F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – overdue payables / debiti scaduti – (2020-2021) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 15 July 2020
Decision of the
DRC Judge
passed on 15 July 2020,
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Guy Lucien
Michel Landel
BY:
Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), DRC Judge
CLAIMANT:
Guy Lucien Michel Landel, France
Represented by Mr Aydin Doganay
RESPONDENT:
Giresunspor Kulübü Dernegi, Turkey
Represented by Mr Enes Şimşek & Mr Ercan Sevdimbaş
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
1. On 27 July 2018, the French player, Guy Lucien Michel Vandel (hereinafter: Claimant or player) and
the Turkish club, Giresunspor Kulübü (hereinafter: Respondent or club) concluded an employment
contract, valid for the football seasons 2018/2019 and 2019/2020, i.e. as from 27 July 2018 until 31
May 2020.
2. According to art. 6 par. 1 of the contract, the player was entitled, for the football season 2019/2020,
to a total remuneration amounting to EUR 275,000 payable in six monthly instalments as follows:
EUR 75,000 payable on 30 July 2019,
EUR 50,000 payable on 30 September 2019,
EUR 37,500 payable on 31 October 2019,
EUR 37,500 payable on 31 January 2020,
37,500 payable on 29 February 2020,
37,500 payable on 30 April 2020.
3. On 2 March 2020, the player sent a default notice to the club, requesting the payment of EUR
125,000 corresponding to the monthly salaries of September and October 2019 as well as January
2020, granting the club 10 days to remedy the default.
4. On 6 March 2020, the player sent another default notice to the club, requesting the payment of EUR
5,000 corresponding to a remaining part of overdue payables related to the case ref. 19-02077/osv
decided by the DRC on 15 January 2020.
5. On 23 March 2020, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA regarding
overdue payables for the months of September 2019, October 2019 and January 2020 in the total
amount of EUR 120,000.
6. In support of his claim, the Claimant explained that since the beginning of the season 2019/2020,
he had only received the salary of July 2019 and part of the salary of September 2019.
7. On 12 March 2020, the club paid the amount of EUR 10,000 corresponding to the due amount of
EUR 5,000 as per the decision of the DRC in case 19-02077/osv and part of the salary of September
2019.
8. Notwithstanding, the club remained in default of payment of the salaries of part of September 2019
as well salaries from October 2019 to January 2020.
9. In view of the above, the Claimant requests the amount of EUR 120,000 net corresponding to part
of the instalment due in September 2019 (EUR 50,000 – EUR 5,000 paid on 12 March 2020), as well
as the instalments due in October 2019 and in January 2020 (2 x EUR 37,500), plus 5% interest p.a.
as of the respective due dates until the date of effective payment.
10. Furthermore the player requested disciplinary sanctions against the club in accordance with art. 12bis
par. 4 of the RSTP.
11. Despite having been invited by FIFA to do so, the Respondent did not reply to the claim within the
deadline granted by the FIFA administration. Consequently, on 7 April 2020, the FIFA administration
closed the investigation of the present dispute.
12. In an unsolicited correspondence dated 8 May 2020, the Respondent reverted to the FIFA
administration with regard to the present matter and alleged that the TMS manager of the club did
not receive FIFA’s correspondence dated 7 April 2020, reason for which it missed the deadline to
reply to the claim. Furthermore, the Respondent requested the consolidation of the present case with
case 20-00654.
II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DRC JUDGE
1. First of all, the DRC judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In
this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 23 March 2020.
Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute
Resolution Chamber (edition 2019; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at
hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules).
2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and
confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition June 2020) he is competent to deal with
the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension
between a French player and a Turkish club.
3. Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of
the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition June 2020), and considering that the
present claim was lodged on 23 March 2020, the March 2020 edition of said regulations (hereinafter:
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 on
file. However, the DRC judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to
the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which he considered pertinent for the assessment
of the matter at hand.
5. Having said this, the DRC judge acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent signed an
employment contract valid as from 27 July 2018 until 31 May 2020, this is for 2 sporting seasons.
According to the said employment contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive from the
Respondent, inter alia, a total remuneration amounting to EUR 275,000 payable in six monthly
instalments as follows:
EUR 75,000 payable on 30 July 2019,
EUR 50,000 payable on 30 September 2019,
EUR 37,500 payable on 31 October 2019,
EUR 37,500 payable on 31 January 2020,
37,500 payable on 29 February 2020,
37,500 payable on 30 April 2020.
6. The Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, maintaining that the
Respondent has overdue payables towards him in the total amount of EUR 120,000 corresponding
to part of the instalment due in September 2019 (EUR 50,000 – EUR 5,000 paid on 12 March 2020),
as well as the instalments due in October 2019 and in January 2020 (2 x EUR 37,500).
7. In this context, the DRC judge took particular note of the fact that, on 2 March 2020, the Claimant
put the Respondent in default of payment of the aforementioned amount, setting a time limit
expiring on 12 March 2020 in order to remedy the default.
8. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the Claimant had duly proceeded in accordance with
art. 12bis par. 3 of the Regulations, which stipulates that the creditor (player or club) must have put
the debtor club in default in writing and have granted a deadline of at least ten days for the debtor
club to comply with its financial obligation(s).
9. Subsequently, the DRC judge took into account that the Respondent, for its part, held, first of all,
that the present matter should be consolidated with case 20-00654 as it had missed the deadline to
reply to the claim in the present dispute, alleging that the TMS manager had not received FIFA’s
correspondence dated 7 April 2020.
10. In this regard, the DRC judge wished to underline that all three claims lodged by the Claimant against
the Respondent were filed in accordance with art. 12bis of the Regulations with respect to overdue
payables of various instalments due as per the employment contract concluded between the parties
and therefore it is appropriate to treat each claim separately. Therefore, the DRC judge held that
there is no particular reason why the matters should have been consolidated.
11. Furthermore, and with respect to the Respondent’s allegations that it had not received FIFA’s
correspondence, the DRC Judge was eager to emphasise that the initial correspondence of the FIFA
administration with which the Respondent was notified of the claim, which is in fact dated 30 March
2020 and not 7 April 2020, was sent to the same e-mail address than the claim in the matter 20-
00654; in the latter matter the Respondent did not allege any problems in receiving the respective
claim. Furthermore, the e-mail address used was the one mentioned in the Transfer Matching System
(TMS). In this context, the DRC referred to art. 9bis of the Procedural Rules, according to which “The
e-mail address provided in TMS by associations and clubs is considered as a valid and binding means
of communication”.
12. In light of the aforementioned, the DRC Judge decided to reject the Respondent’s argumentation in
this respect, and considered that the Respondent had failed to provide a reply to the claim connected
to the present dispute. In this way, the DRC Judge considered that the Respondent renounced its
right to defence and thus accepted the allegations of the Claimant.
13. Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the DRC judge concurred that
in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules he shall take a decision upon the basis of the
documents already on file, in other words, upon the statements and documents presented by the
Claimant.
14. With this established, the DRC Judge reverted to the Claimant’s claim as well as the contractual
stipulations with regard to the Claimant’s remuneration.
15. Taking into account the documentation presented by the Claimant in support of his petition, the DRC
Judge concluded that the Claimant had substantiated his claim pertaining to overdue payables with
sufficient documentary evidence.
16. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC Judge established that the Respondent
failed to remit the Claimant’s remuneration in the total amount of EUR 120,000 corresponding to
part of the instalment due in September 2019 (EUR 50,000 – EUR 5,000 paid on 12 March 2020), as
well as the instalments due in October 2019 and in January 2020 (2 x EUR 37,500).
17. In addition, the DRC Judge established that the Respondent had delayed a due payment for more
than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis.
18. Consequently, the DRC Judge decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta
sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant overdue payables in the total amount
of EUR 120,000.
19. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute
Resolution Chamber, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest
of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 120,000 as follows:
5% p.a. on EUR 45,000 as from 1 October 2019 until the date of effective payment;
5% p.a. on EUR 37,500 as from 1 November 2019 until the date of effective payment;
5% p.a. on EUR 37,500 as from 1 February 2020 until the date of effective payment.
20. In continuation, taking into account the consideration under number II./17. above, the DRC judge
referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations which stipulates that any club found to have delayed
a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis may be sanctioned in
accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations.
21. The DRC Judge established that in virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations he has competence
to impose sanctions on the Respondent. In this context, the DRC Judge highlighted that, on several
occasions within the past 2 years (18-02540/sil; 19-02077/osv; 19-01948/pas; 19-01393/tle; 19-
01643/sil), the Respondent had already been found to have delayed a due payment for more than
30 days without a prima facie contractual basis, as a result of which, on 24 January 2020, a fine had
been imposed on the Respondent by the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee.
22. Moreover, the DRC Judge referred to art. 12bis par. 6 of the Regulations, which establishes that a
repeated offence will be considered as an aggravating circumstance and lead to a more severe
penalty.
23. Bearing in mind the above, the deciding body decided to impose a proportionally more severe fine
on the Respondent in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. c) of the Regulations. On account of the
above and taking into consideration the amount due of total amount of overdue payables, the DRC
Judge regarded a fine amounting to CHF 37,500 as appropriate and hence decided to impose said
fine on the Respondent.
24. 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.
25. In this regard, the DRC Judge established that, in virtue of the aforementioned provision, he has
competence to impose a sanction on the Respondent. In particular, the sanction against clubs
shall consist in a ban 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.
26. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC Judge decided that in the event that the
Respondent does not pay the amount due to the player 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 club in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
27. The DRC Judge recalled that the above-mentioned sanction will be lifted immediately and prior
to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis par. 3
of the Regulations.
III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1. The claim of the Claimant, Guy Lucien Michel Landel, is accepted.
2. The Respondent, Giresunspor Kulubu Dernegi, has to pay to the Claimant, EUR 120,000 as outstanding
remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:
- 5% p.a. on EUR 45,000 as from 1 October 2019 until the date of effective payment;
- 5% p.a. on EUR 37,500 as from 1 November 2019 until the date of effective payment;
- 5% p.a. on EUR 37,500 as from 1 February 2020 until the date of effective payment.
3. The Respondent is ordered to pay a fine in the amount of CHF 37,500. The fine is to be paid within
45 days of notification of the present decision to FIFA (cf. note relating to the payment below).
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 psdfifa@fifa.org, 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.
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).
NOTE RELATING TO THE PAYMENT OF THE FINE:
If applicable, payments to FIFA should be made by wire transfer in Swiss francs (CHF) to the following
bank account:
366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) UBS Zurich,
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A, Clearing number 230, IBAN: CH 27 0023 0230 3666,
Please mention the applicable reference number
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | psdfifa@fifa.org | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777