F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2019-2020) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 17 January 2020

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 17 January 2020,

in the following composition:

Omar Ongaro (Italy), Deputy Chairman

Stefano Sartori (Italy), member

José Luis Andrade (Portugal), member

on the claim presented by the player,

Lukasz Gikiewicz, Poland,

represented by Mr Georgi Gradev

as Claimant

against the club,

Football Club FCSB, Romania

as Respondent

regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 31 July 2019, the Polish player, Lukasz Gikiewicz (hereinafter : the Claimant or the player), and the Romanian club, Football Club FCSB (hereinafter: the Respondent or the club), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from 1 August 2019 until 30 June 2020.

2. According to art. IV.5 of the contract, the club undertook, in particular, to :

“e) To create the right professional conditions for training for the football activity;

l) To provide the player with a service car during the contract period;

m) To provide the player with 3 airplane tickets / competitive season for the player on Bucharest Varsovia-Bucharest route and 3 airplane tickets/competitive season for the player on route Bucharest-Split-Bucharest”.

3. Art. 7 of the contract, which sets out the causes for termination of the contract, stipulated “the findings of termination of the contractual relationship is made by the FRF/LPF through the competent bodies and in accordance with the sporting regulations.”

4. Art. 8 of the contract provided “Settlement of disputes: The parties will, in good faith, make every effort to resolve amicably any dispute, controversy or misunderstanding arising out of or in connection with this agreement. Conflict in connection with the conclusion, execution, modification, suspension or termination of this contract will be settled by judicial bodies of FIFA, with appeal to the CAS, the parties agree to such appeal shall be decided by the Single Arbitrator, in accordance with the CAS Regulations.”

5. On 31 July 2019, the parties also signed a Financial Annex to the contract (hereinafter: the financial annex), according to which the club undertook to pay the player EUR 8,500 net per month as salary “in the current month for the previous month”.

6. According to the player, the parties also signed an addendum to the contract on 31 July 2019 (hereinafter: the addendum), providing for a potential termination of the contract. As evidence, the player submitted a draft of the addendum, not signed by the parties. In his claim, the player alleges that the club did not provide him with a counter-signed copy of the addendum.

7. Allegedly, the addendum provided that “Art. 2 By signing this addendum parties understand that extinguished all liabilities of any nature such as:

 FOTBAL CLUB FCSB S.A. has no obligation and no financial claims and I or material, past, present or future face of the player GIKIEWICZ LUKASZ, arising from Sporting activity contract No ………………………….. (such as, but not limited to: contractual rights, bonuses, premiums, damages etc.), and regardless of their source (contract, sportive activity contract, sporting regulations and I or law);

 Professional Footballer GIKIEWICZ LUKASZ no longer has any financial obligation and any claims and I or material past, present or future against FOTBAL CLUB FCSB S.A. arising from the Sporting activity contract No.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .. (such as, but not limited to: contractual rights, bonuses, premiums, damages, sportive activity contract etc.), and regardless of their source (contract, sportive activity contract, sporting regulations and I or law)”

8. According to the documentation on file, between 1st and 18 August 2019, the player played in four official matches.

9. On 6 September 2019, the player put the club in default, requesting the payment of his salary for August 2019, and his immediate reintegration to the club’s first team, as well as explanations regarding the reasons and duration of his relegation to the second team.

10. On 9 September 2019, the club replied that the “technical staff of our club, coordinated by the main coach, Mr Bogdan Arges Vintila, has decided that in the period 16.09.2019 – 22.09.2019 you shall attend the weekly training and preparation cycle along with other players (…)” and that the player “shall also participate in the club’s second team matches that will be played in this period”.

11. On the same day, the player contested the club’s decision, claiming that it was abusive, in breach of the contract and of his personality rights. In these circumstances, the player reiterated his demand to be reintegrated to the first team and asked for the immediate payment of his salary of August 2019.

12. The club replied on the same day, informing the player that the payment of his salary was still “within the legal payment term”.

13. In his reply, the player however emphasized that the club was in default of payment, invoking the FIFA DRC jurisprudence, according to which salaries are to be paid “at the latest on the first day of the respective month”.

14. In an email dated 10 September 2019, the player accused the club of disclosing confidential information regarding the player’s situation to the press. To support his allegations, the player stated that the press had access to the correspondence between the parties. In this respect, the player asked for explanations from the club.

15. It appears from the player’s claim that a certain number of press articles covered the precarious situation of the player at the club, in particular the fact that the club did not count the player as part of its plans (including interviews with members of the club’s management). In this regard, it is worth noting that a press article dated 10 September 2019 mentions, among other information, that the player was forced to train alone, was removed from the team’s WhatsApp group, and that his car was taken back from him by the club.

16. By a letter dated 11 September 2019, the player expressed his dissatisfaction from training with the club’s second team, mainly composed of U17 and U19 players, and coached by a person without a “UEFA Pro License”. Moreover, the player raised the fact that the trainings of the second team were conducted on artificial grass, which caused him pain in the knees and ankles. In these circumstances, the player informed the club that he would no longer train with the second team and requested to be reintegrated to the first team.

17. The player also took note of the club’s statements in the press, according to which the club no longer counted on the player as he did not fit in the club’s plans.

18. Finally, the player complained that the club took away his new car, allegedly for maintenance, only to later hand him an older car, different from the car given to the other players.

19. On the same day, i.e. 11 September 2019, the club informed the player that he would have to leave the accommodation provided by the club by 12 September 2019 at the latest. The club emphasized that it had no contractual obligation to provide the player with accommodation. The club added that “we have repeatedly requested you, with a reasonable deadline, to return the room at our disposal, and you asked for permission to leave on 10.09.2019, which we accepted, but you did not comply with your own deadline”.

20. On the next day, the player informed the club that he had handed in the keys of the apartment and requested the payment of his August salary.

21. In a letter dated 13 September 2019, the club held that it had no contractual obligation to provide an accommodation to the player, gave a car to him, did not disclose any confidential information to the press and that the payment of the salary of August would occur “at the due date stipulated in the contract”. The club reaffirmed that the player was to train with the second team and that he was an important member of the club and the club wished to continue the contractual relationship with him.

22. In his reply of the same day, the player contested all the points raised above by the club and granted the club a 15-day deadline to reintegrate him to the first team and to pay his salary for August 2019.

23. On the same day, the club informed the player that disciplinary proceedings would be initiated against him as he refused to train with the second team.

24. In an interview given on 14 September 2019, the club’s head coach, Mr Vintila, stated that he no longer counted on the player.

25. On 16 September 2019, the player granted an ultimate deadline of 20 September 2019 to the club, failing which he would terminate the contract. The club did not answer.

26. On 20 September 2019, the player unilaterally terminated the contract arguing that by relegating him in the second team for an undetermined term without justification, not paying him his salary for August 2019, taking away his car, giving it to another player and giving him an older car, taking away his accommodation, the club had made it very clear that it was no longer interested in the player.

27. On 25 September 2019, the club contested the termination of the player and requested the return of the player to training.

28. On 30 September 2019, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA for outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of the contract, requesting the total amount of EUR 93,961.31 corresponding to:

(i) EUR 8,500 net as outstanding salary for August 2019, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 2 September 2019 until the date of payment;

(ii) EUR 85,461.31 net as compensation, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from 20 September 2019 until the date of payment, corresponding to:

 EUR 85,000 as the residual value of the contract, i.e. 1st September 2019 to 30 June 2020 (EUR 8,500 x 10 months);

 EUR 461.31 as expenses for the player’s return trip from Bucharest to Split on 21 September 2019 (art. IV. 5. par. m) of the contract).

(iii) The imposition of sporting sanctions on the club.

29. In his claim, the player held that between 19 August to 20 September 2019, he did not play any of the 5 official matches of the club and that as from 5 September he was forced to train alone without any indications.

30. He held that he was isolated from the professional team, removed from the team Whats’App group, relegated to the second team due to poor performance. The player deemed that the Respondent was trying to push him to leave the club by terminating the contract.

31. It is the player’s opinion that not allowing him to play in the first division constitutes a breach of his personality rights. According to him, for a professional player to play with an amateur team, competing in the third tier of amateur football in Romania constitutes a breach of his personality rights and of the contract. And that there is no provision in the contract allowing the club to force him to play in the second team.

32. The Claimant further held that at the time of termination, the Respondent had overdue payables toward him in the form of the August 2019’s salary, and considered that on the absence of any precise due date for salaries, each salary had to be paid on the first day of the following month.

33. In view of the above, the player is of the opinion that the newly introduced art. 14 par. 2 of the RSTP, according to which the “stance of a party (either a player or a club) is intended to force the counterparty to terminate or change the terms of the contract” is applicable in the present case, thus allowing him to terminate the contract with just cause.

34. In reply to the claim of the player, the Respondent held that FIFA was not competent to hear the matter at hand and considered that the Romanian Football Association was competent in virtue of art. 7 of the contract which stated that “(t)he finding of termination of the contractual relationship is made by the FRF / LPF through the competent bodies and in accordance with the sporting regulations”.

35. In support of his argumentation, the club relied on the Statutes and the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of the Football Player of the Romanian Football Association, as well as the FIFA RSTP.

36. On the substance, the Respondent argued that the player being put in the second team was a sporting decision of the staff of the club, based on the physical fitness and training level of the player and that the coach of the second team had a pro license. Moreover, the Respondent added that such placement in the second team was only temporary.

37. The club considered that the player was himself in breach of the contract since he missed trainings and did not comply with the training schedule.

38. On the August 2019’s salary, the club held that it had been paid according to the schedule of the contract.

39. The club alleges that the objective of the player was not to terminate the contract in order to sign a new contract with another professional club to get his chance to play in a first team, but to “get damages by circumventing the rules of art. 14, para. 2” of the RSTP. Moreover, the club is of the opinion that the player “did not to abide by the obligations undertaken by contract, but only to create a possible dispute to receive damages”.

40. Regarding the accommodation, the club held that it had no contractual obligation to provide one to the player, that it had only provided one temporarily to the player out of goodness. As to the car issue, the Respondent underlined that the contract did not provide for a type of car and that by providing one, of any type or quality, it had respected its contractual obligations.

41. After being requested, the player informed FIFA that he remained unemployed during the relevant period.

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. 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 submitted to FIFA on 30 September 2019. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2018; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules).

2. With regard to the competence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules states that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall examine its jurisdiction in the light of art. 22 to 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2020). In accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the aforementioned Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber would, in principle, be competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Polish player and a Romanian club.

3. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent contested the competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies stating that an independent arbitration tribunal in line with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, in fine, exists within the Romanian Football Federation (RFF). In addition, the Respondent referred to art. 7 of the contract which stipulates that “(t)he finding of termination of the contractual relationship is made by the FRF / LPF through the competent bodies and in accordance with the sporting regulations”. On the basis thereof, the Respondent argue that the National Dispute Resolution Chamber of the FRF is competent to adjudicate the present dispute.

4. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Claimant rejected such position and insisted that FIFA has jurisdiction to deal with the present matter.

5. While analysing whether it was competent to hear the present matter, the Chamber deemed it vital to outline that one of the basic condition that needs to be met in order to establish that another organ than the DRC is competence to settle an employment-related dispute between a club and a player of an international dimension, is that the jurisdiction of the relevant national arbitration tribunal or national court derives from a clear reference in the employment contract.

6. Therefore, while analysing whether it was competent to hear the present matter, the Dispute Resolution Chamber considered that it should, first and foremost, analyse whether the employment contract at the basis of the present dispute contained a clear jurisdiction clause.

7. Having examined the relevant provision, the Chamber came to the unanimous conclusion that art. 7 does not constitute a clear jurisdiction clause in favour of the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the FRF, since it only referred to the issue of contract termination so per se does not constitutes a jurisdiction clause. Moreover, the DRC observed that the contract contained, in its art. 8, a jurisdiction clause clear and in favour or FIFA since it stipulates that “conflicts in connection with the conclusion, execution, modification, suspension or termination of this contract will be settled by judicial bodies of FIFA”.

8. On account of all the above, the Chamber did not consider art. 7 to be a clear and specific jurisdiction clause in favour of a national dispute resolution chamber, while art. 8 granted competence to FIFA. Consequently, it established that the Respondent’s objection towards the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected, and that the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent, on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, to consider the present matter as to the substance.

9. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2020) and, on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged on 30 September 2019. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded that the June 2019 version of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

10. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the 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 the assessment of the matter at hand.

11. In this respect, the Chamber observed that the parties had signed an employment contract on 31 July 2019 valid as from 1 August 2019 until 30 June 2020, in accordance with which the player was entitled to receive, inter alia, EUR 8,500 as monthly salary, as well as a car and 3 round trip airplane tickets for the Claimant from Bucharest to Split.

12. In continuation, the Chamber took note that it is undisputed by the parties involved that the employment relationship had been terminated by the Claimant, in writing, on 20 September 2019.

13. In continuation, the Chamber then reviewed the claim of the player and noted that he held that the Respondent failed to pay the alleged outstanding amount of EUR 8,500 corresponding to the salary of August 2019 and further argued that by its attitude toward him, the Respondent was trying to push him to unilaterally terminate the contract before its term. The Claimant relied on art 14.2 of the Regulations to deem that the termination was with just cause.

14. In particular, the DRC took note that the Claimant held that he was forced out of the accommodation provided by the Respondent since the beginning of the contract, asked to return his car to be then given another car of a lower quality, put in the second team under the pretence of alleged poor performances, and that the Respondent made some statements to the press in which it put forward its lack of interest in the player.

15. Consequently, the Claimant asked to be awarded the payment of the total amount of EUR 93,961.31 as outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of the contract plus 5% interest as from the respective due dates.

16. Equally, the Chamber took note of the reply of the Respondent, which asserted that it had paid the Claimant the salary of August 2019. Moreover, the DRC also took note that the Respondent held that the accommodation provided to the player was not a contractual obligation. On the car issues, the Respondent held that the contract only provided for an obligation to furnish a car to the player, without any specification on which car. As to the relegation of the player in the second team, the Respondent held that this was a sporting decision.

17. With regard to the payment of the salary of August 2019, the DRC took note that the Respondent alleged having attached to its reply to the claim a proof of the relevant payment having been made. However, the DRC could only conclude that such evidence had not been provided by the Respondent, making it impossible to assess with certainty that this payment had been duly made.

18. In view of the above, the Chamber emphasized that in accordance with the legal principle of the burden of proof, which is a basic principle in every legal system, a party deriving a right from an asserted fact has the obligation to prove the relevant fact (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). Therefore, due to the lack of evidence with regard to the assertion made by the Respondent, the DRC rejected the argument raised by the Respondent and concluded that the payment of EUR 8,500 corresponding to the salary of August 2019 had not been made and that consequently, that amount was overdue.

19. As to the alleged abusive conduct of the Respondent toward the Claimant, the DRC took note of the different elements brought forward by the Claimant to justify his early and unilateral termination of the contract in application of art. 14 par. 2 of the Regulations. For instance, the relegation of the Claimant to the second team.

20. In this regard, the Chamber took note that the Claimant considered such relegation as a breach of his personality rights as a professional player that was forced to play with an amateur team. Especially since he was hired as a professional player. The DRC took note that the Claimant requested on several occasions more information on his status within the professional team.

21. The DRC noticed that on its end, the Respondent held that the relegation of the player was only temporary and based on sporting decision and was exclusively due to the poor performance of the player.

22. In this regard, the Chamber was eager to point out that art.12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules provided that a party deriving a right from an asserted fact had to the obligation to prove the relevant fact. This being said, the DRC was of the opinion that the argumentation of the Respondent as to the relegation of the Claimant, a professional player, to an amateur team justified by an element as subjective as the performance of a player could not be accepted.

23. As to the other benefit that the Claimant considered were either taken away from him, such as the accommodation, or downgraded, such as the car, the DRC took note that the Respondent does not deny those allegations, but considered that the accommodation was not provided in the contract and the contract only provided for an obligation to grant a car to the player without further indications.

24. The DRC analysed all of the abovementioned facts and documentations of the case at hand, and determined that in view of the diverging opinions of the parties, it had to determine whether the Claimant had terminated the contract on 20 September 2019 with or without just cause.

25. Taking all of the above in consideration, the Chamber recalled the content of art. 14 par. 2 of the Regulations, in particular “any abusive conduct of a party aiming at forcing the counterparty to terminate or change the terms of the contract shall entitled the counterparty (a player or a club) to terminate the contract with just cause”.

26. In particular, the Chamber took note that the Claimant considered that he had been pushed, by the attitude of the Respondent, to unilaterally terminate the contract with just cause, while the Respondent held that the elements brought forward by the Claimant could not justified the termination of the Claimant as being with just cause.

27. In this regard, the Chamber was of the firm belief that the following elements were key in its determination of the termination of the Claimant:

 The Claimant being sent to the second team;

 The change of the car of the Claimant;

 The accommodation being taken away from the Claimant;

 The salary of August 2019 not being paid;

 Statements in the press from the Respondent with regards to the Claimant.

28. All of the above elements having been established as uncontested facts, the DRC was of the opinion that all those elements could definitely show a lack of interest toward the Claimant, especially with the press declaration of the coach of the Respondent. Overall, the DRC analysed those elements as a whole and was of the firm impression that taken all together, those elements demonstrated an abusive tactic of the Respondent to drive the Claimant to unilaterally terminate the contract.

29. In light of all of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC came to the conclusion that the player had terminated the contract on 20 September 2019, with just cause.

30. Having established that the Respondent was to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequence of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent an amount of money as compensation for breach of the contract in addition to any outstanding payments on the basis of the relevant employment contract.

31. First of all, the Chamber reverted to the Claimant’s claim, which included the outstanding amount of EUR 8,500 relating to the salary of August 2019.

32. At this stage, the Chamber considered relevant to recall that the Respondent although arguing that it had proceeded with the payment of that amount in due course, had been unable to provide consistent evidence in this regard.

33. Consequently, taking into account that the contract was terminated on 20 September 2019, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 8,500 corresponding to the salary of August 2019, plus 5 % interest as of 2 September 2019 following the claim for interest of the Claimant.

34. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract 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 player 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.

35. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent contract contained a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In his regard, the Chamber found that the contract did not provide for such provision.

36. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.

37. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the contract until 30 June 2020. Consequently, the Chamber took into account the salaries for the period as from the termination of the contract until 31 June 2020 which amounts to EUR 85,000. And following the request of the Claimant which was documented with sufficient evidence in this regard, the DRC decided to also take into account EUR 461.31 corresponding to the Claimant’s return flight from Bucharest to Split. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 85,461.31 serve as a basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.

38. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been able to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.

39. In this context, the Chamber noted that the Claimant remained unemployed during the relevant period, making it impossible for him to reduce his loss of income

40. Consequently and on account of all of the above-mentioned consideration and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of EUR 85,461.31 to the Claimant which was considered reasonable and proportionate as compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.

41. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of compensation, i.e. EUR 85,461.31 as of 20 September 2019 until the date of effective payment.

42. Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./9. 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.

43. In this regard, the DRC pointed out that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.

44. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the Respondent does not pay the amounts due to the Claimant within 45 days as from the moment in which the Claimant, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become effective on the Respondent in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.

45. Finally, 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. 3 of the Regulations.

II. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant, Lukasz Gikiewicz, is admissible.

2. The claim of the Claimant is accepted.

3. The Respondent, Football Club FCSB, has to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 8,500, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 2 September 2019 until the date of effective payment.

4. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 85,461.31, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 20 September 2019 until the date of effective payment.

5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent, immediately and directly, preferably to the e-mail address as indicated on the cover letter of the present decision, of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the amounts mentioned under points 3. and 4. above.

6. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amounts in accordance with points 3. and 4. above to FIFA to the e-mail address psdfifa@fifa.org, duly translated, if need be, into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).

7. In the event that the amounts due plus interest in accordance with points 3. and 4. above are not paid by the Respondent within 45 days as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the Respondent, 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 (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).

8. The ban mentioned in point 7 above will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amounts are paid.

9. In the event that the aforementioned sums plus interest are 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 FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

*****

Note related to the publication:

The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the Players’ Status Committee or the DRC. Where such decisions contain confidential information, 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 Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).

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). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives).

The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:

Court of Arbitration for Sport

Avenue de Beaumont 2

1012 Lausanne

Switzerland

Tel: +41 21 613 50 00

Fax: +41 21 613 50 01

e-mail: info@tas-cas.org

For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Emilio Garcia Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer