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 19 February 2020

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge

passed on 19 February 2020,

by

Daan de Jong (The Netherlands)

on the claim presented by the player,

Ernest Webnje Nfor, Cameroon,

represented by Ms Pascale De Borger

as Claimant

against the club,

Foolad FC, IR Iran

as Respondent

regarding an employment-related dispute

between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On an unspecified date, the Cameroonian player, Mr Ernest Webnje Nfor (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant) concluded an employment contract with the Iranian Club, Foolad FC (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent) valid as from 19 August 2016 until 19 June 2017.

2. On 24 May 2017, the player and the club concluded a settlement agreement (hereinafter: the agreement) according to which the club was obliged to pay to the player the total amount of USD 155,000 net.

3. The player did not contest that the club did pay the agreed amount, but deemed that the club failed to “declare these and previous amounts in his country of residence (Belgium)” for taxation purposes.

4. On 1 April 2019, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA and requested the reimbursement of EUR 35,806.84, corresponding to the taxes paid by the player for the “income year 2016” and “income year 2017”. Moreover, the player requested “interest of 5%”.

5. In its reply, the club argued that it paid all due amounts, as well as made the declaration of the income tax.

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (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 1 April 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 2 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition January 2020), he was competent to decide on the present matter, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Cameroonian player and an Iranian club.

3. In particular, and in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 lit. i) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the DRC judge confirmed that he may adjudicate in the present dispute, the value of which does not exceed CHF 200,000.

4. In continuation, 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 Players (editions June 2018, June 2019, October 2019 and January 2020), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 1 April 2019, the June 2018 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) were applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

5. 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, he started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts, the arguments and the documentation submitted by the Claimant, as well as the reply by the Respondent. 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.

6. First, the DRC judge noted that the Claimant and the Respondent (hereinafter jointly referred to as the Parties) entered into an employment contract valid as of 19 August 2016 until 19 June 2017. Second, the DRC judge took note that the Parties signed a settlement agreement on 24 May 2017, according to which the Respondent was obliged to pay to the Claimant the total amount of USD 155,000 net.

7. In these circumstances, the DRC judge decided that the settlement agreement concluded between the Parties was the sole binding document to take into account in the context of the present dispute.

8. In addition, the DRC judge noted that the Claimant acknowledged that the Respondent complied with its obligation to pay the amount of USD 155,000 as provided in the settlement agreement.

9. At this point, the DRC judge acknowledged the Claimant’s position that the Respondent, however, failed to “declare these and previous amounts in his country of residence (Belgium)” for taxation purposes.

10. With the above in mind, the DRC judge acknowledged the Claimant’s prayers for relief, which consisted in the payment of EUR 35,806.84, corresponding to the taxes paid by him for the “income year 2016” and “income year 2017”.

11. The DRC judge equally acknowledged the Respondent’s reply that it had strictly complied with all its obligations arising out of the contract. Furthermore, the DRC judge took note of the evidence submitted by the Respondent, i.e. a tax declaration from tax authorities of IR Iran.

12. In this respect, the DRC judge acknowledged the Claimant’s position that the Respondent failed to provide him with the said declaration attesting to the payment of the taxes.

13. In view of all the above, the DRC judge first of all wished to stress that FIFA’s deciding bodies are in principle not competent to deal with tax relate disputes, as the fall outside the scope of the Regulations and Procedural Rules. Furthermore, the DRC judge was of the opinion that if the Claimant was in need of certain documentation in order to prove that he had already paid taxes in IR Iran in connection with the settlement agreement, it was his responsibility to obtain such documentation, which was not limited, in the DRC judge’s view, to a declaration from the Respondent. Moreover, the DRC judge recalled that the Claimant recognised having received the agreed amount.

14. Accordingly, and in view of the all the above considerations and circumstances, the DRC judge decided that the claim of EUR 35,806.84, corresponding to the taxes paid by the Claimant must be rejected.

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge

1. The claim of the Claimant, Ernest Webnje Nfor, 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 related to the appeal procedure:

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 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 DRC judge:

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer