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 31 January 2020

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 31 January 2020,

by Omar Ongaro (Italy), DRC judge,

on the claim presented by the player,

Carl Medjani, Algeria

represented Mr Matthieu Barandas

as Claimant

against the club,

Ohod, Saudi Arabia

as Respondent

regarding an employment-related dispute

between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 7 January 2019, the Algerian player, Carl Medjani (hereinafter: Claimant), and the Saudi club, Ohod Club (hereinafter: Respondent) signed an employment contract valid as from as the same date until 6 July 2020 (hereinafter: employment contract).

2. In accordance with the employment contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant inter alia a total remuneration of USD 500,000, of which USD 220,000 would be paid upon signature of the employment contract and the remainder in monthly salaries of USD 70,000 each. The employment contract further stipulates, inter alia, that the Respondent provides for “ticket” for the Claimant and his family.

3. By correspondence dated 13 August 2019, the Claimant informed the Respondent that the latter owned him USD 72,200, corresponding to “his outstanding salary [of June 2019] and airplane tickets”.

4. On 14 November 2019, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent, asking that the latter be ordered to pay to him USD 70,000, corresponding to the “outstanding salaries of June 2019”.

5. Moreover, the Claimant requested the payment of USD 2,200 for airplane tickets. Over the total amount of USD 72,200, the Claimant requested 5% interest p.a. ”from the date of notification of the first formal notice until the date of the effective payment”.

6. Lastly, the Claimant asked to condemn the Respondent to an additional payment of USD 20,000 “as damages for abusive resistance” and “an indemnity” for the costs of the proceedings of USD 10,000.

7. Despite having being invited to do so, the Respondent did not respond to the claim.

II. Considerations of the DRC judge

1. First of all, the DRC judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 14 November 2019. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the 2019 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.

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 January 2020) he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an Algerian player and a Saudi 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 January 2020), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 14 November 2019, the October 2019 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 from 7 January 2019 until 6 July 202, in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent, inter alia, a total remuneration of USD 500,000, of which USD 220,000 would be paid upon signature of the employment contract and the remainder in monthly salaries of USD 70,000 each. The employment contract further stipulated, inter alia, that the Respondent provides for “ticket” for the Claimant and his family.

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 USD 70,000 corresponding to his salary of June 2019. Moreover, the Claimant requested the payment of USD 2,200 for airplane tickets. Over the total amount of USD 72,200, the Claimant requested 5% interest p.a. ”from the date of notification of the first formal notice until the date of the effective payment”. Lastly, the Claimant asked to condemn the Respondent to an additional payment of USD 20,000 “as damages for abusive resistance” and “an indemnity” for the costs of the proceedings of USD 10,000.

7. In this context, the DRC judge took particular note of the fact that, on 13 August 2019, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the USD 72,200.

8. Subsequently, the DRC judge took into account that the Respondent, for its part, did not respond to the claim.

9. 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 USD 70,000 corresponding to the Claimant’s salary of June 2019.

10. 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 USD 70,000.

11. 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 USD 70,000 as from 13 August 2019 until the date of effective payment.

12. In continuation, the DRC judge proceeded to examine the Claimant’s request for payment of USD 2,200 for airplane tickets, as well as USD 20,000 “as damages for abusive resistance”, and “an indemnity” for the costs of the proceedings of USD 10,000.

13. With regards to the requests amount corresponding to plane tickets, the DRC judge noted that no amount was provided in the employment contract as well as no due date. The DRC judge underlined that the relevant contractual clause is not specific to this regard, and therefore he could not determine, based on the employment contract, when such plane tickets are owed to the Claimant.

14. The DRC judge additionally pointed out that, from the Claimant’s submissions, it remains uncertain if the Claimant indeed terminated the employment contract. As such, as based on the above-mentioned contractual stipulations and facts, the DRC concluded that the obligation of the Respondent to pay to the Claimant a flight ticket has not risen yet, as it should be considered that the due date is that of the end of the employment contract. Therefore, the DRC judge decided to reject this claim of the claimant.

15. Likewise, the DRC judge referred to the Claimant’s request of USD 20,000 for damages. The DRC judge concluded that such request is not substantiated as it lacks contractual or regulatory basis, and therefore decided to reject it.

16. Furthermore, as regards the claimed legal expenses, the DRC judge referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as to the long-standing and well-established jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, in accordance with which no procedural compensation shall be awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Consequently, the DRC judge decided to reject the Claimant’s request relating to legal expenses.

17. Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./3. above, the Chamber 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.

18. In this regard, the Chamber 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.

19. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC 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, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the club, 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.

20. Finally, the Chamber 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.

III. Decision of the DRC judge

1. The claim of the Claimant, Carl Medjani, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent, Ohod Club, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 70,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 13 August 2019 until the date of effective payment.

3. The Claimant’s request regarding flight tickets is premature.

4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.

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 amount mentioned under point III./2. above.

6. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with point III./2. 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 amount due plus interest in accordance with point III./2. 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 III./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 sum plus interest 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 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 relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):

According to art. 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 III./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 (CAS)

Avenue de Beaumont 2, CH-1012 Lausanne

Switzerland

Tel: +41 21 613 50 00

e-mail: info@tas-cas.org

For the DRC Judge:

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer