of compensation for legal costs.
c. That the Claimant’s claim be rejected, as the Respondent shall not be held liable for any
pg. 11
REF. FPSD-15054
payments requested by the Player.
SUBSIDIARILY
i. That, if any amount is deemed due to the Claimant, it shall be of outstanding salaries
only and in an amount not higher than 12,077.42 Moldovan lei plus EUR 1,135.48.
d. That, in any case, the FIFA FRC rules that the Player is not entitled to any payments of
reimbursement of alleged incurred and “future” medical expenses, of compensation for
material and immaterial damages, and of compensation for legal costs”.
c. Replica of the Claimant
a)
Jurisdiction of FIFA
56.
In his rejoinder, the Player insisted on the jurisdiction of FIFA to adjudicate the present
claim, arguing that it is an employment-related dispute with an international dimension.
57.
The Player argued that the injury was not caused by the Club itself. Nonetheless, the
Player asserted that for the Club’s liability it is not necessary that the Club caused the
injury, but that the Club caused damage to the Player due to the failure to fulfil its
contractual obligations.
b)
Contract extension and outstanding remuneration
58.
The Player reiterated that since the condition precedent, consisting of the Club’s
qualification for European competitions was met, the Contract was extended until 30 June
2024. In this regard, the Player sustained that it was the Club who drafted the Contract,
and that therefore any ambiguity should be interpreted against it in accordance with the
legal principle of contra proferentem.
59.
The Player also claimed that, in case the Club would have been eliminated from the UEFA
Conference League in the last match of the group phase, in November 2023, the Contract
would have expired outside the registration period. Accordingly, the Player sustained that
Clause 2 of the First Additional Contract must be assessed against the regulations and in
an abstract manner.
60.
Based on the above, the Player reiterated his claim for outstanding remuneration. In
particular, the Player insisted on the amounts claimed as rent, arguing that the First
Additional Agreement does not contain any condition under which payments for rent are
or are not due.
pg. 12
REF. FPSD-15054
c)
Reimbursement of medical expenses
61.
The Player sustained that the Club was aware of the severity of the Player’s medical
condition and that this medical condition needed substantial medical treatment.
According to the Player, the Club left the Player and his family to cater for themselves after
they left Moldova.
62.
Furthermore, the Player argued that the Club never objected to the treatment, and that
the Contract did not stipulate a course of action prior to obtaining the relevant medical
care.
63.
The Player sustained that the payment of some of the medical expenses by the Club is an
acknowledgment that it was and is responsible for the medical treatment of the Player in
accordance with Clause 11.2 lit. e) of the Contract, which includes the full treatment and
all medical expenses. In addition, the Player claimed that “the amounts already paid for
medical care cannot be set off against the Player’s claim for reimbursement of medical
expenses – in particular because the costs mentioned by the Club are not claimed by the Player.
In other words: there is no duplication in the claim to be rectified”.
64.
The Player asserted that he was able to obtain health insurance in the Netherlands, under
which many of the medical expenses are already covered. According to the Player, he is
only claiming the medical costs not covered by the health insurance.
65.
The Player reserved his right to claim future medical expenses.
d)
Compensation for damages
66.
According to the Player, the fact that the injury was a “labour incident” does not absolve
the Club from its liability for the damages caused for fielding him without proper
insurance.
67.
Moreover, the Player claimed that the Club limited itself to asserting that the report
produced by the arithmetician is not impartial. In this regard, he has proven the material
and immaterial damage, and in case the Club did not agree with the evidence provided, it
would have had to dispute it on a point-by-point basis.
e)
Failure to provide insurance
68.
According to the Player, the Club confuses two separate contractual obligations. While
Clause 11.2 lit. e) of the Contract requires the Club to reimburse the Player for any medical
expenses, Clause 11.2 lit. d) of the Contract required the Club to take out insurance.
pg. 13
REF. FPSD-15054
69.
In this regard, the Player argued that he is entitled to claim the full amount of medical
expenses incurred without any limitations, and the maximum coverage only applies to the
claim under Clause 11.2 lit. d) of the Contract, which relates to the Club’s failure to secure
the required insurance on time.
70.
The Player asserted that the claim for failure to provide insurance under Clause 11.2 lit.
d) of the Contract is a secondary claim to be considered by the Chamber only if the
primary claim under Clauses 11.2 lit e) or n) are dismissed.
71.
Lastly, the Player argued that from the evidence submitted by the Club it is unclear and
incorrect for the Club to base the maximum insured amount for medical expenses solely
on the voluntary health insurance, as the compulsory health insurance should also
provide supplementary coverage.
72.
Finally, the Player contended that his claim for legal costs is related to extrajudicial costs,
and that therefore they should be considered separately and are eligible for
compensation.
d. Duplica of the Respondent
73.
In its duplica, the Club initially reiterated its arguments as to the jurisdiction of FIFA,
arguing that the Player‘s claim is inadmissible.
74.
As to the merits of the case, the Club reiterated that it cannot be held liable for the Player’s
accident. Therefore, it should not be ordered to assume expenses that are not related to
the employment relationship.
75.
The Club also reiterated its argumentation as to (i) the extension of the Contract and the
outstanding remuneration, (ii) the reimbursement of medical expenses, (iii) the
compensation for damages, and (iv) the compensation for legal costs.
76.
The Club also asserted that the insurance policies submitted are exactly the ones hired by
the Club for its players during the 2022/2023 season, with the maximum amounts payable
to the insured beneficiaries available in Moldova. As such, the Club insisted that it should
not be held liable to cover any further medical expenses, since the Club already covered
such expenses in a far higher amount than any possible insurance benefits the Player
would have received in Moldova.
pg. 14
REF. FPSD-15054
III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
77.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter, the 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 27 June 2024 and submitted for decision on
3 April 2025. Taking into account the wording of art. 31 and 34 of the January 2025 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.
78.
Furthermore, 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. 1 lit. b) of the January
2025 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter, the
Regulations) the DRC is competent to hear employment-related disputes between a club
and a player of an international dimension.
79.
Nonetheless, the Chamber noted that the Club, although raising it as an admissibility
issue, objected to the jurisdiction of FIFA with respect to any claims for reimbursement of
medical expenses and compensation for material and immaterial damages, arguing that
such claims are beyond the scope of an employment-related dispute as provided for in
art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations.
80.
The DRC also noted that, for his part, the Player insisted on the jurisdiction of FIFA to
adjudicate his claim in its entirety, arguing that claims for reimbursement of medical
expenses and/or damages fall within the scope of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations,
as established in the longstanding jurisprudence of the Chamber.
81.
In this context, the members of the DRC referred to the longstanding jurisprudence of the
Chamber, which on many occasions has determined that whenever the origin of a dispute
lies within the contractual employment relationship between a player and their club, it
can be assumed that the dispute is “employment-related” within the meaning of art. 22 par.
1lit. b) of the Regulations (see, inter alia, DRC Decisions of 7 December 2022, De Carvalho
Serra, of 5 May 2022, Mihajilovic, and of 6 May 2021, Girotto Frenchanco).
82.
Accordingly, the Chamber unanimously concluded that the Player’s claim for
reimbursement of medical expenses and damages based on the Club’s alleged breach of
its contractual obligations regarding the injury is employment-related, as the origin of the
dispute lies within the contractual employment relationship between the Parties.
83.
The Chamber underlined that the foregoing conclusion is also confirmed by the Court of
Arbitration for Sport (CAS). As outlined in CAS 2020/A/7312 Leandro Padovani Celin v.
Esteghlal Football Club:
pg. 15
REF. FPSD-15054
“(…) when a dispute, as the present one, arises regarding, inter alia, a club’s alleged breach
of its contractual duties with regard to such injury, the Sole Arbitrator finds that it is indeed
an “employment-related dispute” within the meaning of Article 22 (b) of the RSTP.
As such, the Sole Arbitrator finds that the Player’s claim for damages based on the Club’s
alleged breach of its duties as an employer to take all reasonable steps to ensure the health
and safety of the Player during his conduct of his contractual duties, is to be considered as
an employment-related dispute within the meaning of Article 22 (b) of the RSTP, which gives
the FIFA DRC the jurisdiction to adjudicate on this claim”.
84.
Accordingly, the DRC decided that the Club’s objection to the jurisdiction of FIFA must be
rejected, and that the Chamber has jurisdiction to hear the present claim as to the merits
in accordance with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations, as it concerns an employmentrelated dispute between a Dutch player and a Moldovan club.
85.
Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 29 of
the January 2025 edition of the Regulations, the January 2025 edition of the Regulations
is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
b. Burden of proof
86.
The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of
an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed
the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider
evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by
or within the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
c. Merits of the dispute
87.
Having established the competence and the applicable regulations, the Chamber entered
into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all
the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file.
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
assessing the matter at hand.
pg. 16
REF. FPSD-15054
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
88.
The Chamber then moved to the substance of the matter, and took note that it concerned
a claim by a player against a club for outstanding remuneration, reimbursement of
medical expenses and damages in connection with the injury suffered by the Player.
89.
The members of the DRC went on to examine the Parties’ respective positions, starting
with the Player, who contended the following:
o The Club failed to pay his remuneration for the 2023/2024 season after the Contract
was automatically extended following the Club’s qualification for the 2023/2024
play-offs of the UEFA Conference League.
o The Club failed to take out an insurance policy for the Player despite this being one
of its contractual obligations.
o Based on the above, the Player claimed to be entitled to reimbursement of medical
expenses, damages for the loss of capacity and immaterial damage or, alternatively,
the reimbursement of the insurance coverage that the Club should have taken out,
as well as compensation of legal costs.
90.
The Chamber then turned its attention to the arguments submitted by the Club, which,
while acknowledging (i) that it qualified for the play-offs of the 2023/2024 UEFA
Conference league, and (ii) that it failed to take out an insurance for the Player, denied the
Player’s entitlement to any of the amounts claimed, arguing the following:
o The Contract could not be extended because the Player had to retire, and therefore
there are no outstanding salaries due to him. Alternatively, the Club contended that
the maximum amount to be awarded to the Player is MLD 12,077.42 plus EUR
1,135.48, corresponding to July 2023 and the first day of August 2023, i.e., when it
got eliminated from European competitions.
o The Club already covered the Player’s medical expenses in amounts far higher than
any possible insurance policy would have benefited the Player in Moldova. The Club
added that the amounts claimed by the Player as future medical expenses lack any
documentary evidence.
o The Club is not liable for any potential damages incurred by the Player, as it did not
cause any damage to him. Furthermore, the Club asserted that the Player’s claim for
material and immaterial damages lacks any legal basis and evidence. The Club also
rejected the Player’s request for legal costs.
pg. 17
REF. FPSD-15054
91.
After having carefully analysed the arguments of the Parties, and for the sake of clarity,
the members of the Chamber went on to analyse each of the individual claims separately,
distinguishing between (i) the claims arising from the alleged extension of the Contract
and (ii) those arising from the injury suffered by the Player.
a) Claim for outstanding remuneration – extension of the Contract
92.
The Chamber started the assessment of this first issue by recalling that it remained
undisputed that, at the end of the 2022/2023 season, the Club qualified for the play-offs
of the 2023/2024 UEFA Conference League. Likewise, it also remained undisputed that the
Club was eliminated from the aforementioned European competition on 1 August 2023.
93.
What the Parties strongly disputed is whether the Contract, whose initial term was agreed
until 30 June 2023, (i) was extended by virtue of Clause 2 of the First Additional Agreement
and, in such a case, (ii) until when.
94.
Whilst the Player contended that, pursuant to Clause 2 of the First Additional Agreement,
the Contract was automatically extended until 30 June 2024, the Club sustained that the
Contract could not be renewed after the 2022/2023 season, as the Player had to retire
from his professional football career as a result of his injury. Alternatively, the Club argued
that, based on the aforementioned Clause 2 of the First Additional Agreement, the
Contract could only have been renewed until 1 August 2023, when the Club finished its
participation in the UEFA Conference League.
95.
With the above arguments in mind, the members of the DRC noted that, in accordance
with Clause 2 of the First Additional Agreement:
“The Parties agree that the Club automatically extends the employment contract of the
player in case of qualification for the European competitions, for each month of the team’s
participation in the Conference League. With automatic contract renewal, the player’s salary
rises by 100 euros for each month of renewal.
96.
The Chamber unanimously considered that, according to the foregoing provision, the
Parties agreed that the Contract would be automatically extended if the Club qualified for
European competitions at the end of the 2022/2023 season. The DRC underscored that,
contrary to the Club’s arguments, the extension of the Contract was not made subject to
any other condition precedent, such as the Player being able to participate in the relevant
season.
97.
On account of the foregoing, and in view of the clear and unambiguous wording of Clause
2 of the First Additional Agreement, as well as the fact that it remained undisputed that
the Club qualified for the play-offs of the 2023/2024 UEFA Conference League, the
Chamber concluded that the Contract was extended.
pg. 18
REF. FPSD-15054
98.
The above having been established, the Chamber continued its analysis with the second
question to be tackled, i.e., until when the Contract was extended.
99.
After briefly recalling the Parties’ position, the majority of the Chamber underlined that,
while it is true that the end date of the Contract extension did not coincide with the
registration period in Moldova, the Regulations do not establish that, if the end date of an
employment contract does not fall within one of the registration periods of the relevant
association, the contract will be considered to have been extended until such date or that
the new club shall be liable for paying additional salaries until the next registration period.
In fact, the majority of the Chamber understood that, to extend the effects of a contract
agreed between the parties under these circumstances would amount to a severe
violation of the parties’ freedom to contract. Such an extension would imply an
assumption by the Chamber of the continuation of the terms previously agreed for a
definite period of time, even though the parties did not expressly and specifically consent
to this. Nevertheless, the Chamber is unanimously cognizant of the clear employment
instability that players may suffer as a result of contractual clauses establishing a
circumstantial end date for the contract and finds such a clause raises evident concerns
regarding the principle of contractual stability enshrined in the Regulations.
100. On account of the foregoing, considering (i) that Clause 2 of the First Additional Contract
foresaw a contractual extension “for each month of the team’s participation in the
Conference League” (emphasis added) and (ii) that the Club got eliminated from European
competitions on 1 August 2023, the Chamber, by majority, concluded that the Contract
was extended until 31 August 2023.
101. Having determined the duration of the Contract in accordance with the contractual
agreement between the Parties, and taking into account that it remained undisputed that
the Club did not pay the Player any salary beyond 30 June 2023, the Chamber decided
that the Player is entitled to receive his remuneration corresponding to the months of July
and August 2023, based on the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda.
102. As to the amounts to be awarded, the Chamber noted that, regardless of when the Second
Additional Agreement was signed, it was not disputed by the Parties that the Player’s
monthly salary was MDL 11,700 and EUR 1,100.
103. Therefore, the majority of the DRC determined that the Player is entitled to receive MDL
23,400 and EUR 2,200, corresponding to the aforementioned months (i.e., MDL 11,700
and EUR 1,100 each).
104. In addition, taking into consideration the Player’s request as well as the constant practice
of the DRC in this regard, the latter decided to award the Player interest at the rate of 5%
per annum on the outstanding amounts as from their due dates until the effective date of
payment.
pg. 19
REF. FPSD-15054
105. Finally, the majority of the Chamber rejected the Player’s claim regarding the rent
allowance, as the Contract expired on 31 August 2023 and, pursuant to the First Additional
Contract, the payment of this concept was only provided for the months of November
2022 and February, March, April and May 2023.
b)
Claim for damages & reimbursement – Club’s breach regarding the insurance policy
106. The above having been established, the members of the Chamber turned to the analysis
of the Player’s claim for damages and/or reimbursement of medical expenses.
107. After briefly recalling the Parties’ positions, the Chamber first underscored that the Club
acknowledged that it failed to take out an insurance policy for the Player despite being
one of its obligations in accordance with the Contract. In other words, the Club
acknowledged that it breached Clause 11.2 lit. d) of the Contract, in accordance with which
it undertook:
“To conclude, from its account, an insurance contract for the Player related to the risks of
illness or injury arising from the training process and/or competitions”.
108. In this context, the Chamber deemed that its task was to determine, based on the
arguments and evidence presented by the Parties, the consequences of the Club’s breach
of the aforementioned contractual provision and, essentially, whether the Player is
entitled to any of the amounts claimed.
109. As a preliminary remark, the members of the DRC underlined that this analysis shall be
made on the basis of the Contract, by means of which the Parties agreed to the terms and
conditions that would govern their contractual relationship.
110. With the above in mind, the Chamber stated that the situation the Player has found
himself in as a result of the injury is profoundly regrettable. However, it is important to
point out that injuries (albeit very rarely of such a serious nature) are inherent to football
and, therefore, always a possibility.
111. In that sense, it is well-established jurisprudence that the fact that a player is injured does
not release clubs from their contractual obligations. In other words, clubs are generally
still responsible for paying players their salaries and, of course, an injury can never justify
the early termination of a contract. Clubs can hedge such risks by ensuring that players
are properly insured, thus ensuring that, in the event of injury or illness, there are
safeguards in place to protect both the player and the club and their respective interests.
112. In this context, insurance policies covering this type of situation are essential to ensure
that the player does not lose his salary and, depending on the policy, that the club is not
in a position where it must pay the salary of a player it cannot count on. Similarly, these
pg. 20
REF. FPSD-15054
policies usually specify what medical costs will be covered, so clubs can be sure of the
extent of their coverage and players can be sure of which of the costs associated with
their injury will be covered.
113. The Chamber clarified that the above in no way implies that if a club does not take out
insurance for one of its players, the player will have to bear the medical costs arising from
the injury. In this sense, it is also a well-established jurisprudence of the Chamber that
clubs have a general duty to provide medical care to their players.
114. With the above in mind, the members of the DRC entered into the analysis of the
particular claims of the Player, starting with the claim for reimbursement of medical
expenses.
115. In this regard, the DRC reiterated that not only do clubs have a general duty to provide
medical care to their players, but in the present case the Parties expressly agreed in
Clause 11.2 lit. e) of the Contract that the Club undertook the following obligation:
“e) To reimburse the costs of treatment and recovery, in case of injury of the Player in the
training process or competition”.
116. The Chamber opined that the above clause is clear and unambiguous in that the Club
undertook to reimburse the medical expenses related to a potential injury sustained
during training or competition.
117. Taking into account that the Player provided concrete and precise evidence of the medical
expenses incurred, and based on the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber
decided that the Player shall be reimbursed for the expenses incurred and whose
payment was effectively proven by the relevant evidence, in the total amount of EUR
26,842.81, additionally awarding interest at the rate of 5% per annum as from the date in
which each expense was incurred until the effective date of payment.
118. The Chamber, by majority, decided to reject the reimbursement of remaining amounts
claimed, which were not supported by sufficient proof of effective payment, as well as the
reimbursement of future medical expenses, as these expenses have not been incurred
and do not correspond to damage concretely suffered by the Player.
119. Subsequently, the Chamber went on to address the Player’s claim for material and
immaterial damages, and reiterated that this analysis shall be made on the basis of the
Contract.
120. In this respect, the Chamber underscored that in the case at hand the Player bore the
burden of proof with regard to the alleged damages suffered, in accordance with art. 13
par. 5 of the Procedural Rules.
pg. 21
REF. FPSD-15054
121. With the above in mind, the Chamber noted that, pursuant to Clause 11.2 lit. n) of the
Contract, the Club undertook:
“n) To compensate the material and moral damages caused to the Player in accordance
with the provisions of the Labor Code of the Republic of Moldova”.
122. The Chamber considered that, based on the foregoing contractual provision, the Parties
agreed that any claim for material or immaterial damages would have to be made in
accordance with the Labor Code of Moldova.
123. Nonetheless, the Chamber, by majority, underlined that, in support of his claim for
damages, the Player only submitted a calculation of loss of working capacity that (i) was
based on assumptions about the Player’s future career development and (ii) was not
accompanied by an explanation confirming that such calculations were in line with the
Labor Code of Moldova. In particular, the majority of the Chamber noted that the Labour
Code of Moldova was not on file and that the specific provisions thereof, which stipulate
the quantification of any compensation, were also not indicated.
124. In other words, in the majority of the Chamber’s view, the evidence provided by the Player
concerning his loss of working capacity was limited to projections based on assumptions,
which introduce a great deal of uncertainty in its quantification, and, in any event, the
Player failed to substantiate that the amounts claimed as material and immaterial
damages correspond to the calculations, concepts and amounts to which he would be
entitled under the aforementioned law.
125. On account of the foregoing, the Chamber, by majority, decided that the Player’s claim for
damages was not substantiated with the relevant documentation, and therefore decided
to reject the Player’s entitlement to any material or immaterial damages.
126. For the sake of completeness of its analysis, the majority of the Chamber deemed it
appropriate to underline that it remained undisputed that, after the Player was injured
on 6 August 2022, the Club continued to pay his remuneration until the original expiry
date of the contract, i.e., until June 2023.
127. Finally, the Chamber addressed the Player’s alternative claim, which consists of the
reimbursement of the insurance policy that the Club should have taken out. According to
the Player, the damage caused by the Club amounts to the insurance benefits that the
Player did not receive as a result of the Club’s breach.
128. In this respect, the majority of the Chamber again underscored that, while the Club did
breach its contractual obligation of insuring the Player, the Contract at stake does not
foresee the consequences of such a breach.
pg. 22
REF. FPSD-15054
129. Accordingly, the Chamber, by majority, again concluded that the Player also bore the
burden of proof in relation to his claim for reimbursement of the insurance policy that the
Club should have taken out.
130. Nonetheless, the Chamber, by majority, decided that the Player also failed to substantiate
this particular claim for reimbursement. In fact, the majority of the Chamber noted that,
as indicated in the documentation provided by the Club, it already covered some of the
Player’s medical expenses in an amount higher than any insurance policy would have
covered for the Player in Moldova, and the medical expenses that were not covered by
the Club are being awarded as reimbursement, to the extent the DRC has found them to
have been properly justified and proven.
131. In this respect, the majority of the Chamber underscored that, in accordance with the
evidence submitted by the Club, the amount that the Player would have been insured for
(i.e., MDL 130,000 for two seasons, or EUR 7,189.90) is significantly lower than the amount
that the Player is being awarded as reimbursement of medical expenses (i.e., EUR
26,842.81).
132. Furthermore, the majority of the Chamber took note of the Player’s statement in his
replica, according to which he was able to obtain health insurance in the Netherlands,
under which many of the medical expenses are already covered.
133. In other words, the Chamber, by majority, considered that, based on the evidence on file,
the Player does not appear to be missing out on any benefits that would otherwise have
been covered.
134. Based on the above, the majority of the Chamber decided to reject the Player’s claim for
reimbursement of the insurance policy that the Club should have taken out.
ii. Compliance with monetary decisions
135. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24
par. 1 and 2 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.
136. In this regard, the DRC highlighted 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. The overall
maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive
registration periods.
pg. 23
REF. FPSD-15054
137. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must
pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days
of notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from
registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum
duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately
effective on the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
138. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank
account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is
attached to the present decision.
139. 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. 24 par.
8 of the Regulations.
d. Costs
140. 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.
141. 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.
142. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made
by any of the parties.
pg. 24
REF. FPSD-15054
IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant, Donny van Iperen.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, FC Zimbru, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):
- MDL 23,400 and EUR 2,200 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest per annum
as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amounts of MDL 11,700 and EUR 1,100 as from 1 August
2023 until the date of effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amounts of MDL 11,700 and EUR 1,100 as from 1 September
2023 until the date of effective payment.
- EUR 26,842.81 as reimbursement plus 5% interest per annum as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 144 as from 27 October 2022 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 1,917.55 as from 8 December 2022 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 40.07 as from 5 December 2023 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 65 as from 27 December 2022 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 6.92 as from 15 January 2023 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 19,940.55 as from 17 January 2023 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 190 as from 20 January 2023 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 65 as from 24 January 2023 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 395 as from 8 February 2023 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 1,058.99 as from 15 February 2023 until the
date of effective payment;
pg. 25
REF. FPSD-15054
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 627.22 as from 21 February 2023 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 6.65 as from 5 March 2023 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 585 as from 25 March 2023 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 171.22 as from 10 April 2023 until the date
of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 310 as from 29 April 2023 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 7 as from 3 May 2023 until the date of effective
payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 7 as from 6 May 2023 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 425 as from 14 May 202 until the date of
effective payment 3;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 190 as from 14 July 2023 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 10.64 as from 28 July 2023 until the date of
effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 300 as from 13 September 2023 until the
date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 190 as from 24 September 2023 until the
date of effective payment; and
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 190 as from 9 November 2023 until the date
of effective payment.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
5.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated
in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
6.
Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision,
the following consequences shall apply:
pg. 26
REF. FPSD-15054
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall
be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.
2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the
end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
7.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
8.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Football Tribunal:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
pg. 27
REF. FPSD-15054
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE
According to article 50 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 – Legal & Compliance Division
396 Alhambra Circle, 6th floor, Coral Gables, Miami, Florida, USA 33134
legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
pg. 28