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 October 2019

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 31 October 2019,

in the following composition:

Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman

Roy Vermeer (The Netherlands), member

Daan de Jong (The Netherlands), member

on the claim presented by the player,

Ivan Milchov Karadzhov, Bulgaria,

represented by Mr Radostin Vasilev

as Claimant

against the club,

FC Shakhtyor Soligorsk, Belarus,

represented by Mr Timour Sysouev

as Respondent

Regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 1 March 2017, the Bulgarian player, Ivan Milchov Karadzhov (hereinafter: the Claimant or the player), and the Belarussian club, FC Shakhtyor Soligorsk (hereinafter: the Respondent or the club) (hereinafter jointly referred to as the parties) signed an employment agreement (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the date of signature until 31 December 2018.

2. According to Art. 8.1.3. of the contract, the player was entitled to obtain a monthly salary of Belarusian Roubles (BYN) 18,462.95.

3. In addition, also on 1 March 2017, the parties signed a “Supplementary agreement No.1 to the terminal employment contract” (hereinafter: the Supplementary Agreement), valid as from the date of signature until 31 December 2018.

4. As per Art. 8.1.6. of the Supplementary Agreement, the player was entitled to the amount of BYN 137,940, payable as follows:

- BYN 68,970 by 1 June 2017;

- BYN 68,970 by 1 June 2018.

5. Art. 8.1.8. (2) of the Supplementary Agreement reads as follows: “Total amount of payments for [Art. 8.1.3 of the contract] (monthly salary) after tax withholding and other payments […] on the date of the payment is NET USD 8,000. According to article 8.1.6 – 2 installments in amount of NET USD 30,000 each instalment […]”.

6. By means of Art. 8.1.8. (3) of the Supplementary Agreement, “in case of essential (for 5% and more) deviations from the specified amounts in USD because of change of the tax legislation of BYN exchange rate to USD, the [club] undertakes to make the corresponding recalculation under this agreement about what the corresponding supplementary agreement will be arranged”.

7. Art. 8.3. of the of the Supplementary Agreement stipulates the following: “Wages stipulated in this contract is paid regularly by the [club] in the currency of the Republic of Belarus on the 12th day of each month”.

8. Art. 4 of the contract lists the club’s responsibility, including:

a) “pay the [player] monthly wages in time, as well as to make other payments according to this contract and other normative legal acts of the [club] to provide necessary working conditions according to the present contract” (Art. 4.1);

b) “provide organizing of the playing and training process, to give training and playing grounds” (Art. 4.2);

c) “ensure safe and healthy working conditions […] including the conditions of normal and organization of training activities” (Art. 4.3);

d) “provide a stay during the period of practice and training sessions, in training camps and during competitions” (Art. 4.4);

e) “provide restorative, therapeutic, medical and relaxation procedures aimed at achieving the optimum competition from [the player]” (Art. 4.9).

9. On 29 January 2018, the player complained to the club in writing that, even though the club went on a training camp to Cyprus from 27 January until 10 February 2018, he “was left behind, without any instructions or information by the club”. Furthermore, the player requested the club to inform him in writing within 24 hours “where and when the player shall appear for the start of the training camp and to provide him with a plane ticket”.

10. On 30 January 2018, 1 February 2018 and 6 February 2018, the player requested the club in writing to “immediately reintegrate [him] to the first team […] or suggest a reasonable solution of the specific situation”.

11. In addition, on 2 February 2018, the player informed the Football Federation of Belarus (FFB) in writing that he was separated from the team without receiving any instructions, while on 5 February 2018, the player wrote a letter to the Cypriot hotel “Atlantica Sungarden Beach Hotel”, holding that the team of the club is staying in said hotel. The player further asked the hotel to submit all of his previous correspondences to the club.

12. Following another letter sent by the player on 8 February 2018, the club replied to the player on 14 February 2018, informing him that “he left the location of the club and our country without explanation […] which gives grounds to terminate the contract with just cause”. The club further wrote that, “taking into account that in your letters you indicate your […] wish to terminate the contract, we suggest considering its termination by mutual agreement”.

13. On that same day, 14 February 2018, the player replied to the club, informing it that, by means of the club’s correspondence, it had “confirmed the receipt of all of [the player’s] previous letters”. In said letter, the player further explained that he travelled to Bulgaria because: “(i) the Club’s first team went for winter training camp in […] Cyprus and left the player in Soligorsk; (ii) in the program announced by the club 27 and 28 January 2018 was non-working days […] After the club did not answered to our letter dated 29 January 2018, and having in mind that the club did not gave any further instructions to the player, [the player was advised] to stay in Bulgaria in order to retain his form, until the club reintegrate him to the first team or gave him further instructions”.

14. In addition, in the same letter dated 14 February 2018, the player highlighted that on 13 and 14 February 2018, he was “instructed by the sports-technical staff […] to have individual trainings. Nobody provided the player a training program. [He] trained absolutely alone, without a coach”. The player further argued that he does not want to terminate the contract, but that it is his “will to continue performing the contract, but [the club does] not provide him such a possibility”.

15. Finally, in said letter dated 14 February 2018, the player stated that he received only part of his January 2018 salary in the amount of BYN 9,800. As per the player, the “accounting department [of the club] told [him] that his salary for January was reduced, because he did not attend the first team training camp in Cyprus.”

16. Following another letter sent on 15 February 2018, the player sent his “Final Notice Before Termination of Employment Contract” on 16 February 2018 to the club. In said letter, the player inter alia held that the team went on a second training camp to Turkey, but that he “was left in Soligorsk without any explanation”. The player further gave the club a final deadline 48 hours to reintegrate him to the team.

17. On 18 February 2018, the club informed the player in writing that on 10 January 2018 he was diagnosed with a meniscus injury, and that “such injury required individual training process”. The club further highlighted that “for the reason of the injury, the player was instructed to stay in Soligorsk […] Nevertheless, on 27th January the player left the club and country without any authorization […] for more than 14 days, which would be generally considered as a just cause for unilateral termination of his contract by the club.” According to the club, his injury problem was not “solved completely and the player must continue his recovery under doctor’s control. The reason for withholding part of his salary is the absence of the player from the club for the period 27 January – 13 February […] which must be considered as unpaid leave.” Furthermore, the club stated that if the player recovers from his injury, he “will be given the opportunity to start full training process and to take part in the matches of the club second team”. Finally, the club informed the player that he ”must come for medicine check in the medicine room at the club facility […] on 19.02.2018 at 11:00”.

18. On 19 February 2018, the player terminated the employment contract in writing. In his termination letter, the player argued that on 26 January 2018, on his own initiative he underwent an MRI. According to the player, the results showed that he was “fine” and that the club’s “allegation about a meniscus problem are an absolute lie”. As per the player, if he really was injured, why did the club not provide him “medical care and individual trainings […] and for more than twenty days nobody from the club [got] in touch”? Moreover, the player alleged that the club was “not in a position to withhold a part of his salary”, given that he “requested many times to be reintegrated”, and the club’s proposal to relocate him to the second team is “a clear evidence that the [it] is not interested in [his] services”. Finally, the player requested that the club pay him BYN 6,200 corresponding to the February 2018 salary.

19. Also on 19 February 2018, the club replied to the player’s termination letter, holding that it was “surprised to receive today your notice of termination”. In this context, the club stated that it expects “that the player will attend the medical tests to prove his recovery from the injury and then continue his employment with the club”.

20. On 23 February 2018, the player joined the Bulgarian club, FC Arda Kardzhali. As per the player, he “did not sign a contract with FC Arda Kardzhali as is non-professional club with status of amateur and the [player] is not receiving remuneration for his services”.

21. The aforementioned transfer does not appear in the Transfer Matching System (TMS).

22. On 14 March 2018, the player lodged a claim for breach of contract and requested the payment of the following amounts:

a) USD 8,508.57 “net” as outstanding salary, plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:

i) On the amount of USD 3,080 corresponding to “part of the January salary” as from 13 February 2018;

ii) On the amount of USD 5,428.57 corresponding to the “remaining salary of February 2018” as from 20 February 2018.

b) USD 112,571.42 “net” as compensation for breach of contract, plus 5% interest p.a. as from “19 February 2019”, as follows:

i) USD 2,571.42, corresponding to the period 20 February 2018 until 28 February 2018;

ii) USD 80,000, corresponding to the 10 monthly salaries as from March 2018 until December 2018 of USD 8,000 each;

iii) USD 30,000, in accordance with Art. 8.1.6. of the Supplementary Agreement in combination with Art. 8.1.8. (2) of the Supplementary Agreement.

23. The player further requested the imposition of sporting sanctions against the club.

24. According to the player, on 11 January 2018 he was informed by the club that it did “not want to continue paying his salary and will use young goalkeepers from Belarus”.

25. The player submitted that in the period 11 January 2018 until 27 January 2018, he continued training with the first team, but that he had been informed “a couple of time” by the club that it will not require his services in the future.

26. The player held that from 27 January 2018 until 10 February 2018 the club went on a training camp in Cyprus, but that he was told by the club to remain in Belarus “without any instructions or explanation” and referred to the club’s website pages dated 29 January 2018 and 30 January 2018 respectively, which listed the names of the 23 players who travelled to Cyprus, and which did not include the name of the player

27. According to the player, between 27 January 2018 and 10 February 2018, he travelled to Bulgaria on his own account in order to train.

28. As per the player, between 29 January 2018 and 14 February 2018, he tried numerous times to reach out to the club, including by sending letters via the Football Federation of Belarus and the hotel where the team was allegedly staying, but that the club never replied.

29. In this context, the player argued that by excluding him, he was “facing irreparable harm as regards his future chances of finding another club of high level after the expiry of the contract”.

30. In this regard, the player highlighted that, once back at training with the club on 13 and 14 February 2018, he had to train alone without receiving any instructions from the club.

31. The player further highlighted that on 15 February 2018 the club went on a training camp in Turkey, but that he again not summoned to join, and that he was not given any further instructions by the club. Thus, as per the player, he was once again having to train alone.

32. In this light, the player emphasized that the club had the duty to provide work, inter alia referring to Art. 4 of the contract.

33. Therefore, as per the player, by withholding him “for 24 days from all of [the club’s] activities […], and by not providing the necessary training conditions and instructions”, the club breached its contractual obligations.

34. Moreover, the player argued that the period from 27 January 2018 until 19 February 2018 “forms part of what is considered to be a crucial phase of preparation for the forthcoming season, during which all players are required to display their performance, in order to be able to undergo a selection by the club’s coach for the new season”.

35. With regard to the alleged outstanding salary of USD 8,508.57 “net” , the player argued that he was entitled to a monthly net salary of USD 8,000 in accordance with Art. 8.1.8. (2) of the Supplementary Agreement.

36. Having said this, the player explained that on 14 February 2018 he received BYN 9,800, which, according to the player, amounted to USD 4,920 “pursuant to the exchange rate of the National Bank of Belarus”. Therefore, as per the player, the remaining part of January 2018 amounted to USD 3,080 “or the equivalent of BYN 6,134”and provided an abstract of his bank balance, dated 14 February 2018, as well as a screenshot of a currency exchange website, dated 14 February 2018, which stipulated that USD1 equals BYN 1.99.

37. Furthermore, the player held that for the period of 1 February until 19 February 2018, the club has to pay him outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 5,428.57, “which became payable as of the termination of the contract”.

38. In its reply to the player’s claim, the club firstly submitted that it had never informed the player that it was unwilling to pay his salaries.

39. Instead, as per the club, in the middle of January 2018 the player was informed that “he will be playing as backup goalkeeper”, and that “it would not be beneficial for him to proceed as backup goalkeeper”. Moreover, the club held that it was “ready to assist him in finding the other club” and provided a “Witness Testimony” from the club employee, “Hohlov”, (hereinafter: “Hohlov’s Testimony”).

40. In this context, the club stated that on 23 January 2018, it attempted to contact the agent of the player via email, “but did not receive any response”.

41. According to the club, the player was “willing to transfer to another club” and “was doing everything to achieve that”.

42. In continuation, the club submitted that, following the winter break, on 10 January 2018, the player complained about pain “in the area under his right knee”, and that “at that period […] the player was not training with the team, but had individual trainings” and provided a “Witness Testimony” from the club employee “Abramovich”.

43. According to the club, on 26 January 2018, the player underwent an MRI scan, “the results of which confirmed the trauma” and provided a copy of a “Magnetic resonance tomography examination”.

44. Therefore, as per the club, “due to coaching decision, obvious injury from the beginning of January 2018 and inability of the player to train at full capacity for at least two weeks, he was not summoned for the training camp on 27 January 2018 and was instructed to stay in Soligorsk” and referred to “Hohlov’s Testimony”.

45. According to the club, following the club’s return from Cyprus and the player’s return from Bulgaria, on 13 February 2019, the player’s “trauma was assessed for the second time who came to the conclusion that he is not fully cured yet and the degree of his physical condition will not allow him to train with the team at full capacity” and referred to “Hohlov’s Testimony”.

46. In continuation, the club held that the player “ceased to attend trainings on 14 February 2018”, and that he did not show up for his medical assessment on 19 February 2018 told by the club in its correspondence dated 18 February 2018.

47. In fact, as per the club, by 20 February 2018, the player “was training in Bulgaria with the other club” and provided an internet screenshot, dated 20 February 2018, showing a picture of football players in training, followed by the text: “Keeper Ivan Karadzhov trains together with Arda players”.

48. With regards to the player’s alleged unauthorized absences, the club stated that the player had already been absent from training at the club on 25 January 2018, prior to his unauthorized travel to Bulgaria on 27 January 2018 and provided an in-house “timesheet”, which allegedly indicates that the player was absent on 25 and 26 January 2018.

49. Consequently, according to the club, due to the player’s two unauthorized absences (i.e. “from 27 January 2018 until 13 February 2018 [and] from 15 February 2018 until 6 March 2018”, the club sent a letter to the player on 6 March 2018, informing him that the employment contract was terminated.

50. In addition, the club highlighted that the contract “does not prescribe any obligation [for the club] to mandatory taking of the player to any of the training camps”. As per the club, Art. 4.4 of the contract (cf. point 8d) above) “is merely an obligation to provide the player with the tickets and accommodation in case the player will be selected by the coach to go for a training camp”.

51. Furthermore, the club submitted that it complied with the other obligations set on Art. 4 of the contract, given that, once the club “became aware of the [player’s] injury, the player was immediately treated by medical personal, who also contacted the insurance company to arrange for the MRI test […] After the injury was confirmed, the [player] was left at [the club] to recover from the injury. The player was provided with everything necessary for living and recovery – accommodation on the basis of the club, 3 meals daily, a gym, a laundry room, and a medical office equipped with everything necessary for recovery. Medical and coaching staff of the second team was present at [the club]” and referred to “Hohlov’s Testimony”.

52. With regard to the player’s January 2018 salary, the club argued that he worked “13 days for 8 hours and 1 day for 3 hours, which totals 107 working hours instead of the required 173 hours”. For this reason, the amount of his salary in January was BYN 11,412.74 instead of BYN 18,462.05. Taking into account the deductions […] which amounted to BYN 1,601.30, the total amount of salary constituted BYN 9,811.44” and a “Payroll sheet of January 2018”.

53. Given all of the above, the club concluded that it terminated the contract with the player on 6 March 2018 with just cause, while the player terminated the contract on 19 February 2018 without just cause. Furthermore, the club rejected all of the player’s claims.

54. In his replica, the player firstly denied that he was informed by the club in mid-January 2018 that “he will be playing as backup goalkeeper”, and that “it would not be beneficial for him to proceed as backup goalkeeper”.

55. In this regard, the player argued that the testimony reports provided by the club “were created by [the club]” and “are not objective”.

56. The player further repudiated that he was “willing to transfer to another club”, as the club had held. As per the player, the fact that he attempted to be reinstated with the team on numerous occasions demonstrated that he wanted to “perform his side of the contract”.

57. Similarly, according to the player, had the club been interested in his services, it would have contacted him sooner than on 14 February 2018.

58. Moreover, the player held that he never negotiated with the Bulgarian club “Pirin”. According to the player, “none professional player would substitute [the club] to play in Pirin, where the [player] would receive much lower remuneration”.

59. Furthermore, according to the player, he passed the medical exams with the “non-professional club” FC Arda, “which confirmed that he is in perfect physical form”.

60. In this regard, the player argued that the MRI results of 26 January 2018 were not the reason for not inviting him to training camp, given that he was already told on 23 January 2018 that he was not invited, i.e. three days before the MRI.

61. In continuation, the player referred to the club’s allegation that he “was provided with everything necessary for living and recovery”, and reiterated that the club left him no instructions whatsoever.

62. With regard to the club’s argument that the player was entitled to only part of his January 2018 salary for hours worked, the player argued that the club itself prevented him from effectively fulfilling his contractual obligations. Furthermore, the player disagreed with the allegation salary for professional football players in general is to be calculated on the basis of working hours.

63. In its duplica, the club firstly argued that the player’s allegation that the club did not want to pay the player’s salary anymore is untrue, as is demonstrated by the fact that it paid him his January 2018 salary “in the due amount and order”.

64. According to the club, if the player disagreed with what allegedly stated by the club, “he should have sent the letter expressing his disagreement […] right after the conversation with [the club] in the very beginning of January and not at end of January (29 January), only when he became aware that he is not attending the camp”.

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. First of all, the DRC analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was first submitted to FIFA on 14 March 2018. Consequently, 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 referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations (October 2019 edition), it is competent to decide on the present litigation, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Bulgarian player and a Belarussian club.

3. Furthermore, the DRC analysed which edition of the Regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations (October 2019 edition) and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 14 March 2018, the January 2018 edition of said Regulations is applicable to the present matter as to the substance.

4. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, it started to acknowledge the facts of the case as well as the documents 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.

5. Having said this, the Chamber 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 respect, the DRC acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that the Claimant and the Respondent had signed a contract as well as a supplementary agreement on 1 March 2017, both valid as from the date of signature until 31 December 2018.

7. The DRC recalled that in accordance with the contract and the supplementary agreement, the player was entitled inter alia to the total monthly remuneration of BYN 18,462.95 as well as two installments of BYN 68,970 each, payable on 1 June 2017 and 1 June 2018. In this respect, the Chamber took note of the supplementary agreement providing that the conversion of the aforementioned amounts in net USD corresponded to USD 8,000 as a salary and USD 30,000 as the two installments, however payable to the player in local currency, on the 12th day of each month as for the monthly salary.

8. The DRC further took note of the club’s obligations towards the player, among which, it would : “pay the [player] monthly wages in time, as well as to make other payments according to this contract and other normative legal acts of the [club] to provide necessary working conditions according to the present contract” (Art. 4.1); “provide organizing of the playing and training process, to give training and playing grounds” (Art. 4.2); “ensure safe and healthy working conditions […] including the conditions of normal and organization of training activities” (Art. 4.3); “provide a stay during the period of practice and training sessions, in training camps and during competitions” (Art. 4.4); and “provide restorative, therapeutic, medical and relaxation procedures aimed at achieving the optimum competition from [the player]” (Art. 4.9).

9. In continuation, the Chamber took note that it is undisputed by the parties involved that the club went on training camp to Cyprus as from 27 January 2018 until 10 February 2018, without inviting the player. Similarly, the Chamber also underlined that it is undisputed that the club went on training camp to Turkey from 15 February 2018 until 6 March 2018, again without inviting the player.

10. In addition, the Chamber also understood that while the club was on its first training camp, the player travelled to Bulgaria, allegedly to train for himself. In parallel, the Chamber also took note that between 29 January 2018 and 19 February 2018, the player sent a total of 9 letters, followed by the termination letter. In continuation, the Chamber noted that, for its part, the club replied 3 times, namely on 14 February 2018, 18 February 2018, and 19 February 2018. As a consequence, the Chamber also understood that the player joined the Bulgarian club FC Arda on 23 February 2018, said transfer being not available in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), i.e. the player joined said club as an amateur.

11. The Chamber then reviewed the claim of the player, who requested the total amount of USD 121,079.99, as follows: USD 8,508.57 as outstanding remuneration corresponding to part of the January (USD 3,080) and February (USD 5,428.57) 2018 salaries, and USD 112,571.42 as compensation for breach of contract. In addition, the Chamber took note of the player’s request as to be awarded interest over the aforementioned sums, as well as sporting sanctions to be imposed on the club.

12. The Chamber further took note of the argumentation of the Claimant who held that he had been informed as form January 2018 of the club’s wish not to count on him anymore for the future, that he had been excluded from two consecutive training camps with the club, that despite his will to continue training, he had been either left with no training instructions nor training conditions or sent to train alone and, finally, the Chamber took note of the fact that the player deemed that any information resulting from the MRI he underwent had no influence on the club’s aforementioned decisions. In addition, the Chamber took note of the player’s calculations as to the claimed outstanding salaries

13. Moreover, the DRC took note of the Respondent’s arguments in reply to the Claimant’s claim. In this respect, the DRC recalled that the club sustained that, to the contrary of what held by the player, he had been informed as form January 2018 that he would be playing as a backup goalkeeper, and therefore that he would be assisted to find a new club. Moreover, the Chamber further took note that in the club’s view, the player had access to the training facilities and the medical and coaching staff of the second team, basing itself on the witness statement. Furthermore, the club held that due to the injury the player was suffering from the beginning of January 2018, it could not take him with the rest of the team to the training camps and left him with all necessary instructions and conditions to train and medically recover from his injury, at its premises, with the second team. In this respect, the Chamber underlined the club’s position as to the fact that in its opinion, it terminated the contract on 6 March 2018, with just cause, to the contrary of the player who terminated the contract on 19 February 2018, without just cause. Finally, the Chamber also noted the club’s arguments as to the paid salaries which, in its opinion, had been duly calculated.

14. In view of the foregoing and of the diverging opinions of the parties, the Dispute Resolution Chamber was of the opinion that the issue at stake, considering the claim lodged by the player against the club, was to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by the player on 19 February 2018, and, subsequently, to determine the consequences thereof.

15. Having said that, and reviewing the argumentations of both parties, the DRC recalled that in the club’s view, it had allegedly informed the player, as mentioned in the club’s witness statement, that he would be playing as a backup goalkeeper and would be assisted to find a new club. Moreover, the Chamber underlined that the player had been told not to attend the training camps and, despite his several requests, the club only replied to the player’s seventh letter, on 14 February 2018, by suggesting him to terminate the contract by mutual agreement. In addition, the Chamber also noted that the club paid part of the player’s salary for January 2018 deeming that it corresponded to the work provided, and, in the contrary, it did not pay him anything for February 2018.

16. Furthermore, the Chamber recalled that the player sent a total of 9 letters to the club in which he indicated that he wanted to continue playing for the club. In continuation, The DRC observed that despite having left for Bulgaria instead of staying at the club’s facilities in Belarus, the player appeared to have signed after termination as an amateur with his new club, meaning that he appears to have started earning less than at the club.

17. As a consequence of the aforementioned considerations, and considering that despite its allegations, the club did not submit a counterclaim, the Chamber came to the conclusion that the club, despite the player’s genuinely interest in continuing the employment relationship, clearly showed for its part a lack of interest in continuing the employment relationship.

18. Furthermore, the DRC noted as well that during the training camps, according to the club and based on the provided witness statement, the player had access to the training facilities and the medical and coaching staff of the second team. However, in accordance with the player’s allegations sustaining that the club left him no training instructions whatsoever, the Chamber underlined that the club failed to provide conclusive evidence as to said instructions and, therefore, deemed that during the period that the club was on training camp, the player was not still able to carry out work as a professional football player

19. In continuation, the Chamber examined the copy of the MRI scan results provided by the club and deemed that the player was possibly suffering from some sort of injury. However, the Chamber held that the club did not provide evidence that this injury made it impossible for the player to attend the training camps with the rest of the team. In particular, the Chamber underlined that the player had trained with the team from 11 January until 27 January 2018, and, in addition, that one could even argue that it would have been better for the player to recover from the injury attending the training camp, with all the staff present, than to train alone. Therefore, in the Chamber’s opinion, taking into account the club’s allegation that the player was injured, it did not act in accordance with what is expected in case a player is injured.

20. Consequently, on account of the preceding considerations, the Chamber stated that the Respondent had seriously neglected its contractual obligations towards the Claimant. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent was found to be in breach of the contract and that, in line with the Chamber’s longstanding and well-established jurisprudence the breach was of such seriousness that the Claimant had just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment contract with the Respondent on 19 February 2018. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the contract with just cause by the Claimant.

21. In continuation, prior to establishing the consequences of the termination of the contract with just cause by the Claimant, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must fulfil its obligations as per the contract in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”.

22. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC established that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration, in particular, as agreed upon the contract and the supplementary agreement.

23. In this respect, the DRC recalled that the player requested USD 8,508.57 as outstanding remuneration. As regards to the partial salary of January 2018, the DRC understood that the player claimed that he received BYN 9,800, while the club held that the player received BYN 9,811. In this regard and according to the bank balance provided by the player, the Chamber noted that he obtained BYN 9,811.

24. In continuation, the Chamber deemed that the aforementioned amounts were indicated in the contract and the supplementary agreement in Belarusian Roubles as a gross amount, the amount mentioned in USD being a net amount. Consequently, the player having claimed in net USD amounts, the Chamber accepted to grant outstanding remuneration in USD because granting the amounts in BYN gross would be ultra petitum.

25. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the outstanding remuneration amounts to USD 3,080 for January 2018 and, as regards February 2018, the Chamber held that the player was entitled to salary up until 19 February 2018, which, on a Pro Rata basis would equal to USD 5,429. The Chamber deemed however that the amount requested by the Claimant pertaining to the salary for the month of February 2018 should be part of the compensation due to him.

26. Finally, the Chamber rejected the club’s argument that the player is entitled to salary for hours worked.

27. In continuation and with regard to the Claimant's request for interest, the DRC decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amount of USD 3,080, as from 13 February 2018 until the date of effective payment.

28. Having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant, the Chamber further decided that, taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent compensation for breach of contract in addition to the aforementioned outstanding remuneration.

29. In this context, the Chamber outlined that in accordance with said provision 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 Claimant 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.

30. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify whether the pertinent employment contract contained any clause, by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon a compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that no such compensation clause was included in the contract at the basis of the matter at stake.

31. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the 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. Therefore, other objective criteria may be taken into account at the discretion of the deciding body.

32. The members of the Chamber then turned their attention to the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contract and/or the new contract, which criterion was considered by the Chamber to be essential. The members of the Chamber deemed it important to emphasise that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows the Chamber to take into account both the existing contract and the new contract in the calculation of the amount of compensation.

33. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the employment contract as from its termination and concluded that the Claimant would have received USD 118,000 as remuneration had the employment relationship been executed until its regular expiry date of 31 December 2018, i.e. considering as well the salary of February 2018 originally requested as outstanding remuneration. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 118,000 serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.

34. In continuation, the Chamber assessed as to whether the Claimant has 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(s) 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.

35. The Chamber recalled that, after termination of the contract, the Claimant was not able to mitigate his damages, as he concluded an employment contract as an amateur.

36. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of USD 118,000 to the Claimant as compensation for breach of contract.

37. 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 as of the date on which the claim was lodged, i.e. 14 March 2018, until the date of effective payment.

38. The DRC concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected.

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant, Ivan Milchov Karadzhov, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent, FC Shakhtyor Soligorsk, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 3,080, plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as from 13 February 2018 until the date of effective payment.

3. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 118,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 14 March 2018 until the date of effective payment.

4. In the event that the amounts plus interest due to the Claimant in accordance with the above-mentioned points 2. and 3. are not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limits, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

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

6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances are to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received.

*****

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 Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer