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 28 February 2020

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge

passed on 28 February 2020,

by

John Newman (USA)

on the claim presented by the player,

Seifeddine Chamari, Tunisia,

represented by Mr. Ali Abbes

as Claimant / Counter-Respondent

against the club,

Zakho FC, Iraq

as Respondent / Counter-Claimant

regarding an employment-related dispute

between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On an unspecified date, the Tunisian player, Seifeddine Chamari (hereinafter: the player, the claimant or the counter-respondent), and the Iraqi club, Zakho FC (hereinafter: the club, the respondent or the counter-claimant) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from 23 February 2018 until 15 July 2018.

2. In accordance with clause 3 of the contract, the club undertook to pay to the player a total amount of USD 15,000 as remuneration.

3. By letter dated 6 September 2018, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of the amount of USD 15,000, asking it to be paid within 10 days.

4. Moreover, on the same day, i.e. 6 September 2018, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, asking the amount of USD 15,000 and sporting sanctions to be imposed on the Respondent.

5. According to the Claimant, the Respondent entirely failed to meet the financial obligations enshrined in the employment contract.

6. In its reply, the Respondent explained that that on 30 March 2018, the parties signed an agreement in order to lower the Claimant’s remuneration from USD 15,000 to USD 8,500, due to the fact that the Respondent could not sign the Claimant for the professional championship.

7. In this respect, the aforementioned amount was to be paid in three instalments as follows:

i. USD 3,500 as first instalment;

ii. USD 2,500 as second instalment;

iii. USD 2,500 as third instalment.

8. Secondly, the Respondent further explained that after signing the said agreement, the Claimant had received the amount of USD 4,500.

9. Moreover, the Respondent maintained that, on 4 May 2018, the Claimant left Iraq, and counterclaimed the following without substantiating its requests:

i. USD 8,500 as compensation;

ii. USD 600 as flight ticket;

iii. USD 210 as visas;

iv. USD 400 as price of working permit;

v. sporting sanctions to be imposed on the Claimant.

10. Finally, the Claimant replied to the counterclaim one year later, i.e. on 29 November 2019, claiming he had not been paid yet.

II. Considerations of the DRC judge

1. First First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber judge (hereinafter referred as DRC judge) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the DRC judge took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 6 September 2018. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the 2018 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is 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 combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2020), he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Tunisian player and an Iraqi 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 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Player (edition 2020), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 6 September 2018, the June 2018 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the 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, he entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, he started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. 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 proceeded with an analysis of the circumstances surrounding the present matter, the parties’ arguments as well as the documentation on file, bearing in mind art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof.

6. In this regard, the DRC judge noted that on 6 September 2018, the player put the club in default for USD 15,000, that is to say the total value of the contract it had signed with the club and which was valid as from 23 February until 15 July 2018.

7. Within the above in mind, the DRC judge further took note that the player lodged a claim for outstanding remuneration in this respect, on 6 September 2018 as well.

8. Moreover, the DRC judge also noted that, on its part, the club indicated that on 30 March 2018 the parties signed an addendum lowering the player’s remuneration from USD 15,000 to USD 8,500, and declared that the player received a first payment of USD 4,500 upon signature of said agreement. In continuation, the DRC judge underlined that according to the club, the parties signed the addendum in view of the fact that it could not register the player.

9. Furthermore, the DRC judge recalled that the club also stated that the player left Iraq on 4 May 2018, and consequently lodged a counterclaim requesting the full value of the addendum, as well as other expenses, i.e. related to a flight ticket, to visas costs and to the price of a working permit. In addition, the DRC judge further underlined the club’s request as to sporting sanctions to be imposed on the player.

10. Finally, the DRC judge took note that the player did not reply to the counterclaim within the set deadline.

11. In this context, the DRC judge considered that, form the documentation at his disposal and in accordance with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, it appeared that : i) the player was never registered for the club; ii) the club paid at least USD 4,500 to the player as of 30 March 2018; and iii) the player left Iraq in May 2018 and therefore stopped rendering his services.

12. Having the above in mind, the DRC judge stated that it appeared clear that the player had received a remuneration from the club, but, at the same time, the DRC judge recalled as well that the player also left the country without notice.

13. In light of the above, the DRC judge also noted that the player never appeared to have put the club in default at any point in time prior to his sudden exit, only putting the club in default on 6 September 2018, and lodging a claim in front of FIFA on the exact same date, i.e. both almost two months after the natural expiry of the contract which was on 15 July 2018.

14. What is more, as to the club’s counterclaim lodged against the player, after having fully examined its arguments and the provided evidence, the DRC judge came to the conclusion that it never appeared to have requested the return of the player nor to have claimed any monies allegedly owed by him to it.

15. As such and in consideration of all the above, the DRC judge recalled his constant jurisprudence on the matter and concluded that the parties had shown a clear loss of interest in each other, and, consequently, the DRC judge affirmed that in this respect, no financial compensation should be awarded to either of the parties considering the absence of damages which has therefore not to be compensated.

16. Accordingly, the DRC judge concluded his deliberations in the present matter by establishing that the claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected and the counterclaim lodged by the club is rejected.

III. Decision of the DRC judge

1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Seifeddine Chamari, is rejected.

2. The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Zakho FC, is rejected.

*****

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 relating 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.

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 García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer