F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – overdue payables / debiti scaduti – (2020-2021) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 27 January 2021

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) Judge

passed on 27 January 2021

regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Milovan Petrovikj

BY:

Alexandra Gómez Bruinewoud (Uruguay/the Netherlands), DRC Judge

CLAIMANT:

MILOVAN PETROVIKJ, North Macedonia

Represented by Toni Jovchevski

RESPONDENT:

ATHLITIKI ENOSI LARISSA FC, Greece

I.

I. FACTS OF THE CASEFACTS OF THE CASE

1. On 3 July 2019, the North-Macedonian player, Milovan Petrovikj (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant) and the Greek club, Athlitiki Enosi Larissa FC (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent) signed a settlement agreement related to the decision rendered by the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) on case 18-02010/aos (hereinafter: the contract), according to which the player was entitled to receive EUR 65,000 in 13 instalments of EUR 5,000 each.

2. Under the contract, the first instalment was due on 31 July 2019 and the remainder ones on the last day of each the subsequent months.

3. On 11 September 2020, the player put in the club in default of payment of EUR 20,000, corresponding to the last four instalments under the contract, which had fallen due respectively between April and July 2020, granting it with a deadline of 10 days to cure the breach.

4. The player filed the claim at hand seeking payment of EUR 20,000 corresponding to the last 4 instalments under the contract, which had fallen due respectively between April and July 2020, plus 5% interest as from the dates of default until effective payment.

5. The club did not reply to the claim.

II.

II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTCONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER JUDGEE RESOLUTION CHAMBER JUDGE

a.

a. CCompetence and legal applicable frameworkompetence and legal applicable framework

6. First of all, the DRC judge analysed whether she was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, she took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 10 November 2020 and submitted to a decision on 27 January 2021. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition January 2021; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules).

7. 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 January 2021) she is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a North-Macedonian player and a Greek club.

8. Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, she confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition January 2021), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 10 November 2020, the October 2020 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

b. Burden of proofBurden of proof

9. The DRC judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the DRC judge stressed the wording of art. 12 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which she may consider evidence not filed by the parties.

10. In this respect, the DRC judge 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.

c. MMerits of the disputeerits of the dispute

11. 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 she will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which she considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.

i.

i. MMain legal discussion and considerationsain legal discussion and considerations

12. Having said this, the DRC judge acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent signed the contract, in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent, inter alia, EUR 20,000 in four instalments, respectively due between April and July 2020.

13. 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 20,000 corresponding to the aforementioned instalments under the contract.

14. Subsequently, the DRC judge took into account that the Respondent, for its part, failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant, in spite of having been invited to do so. In this way, the DRC judge considered that the Respondent renounced its right to defence and thus accepted the allegations of the Claimant.

15. Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the DRC judge concurred that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules she 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.

16. Having said this, the DRC judge acknowledged that, in accordance with the contract provided by the Claimant, the Respondent was obliged to pay to the Claimant inter alia EUR 20,000 in four instalments, respectively due between April and July 2020.

17. 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.

18. 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 20,000 corresponding to the last four instalments under the contract.

19. 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.

20. 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 20,000.

21. 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 said amount as from the day after their respective due dates until the date of effective payment.

ii.

ii. AArt. 12bis of the rt. 12bis of the RRegulationsegulations

22. In continuation, taking into account the applicable Regulations, 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.

23. In this context, the DRC judge took particular note of the fact that, on 11 September 2020, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the aforementioned amounts, setting a time limit of 10 days in order to remedy the default.

24. 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).

25. The DRC judge established that by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations she has competence to impose sanctions on the Respondent. Therefore, and in the absence of the circumstance of repeated offence, the DRC judge decided to impose a warning on the Respondent in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. a) of the Regulations.

26. In this respect, the DRC judge wished to highlight that a repeated offence will be considered as an aggravating circumstance and lead to a more severe penalty in accordance with art. 12bis par. 6 of the Regulations.

iii.

iii. Compliance with monetary Compliance with monetary decisionsdecisions

27. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, 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.

28. In this regard, the DRC judge 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 and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.

29. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC judge decided that, in the event that the club does not pay the amounts due to the player within 45 days as from the moment in which the player communicates the relevant bank details to the club, provided that the decision is final and binding, 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.

30. The DRC judge recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis par. 3 of the Regulations.

d.

d. CostsCosts

31. The DRC judge 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, she decided that no procedural costs were to be imposed on the parties.

32. Likewise and for the sake of completeness, the DRC judge recalled the contents of art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be awarded in these proceedings.

III.

III. DECISIONDECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER JUDGEOF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER JUDGE

1. The claim of the Claimant, MILOVAN PETROVIKJ, is accepted.

2. The Respondent, ATHLITIKI ENOSI LARISSA FC, has to pay to the Claimant the following amounts:

- EUR 5,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2020 until the date of effective payment;

- EUR 5,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2020 until the date of effective payment;

- EUR 5,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 July 2020 until the date of effective payment;

- EUR 5,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 August 2020 until the date of effective payment.

3. A warning is imposed on the Respondent.

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.

7. 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 | psdfifa@fifa.org | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777