Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
REF FPSD-2390
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 12 August 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Khacheridi Yevhen
Hryhorovych
COMPOSITION:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Tomislav Kasalo (Croatia), member
MD Abu Nayeem Shohag (Bangladesh), member
CLAIMANT:
Khacheridi Yevhen Hryhorovych, Ukraine
Represented by Skoropashkin Illya Anatoliovych
RESPONDENT:
FC Dinamo Brest, Belarus
Page 2
REF FPSD-2390
I.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. On 23 October 2019, the Ukrainian player, Khacheridi Yevhen Hryhorovych, (hereinafter:
Claimant), and the Belarusian club, FC Dinamo Brest (hereinafter: Respondent) signed an
employment contract valid as from 1 January 2020 until 31 December 2021.
2. In accordance with article 4 of the employment contract, the Respondent undertook to pay
to the Claimant as follows:
“the following payment conditions shall be specified for the employee:
4.1. standard salary (rate) of the Employee on the day of signing the contract in the amount
of Belarusian rubles (BYN)170,61, according to the schedule of positions and salaries;
Increasing the standard salary (rate)
-by 50% under the Decree of the President of the Republic of Belarus dated on 26 July 1999
No. 29 "On additional measures to improve labour relations, strengthen labour and executive
discipline";
-by 700% in under the Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus dated
on 16.05.2013 No. 383.
The increased amount specified herein shall be totalled with the standard salary (rate) and
shall make the fixed official salary according to the schedule of positions and salaries
amounting to BYN 1450.19;
In future, the standard salary shall be changed according to the Regulations on remuneration
and bonuses valid on the date of the change;
4.2. bonuses, allowances and additional payments, as well as financial assistance shall be
paid pursuant to and as specified in the local regulatory legal acts;
4.3. the other payments established by law, collective agreement, agreement or this contract;
4.4. The total amount of bonus payments to the Player shall be set in the amount of up to
BYN 45,971.12 and over in case of additional types of financial stimulation;
4.5. In future, the amount of all types of bonus payments shall be established by the Employer
on the basis and in compliance with the Regulations on remuneration and bonuses valid on
the date of the change.
4.6. On the day of signing the contract, the employee is set a total salary of up to BYN
47,421.31 and over, considering all types of bonus payments.
Page 3
REF FPSD-2390
4.7. The total salary under i. 4.1-4.6. after taxes makes the amount of BYN 40,782.33 , which
is an amount equivalent to USD 20,000 at the rate of the National Bank of the Republic of
Belarus on the day of signing the contract.
4.8. A professional fee amounting in BYN 758,741 shall be paid to the Employee, which
makes an amount equivalent to USD 372,096 at the rate of the National Bank of the Republic
of Belarus on the day of signing the contract. Payments shall be executed in eight stages as
follows:
- BYN 94,842.63 (equivalent of USD 46,512) until 1 April 2020;
- BYN 94,842.63 (equivalent of USD 46,512) until 1 July 2020;
- BYN 94,842.63 (equivalent of USD 46,512) until 1 October 2020;
- BYN 94,842.63 (equivalent of USD 46,512) until 1 January 2021;
- BYN 94,842.63 (equivalent of USD 46,512) until 1 April 2021;
- BYN 94,842.63 (equivalent of USD 46,512) until 1 July 2021;
- BYN 94,842.63 (equivalent of USD 46,512) until 1 October 2021;
- BYN 94,842.63 (equivalent of USD 46,512) until 31 December 2021.
4.9.The salary specified in i. 4.7. of the Contract in foreign currency (USD 20,000) is "net"
(after withholding taxes, fees and other mandatory payments provided for by the legislation
of the Republic of Belarus, which the Employer independently charges and transfers to the
budget in compliance with the legislation). Thus, the employer shall pay the Employee a
guaranteed monthly minimum salary, which, as agreed by the parties, makes an amount in
rubles equivalent to USD 20,000 at the rate of the National Bank of the Republic of Belarus
on the day of salary payment.
4.10. Regardless of changes in the exchange rate related to the Belarusian ruble, the amounts
indicated in this Contract in foreign currency shall be basic (determining the amount of
payment/accrual), unconditional and fixed. The payment of the amounts above may be
provided in the specified currency or in Belarusian rubles at the rate of the National Bank of
the Republic of Belarus on the day of payment.
3. On the same date, the parties signed a “supplement no.1 to the contract” which stated as
follows:
To add to the i. 4. of the Contract a sub-item 4.11. and read as follows:
“In addition to the payments specified in i. 4.1.-4.10. of this Contract, the Club shall also pay
a relocation allowance to the Employee for the validity period of this Contract in the amount
of USD 200,000 net (after withholding taxes, fees and other mandatory payments provided
for by the legislation of the Republic of Belarus, which the Employer shall independently
charge and transfer to the budget in accordance with the law) as outlined below:
- USD 100,000,00 until 01.12.2019
- USD 100,000,00 until 01.05.2020”
Page 4
REF FPSD-2390
4. According to article 5 of the contract, “the salary and the one-time payments shall be paid to
the Employee on a regular basis (on the 10th day of each month) in the currency of the
Republic of Belarus at the rate of the National Bank of the Republic of Belarus on the day of
accrual via transferring funds to the Employee's bank card”.
5. Article 16 of the contract states as follows “(…) the parties agreed that in the event of early
unjustified (without a good reason) termination of the contract by either party, the guilty party
shall pay the other party a compensation for early termination in the amount of 1,000,000 US
dollars”.
6. Article 17.2 of the contract states that “This contract may be terminated early: at the request
of the Employee in case of a regular non-fulfilment or improper fulfilment of the terms of the
contract through the fault of the Employer. In this case, the Employer shall pay monetary
compensation to the Employee for the deterioration of his legal status”.
7. By correspondence dated 9 December 2020, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of
payment of USD 285,205.42 as outstanding salaries for the period between March 2020 to
December 2020. Additionally, the Claimant added that he had only received part of the
relocation allowance amounting to USD 100,000 bringing the total overdue amount to USD
174,794.58, granting the Respondent 22 days (30 December 2020) in order to remedy the
default.
8. On 29 December 2020, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent requesting it to officially
confirm his right to negotiate the transition to any other football club and to inform him about
the expected transfer fee for his transition and inform him about the training schedule of the
“Dynamo-Brest” in 2021, as well as the date when he is expected to arrive at the Club
(considering his right to transit and to negotiate with the other clubs).
9. On 4 January 2021, the Claimant sent a second default notice to the Respondent stating that
only USD 395,205.42 of USD 600,000 due under the Contract have been paid to the Claimant
and requested payment of his outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 204,794.58.
In the same letter, the Claimant also noted that a bonus amounting to USD 1,500 (for the
Championship) and USD 20,000 (for the Champions League) was paid to the Respondent
team under the local regulatory documents of the club. As a result, the Claimant granted the
Respondent until 20 January 2021 to comply with its financial obligations.
10. In the same letter, the Claimant made reference to article 17.2 of the contract, which specifies
that “it could be early terminated by the Employee in case of a repeated failure to properly
fulfil the contractual obligations by the Employer. In this case, the Employer shall pay a
compensation to the Employee for the deterioration of his legal status”.
11. On 27 January 2021, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent terminating the contract in
accordance with article 17.2 of the contract and art. 14bis of the FIFA Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players.
Page 5
REF FPSD-2390
12. On 28 January 2021, the Respondent sent a letter to the Claimant stating the following: “(…)
the club acknowledges the validity of reason for the unilateral termination of employment
relations with FC Dynamo-Brest and the existing outstanding salary debt of the Club towards
you.
We hereby confirm the 27.01.2021 as the employment termination date. In addition, we
inform that the debt will be paid out within the shortest possible time starting from
01.02.2021 (...)”.
13. On the same date, the Respondent issued a letter as follows “The accounting office shall
arrange final settlements and pay out the compensation for carry-over vacation consisting of
5 (five) calendar days for the work period from 03.02.2020 to 27.01.2021”.
14. On 30 March 2021, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent, confirming that the
Respondent had fulfilled its financial obligations in regards to his salary, the professional fee,
the relocation allowance, as well as the bonus payment for the period from 1 January 2020
until 27 January 2021. However, the Claimant added that his compensation as a result of the
contract termination in the amount of USD 1,380,000 is still due. The Claimant granted the
Respondent until 15 April 2021 to comply with its financial obligations.
15. On 1 April 2021, the Respondent sent a letter to the Claimant, stating that “we acknowledged
the validity of reason for the unilateral termination of employment relations with the FC
Dynamo-Brest and the existing outstanding salary debt of the Club towards you. The salary
debt has been paid out to you in full. In addition, we inform that you may apply to the court
of general jurisdiction at the Company’s location to resolve the labor dispute”
II.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFA
16. On 27 April 2021, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the
position of the parties is detailed in continuation.
a.
The claim of the Claimant
17. According to the Claimant, at the end of 2019, he signed a contract with the Respondent for
which he played in 16 matches in national competitions and in 4 matches of the Champions
League.
18. The Claimant adds that since the signing of the contract, the Respondent has systematically
violated its contractual obligations. As a result, he submits that he was forced to terminate the
contract prematurely and that the Respondent officially confirmed that the contract was
terminated prematurely with just cause on 27 January 2021.
19. According the Claimant, the Respondent paid his outstanding salaries but refused to pay
compensation for the early termination of the Contract.
Page 6
REF FPSD-2390
20. The Claimant adds that at the date of contract termination, the debt under the contract
exceeded 1/3 of the annual amount of payments provided for in the contract and, that
according to his calculations, amounted to USD 244,294.58, including the following amounts:
USD 204,794.58 (2020 debt) + USD 21,500 (bonuses for 2020) + USD 18,000 (salary for 27
days of January 2021).
21. The Claimant submits that in February 2021, the Respondent paid its debt in full for the
worked period, taking into account the bonuses but that at the same time, the Respondent
asked him to confirm in writing that there was no debt for 2020 in order to obtain a license
for the playing season of 2021. The Claimant submits that he signed such a document as
requested by the Respondent.
22. Further to this, the Claimant submits that on 30 March 2021, he applied to the Respondent
with a request to pay compensation for early termination of the contract with just cause in the
amount of USD 1,380,000 before 15 April 2021.
23. The Claimant adds that on 1 April 2021, he received a response from the Respondent in which
it stated that it had fulfilled all obligations to the Claimant in full and for consideration of any
disputes, he has the right to apply to a court of general jurisdiction.
24. In conclusion, the Claimant submits that as of 15 April 2021, the Respondent had not paid
the compensation due to him for breach of contract. As a result, he submitted a claim to FIFA
to claim his outstanding compensation in the amount of USD 1,000,000.
b.
Position of the Respondent
25. According to the Respondent, according to the agreement reached by the parties, the official
salary of an Employee according to the Employer's staffing table is set at BYN 1,450.19 in
accordance with clause 4.1 of the Contract.
26. The Respondent adds that the amount of bonus surcharges amounts to BYN 45,971.12 and
that the monthly salary (including bonus payments of a stimulating nature) after deducting tax
payments amounts to BYN 40,782.33.
27. The Respondent also submits that the Claimant’s claim is an attempt at unjustified enrichment.
28. The Respondent adds that after the Claimant terminated his contract on 27 January 2021, it
recognized the validity of the reason given by the Claimant for the unilateral termination of
the employment relationship, its existing debt to the Claimant and undertook to make
payments starting from 1 February 2021.
Page 7
REF FPSD-2390
29. However, the Respondent draws attention to the provisions of paragraph 16 of the t contract
and states that this clause does not apply if there is a justified reason for termination of the
contract.
30. The Respondent further submits that the parties did not settle the issue of the amount of
monetary compensation for the deterioration of the legal situation, nor did they determine
the procedure and terms of such payment. Accordingly, it would also not be possible for it to
fulfil the requirements of the Claimant in terms of payment of monetary compensation for the
deterioration of the legal situation.
31. The Respondent also states that in the English translation of its official letter submitted by the
Claimant, he made (deliberately or negligently) mistakes in the literal translation of the text of
the document. According to the Respondent, the text of the document translated into English
does not contain the visa of a competent translator and is not certified by a specialist. Thus,
according to the Respondent, the Claimant deliberately misleads the FIFA DRC and is trying to
enrich himself at its expense.
32. Regarding the establishment of incomplete amounts of bonus payments for the period of
employment, the Respondent draws attention to the fact that, starting from March 2020, the
amount of bonus surcharges was reduced for all employees, without exception, as was
reported to everyone on a monthly basis by the general director at meetings of the labour
collective. This decision was apparently due to the current difficult economic state of the
financial and economic activities of not only the club itself, but also all the partners, sponsors
and advertisers of the organization without exception due to the spread of the COVID-19
virus.
33. The Respondent submits that as a result of the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the
following options proposed by the legislative of the Republic of Belarus as a way of reducing
the organization's expenses, namely:
- Transfer of Employees to remote work;
- Providing Employees with work leave;
- Providing Employees with social leave without pay;
- At the initiative of the Employer, granting Employees leave without saving or with partial
preservation of wages;
- Declaration of downtime;
- Establishment of part-time work;
- Reduction of tariff rates (tariff salaries);
- Reduction of the number or staff of Employees.
34. The Respondent further states that it was collectively decided to maintain the working capacity
of the football club and continue working relations in the current team by reducing the
payment of bonus surcharges and that this was a forced measure to save jobs and the team
as a whole.
Page 8
REF FPSD-2390
35. According to the Respondent, it is a well-known fact that the COVID-19 virus is recognized as
force majeure for the entire world community, including for all subjects of football activity
without exception and that in accordance with the proposed FIFA guidelines, the club's
management took comprehensive measures to preserve the team of employees. Thus, starting
March 2020, not a single job position was reduced due to the consequences of COVID-19.
36. The Respondent adds that the reduction of bonus surcharges is a temporary measure taken
by its management in consultation with its staff and that since March 2020, the head of the
Club has personally held monthly meetings with the team of athletes, including the Claimant.
The players, led by the team captain, apparently made a unanimous decision on the possibility
of reducing the amount of bonus surcharges by the Respondent and no objections were
received, all parties accepted the offer with the condition to re-imburse the underpaid funds.
37. According to the Respondent, it has not under any circumstances refused to fulfil its
contractual obligations to the Claimant but that it is important that the current practice of
dispute resolution develops taking into account the situation associated with the spread of
COVID-19 and the consequences that world sports will continue to fill for a long time.
38. As a result, the Respondent concludes that the Claimant’s claim should be rejected for the
following reasons:
a) In view of the current situation related to the spread of COVID-19, it duly fulfilled his
obligations as the Claimant’s employer, reasonably assuming that the latter, in turn, would be
aimed at a mutual good faith relationship;
b) The contract was terminated by the Claimant solely for justified reasons;
c) As of 7 June 2021, the Claimant’s salary arrears have been repaid in full;
d) The application of the provisions of paragraph 16 of the contract related to the payment
of USD 1,000,000 would be an unjustified method of enrichment at its expense.
III.
CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
a.
Competence and applicable legal framework
39. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC)
analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note
that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 27 April 2021 and submitted for decision
on 12 August 2021. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the 2021 edition of the
Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution
Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural
Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
40. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules
and observed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. a) and b)
of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition February 2021), the Dispute
Page 9
REF FPSD-2390
Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Ukrainian player and
a Belarusian club.
41. 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. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Player (edition February 2021), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 27 April 2021, the February 2021 edition of
said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
b.
Burden of proof
42. The Chamber 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. Likewise, the DRC stressed the wording of art.
12 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider evidence not filed by the
parties.
43. In this respect, the Chamber also recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of
the Regulations, FIFA’s judicial bodies may use, within the scope of proceedings pertaining to
the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or contained in
TMS.
c.
Merits of the dispute
44. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC
entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the DRC started by acknowledging all
the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file. However,
the DRC emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts,
arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for the assessment of
the matter at hand.
i. Main legal discussion and considerations
45. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter,
and took note of the fact that according to the Claimant, he terminated the contract with the
Respondent with just cause and is therefore entitled to compensation for breach of contract,
in application of article 16 of the contract.
46. On the other hand, the Chamber noted that the Respondent did not contest that the Claimant
terminated the contract with just cause on 27 January 2021, but stated that taking into
account the COVID-19 situation, it duly fulfilled its obligations and that applying article 16 in
this case would be an unjustified method of enrichment at its expense and that therefore the
claim of the Claimant should be rejected.
Page 10
REF FPSD-2390
47. In this context, the Chamber noted that it remained uncontested between the parties that it
was the Claimant who had terminated his contract with just cause on 27 January 2021.
48. In this respect, the members of the Chamber deemed it relevant to point out that the
argumentation submitted by the Respondent, that the application of article 16 of the contract
would lead to unjust enrichment, cannot be accepted at this point in time, since the unilateral
termination of a contract with just cause leads in principle to the entitlement of compensation
for breach of contract to the disadvantaged party.
49. Based on the foregoing circumstances, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant is in
principle entitled to outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract.
ii. Consequences
50. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the question
of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.
51. In continuation and having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early
termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant, the Chamber decided
that, taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Claimant is entitled to
receive from the Respondent compensation for breach of contract, in addition to any
outstanding salaries on the basis of the relevant employment contract.
52. As to the outstanding remuneration, the Chamber noted that both parties confirmed that –
after the unilateral termination of the contract - the Respondent had effectively made the
payment of all the outstanding remuneration the Claimant was entitled to. Hence, no further
outstanding remuneration shall be awarded to the Claimant.
53. In this context, the Chamber outlined that, in accordance with said provision, 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.
54. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify
whether the pertinent employment contract contained any clause, by means of which the
parties had beforehand agreed upon a compensation payable by the contractual parties in the
event of breach of contract.
55. Upon careful examination of the employment contract concluded between the Claimant and
the Respondent, the members of the Chamber took note that article 16 of the contract
Page 11
REF FPSD-2390
provides that “(…) the parties agreed that in the event of early unjustified (without a good
reason) termination of the contract by either party, the guilty party shall pay the other party a
compensation for early termination in the amount of 1,000,000 US dollars”.”.
56. The Chamber duly analysed the contents of said clause and acknowledged that the
aforementioned clause provides for the amount of compensation payable in the event of the
termination of the employment contract with just cause by one of the parties. In this respect,
the Chamber acknowledged that said contractual clause was reciprocal and included a precise
and specific amount of compensation, payable in the event of breach of the contract with just
cause by one of the parties, which amount was not considered disproportionate by the
Chamber.
57. On account of the above, the parties having contractually agreed on the compensation payable
in the event of breach of contract and such compensation not being deemed disproportionate,
the Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded that the provision contained under article 16 of
the contract has to be considered as valid and fully effective, i.e. the amount of compensation
provided for in said article shall be awarded to the Claimant. Furthermore, for these reasons,
the Chamber concurred that any remuneration under the new employment is irrelevant in the
case at hand.
58. Taking into account all of the above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent has to pay to
the Claimant the total amount of USD 1,000,000 as compensation for breach of contract.
59. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by
establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
iii. Compliance with monetary decisions
60. Finally, taking into account the above, the Chamber referred to par. 1 lit. 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.
61. 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.
62. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC 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. 24bis par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.
Page 12
REF FPSD-2390
63. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account
provided by the Claimant in the Bank Registration Form, which is attached to the present
decision.
64. The DRC 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. 8 of
the Regulations.
d.
Costs
65. The Chamber referred to article 18 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “DRC
proceedings relating to disputes between clubs and players in relation to the maintenance of
contractual stability as well as international employment related disputes between a club and
a player are free of charge”. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that no procedural costs were
to be imposed on the parties.
66. Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 18 par.
4 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be awarded in
these proceedings.
67. Lastly, the DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any other requests for relief made by
any of the parties.
IV.
DECISION OF THE Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Khacheridi Yevhen Hryhorovych, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, FC Dinamo Brest, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 1,000,000
as compensation for breach of contract.
3.
Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account set out in the
enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.
4.
Pursuant to article 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players if full payment
(including all applicable interest) is not paid within 45 days of notification of this decision, the
following consequences shall apply:
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 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 paid by the end of
the of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.
Page 13
REF FPSD-2390
5.
The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance
with article 24bis paragraphs 7 and 8 and article 24ter of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players.
6.
This decision is rendered without costs.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party
within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted
version (cf. article 20 of the Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | [email protected] | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777
Page 14