F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2020-2021) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 5 August 2020
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 5 August 2020,
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Risto Mitrevski
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. Hendel (USA / France), Deputy Chairman
Joel Talavera (Paraguay), member
Alexandra Gómez Bruinewoud (Uruguay / The Netherlands), member
CLAIMANT:
RISTO MITREVSKI, North Macedonia
Represented by Mr. Hrvoje Raic
RESPONDENT:
ASSOCIATIA CLUB SPORTVI SEPSI OSK, Romania
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
1. On 12 June 2019, the North Macedonian player, Risto Mitrevski (hereinafter: the Claimant) accepted
the offer from the Romanian club, Associatia Club Sportiv Sepsi OSK (hereinafter: the Respondent)
(hereinafter also: the parties), with respect to the conclusion of a future employment contract.
Consequently, the parties signed the said employment contract valid as from 1 July 2019 until
30 June 2021. The parties agreed upon, inter alia, a monthly salary of EUR 8,800 and a sign-on fee
of EUR 15,000.
2. On 3 July 2019, the Claimant sent a letter to the Respondent, asking for his reintegration in the
training process of the senior team.
3. On 18 July 2019, the Respondent replied to the previously mentioned letter and stated that “technical
staff analysed profoundly the [Claimant’s] activity and arrived at the conclusion that the team does
not need this kind of football player profile.”
4. On 22 July 2019, the Claimant sent another letter to the Respondent asking for his reintegration in
the senior team and the payment of the sign-on fee in the amount of EUR 15,000, granting the club
15 days to remedy the default.
5. On 8 August 2019, the Claimant unilaterally terminated the contract, requested the payment of
outstanding remuneration and compensation for the breach of contract.
6. On 23 December 2019, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA
regarding outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract.
7. In support of his claim, the Claimant maintained that the Respondent had initially announced the
conclusion of an employment contract between the parties on its official website. On 23 June 2019,
the Claimant participated in a friendly match for the Respondent. Nonetheless, the Claimant was
subsequently excluded from the senior team’s training sessions and he was finally told that his
services were no longer required. Furthermore, the Claimant learned that he was not registered at
the Romanian Football Federation.
8. The Claimant concluded, based on the aforementioned circumstances, that he had just cause to
terminate the employment contract and made the following requests:
i) “To ascertain that the Claimant terminated the Employment contract signed with the
Respondent valid as from 1/7/2019 until 30/6/2021 with just cause within the protected
period; and
ii) To condemn the Respondent to pay in favor of the Claimant outstanding remunerations of
net EUR 26,071.00 (twenty-six thousand and seventy-one euro) which matured as follows:
- EUR 15,000.00 on 12/6/2019, and
- EUR 8,800.00 on 25/8/2019, and
- EUR 2,271.00 on 8/8/2019, and
all within 30 day as from the date of notification of the decision in the matter of the
reference to the Respondent; and
iii) To condemn the Respondent to pay in favour of the Claimant compensation in the sense of
Article 17. If FIFA RSTP, in net total of EUR 199,929.00 (one hundred thousand nine hundred
and twenty-nine euros) which matured on 8 august 2019, while at the same time taking into
account the provisions of Article 17. Par. 1. Of RSTP, all within 30 day as from the date of
notification of the decision in the present matter to the Respondent; and iv) To condemn the Respondent to pay all relevant taxes and contributions on top of the above
mentioned met amounts; and
v) To condemn the Respondent to pay in favor of the Claimant default interest of 5% per year
on the aforementioned amounts starting from the respective date of maturity of each
amount until the effective date of the payment; and
vi) To impose sporting sanctions against the Respondent, all in the light of FIFA RSTP.”
9. In spite of having been invited to do so, the club did not reply to the claim.
10. Upon FIFA’s request, the Claimant provided the following information regarding his contractual
situation after he terminated the employment contract with the Respondent:
On 10 August 2019, the Claimant signed a new employment contract with the Cypriot club,
Enosis Neon Paralimniou FC, valid as from 10 August 2019 until 30 June 2021, for a net
monthly salary of EUR 2,500 payable 10 times from 31 August 2019 to 31 May 2020 and of
EUR 3,000 net payable 10 times from 31 August 2020 to 30 May 2021,
The aforementioned contract was mutually terminated on 2 January 2020,
On 14 February 2020, the player signed a new employment contract with the North
Macedonian club, Alashkert FC, valid as from 15 February 2020 until 1 December 2020, for a
monthly salary of USD 6,000 net.
II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also: 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 23 December 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 referred to art. 3 par. 1 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 (edition
August 2020), it is competent to decide on the present litigation, which concerns an employmentrelated
dispute with an international dimension between a Brazilian player and a Thai 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 (edition March 2020) and considering that the present matter was
submitted to FIFA on 23 December 2019, the January 2020 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 by acknowledging 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. In particular, the Chamber recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, FIFA may use, within the scope
of proceedings pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence
generated or contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
5. The parties concluded an employment contract valid as from 1 July 2019 until 30 June 2021,
according to which the Claimant was entitled, inter alia, to a monthly salary of EUR 8,800 and a signon
fee of EUR 15,000.
11. The Claimant explains that, shortly after the start of the employment relationship, he was excluded
from the first team. He immediately enquired in writing with the Respondent as to his situation and
requested to be reintegrated to the first team, to which he was informed that “technical staff
analysed profoundly the [Claimant’s] activity and arrived at the conclusion that the team does not
need this kind of football player profile”.
12. The Claimant sent another letter to the Respondent on 22 July 2019, giving the latter one final
chance to reintegrate him to the senior team and asking for the payment of the sign-on fee, letter
which remained unanswered. Consequently, on 8 August 2020, the Claimant terminated the
employment contract unilaterally.
13. In his claim, the Claimant alleged that he had just cause to terminate the employment contract in
light of the fact that, just a few days after the date of commencement of the employment
relationship, the Respondent excluded him from the senior team and ultimately informed him that
he was no longer interested in his services. Despite several default notice letters asking the
Respondent to reintegrate him to the senior team and to pay the signing-on fee, the Respondent did
not react to his plea, and therefore he was forced to terminate the employment contract.
14. The Chamber noted that the Respondent, for its part, had not replied to the Claimant’s claim. In this
way, the Chamber considered that the Respondent renounced its right of defence and, thus,
accepted the allegations of the Claimant.
15. Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the Chamber concurred that
in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules it shall take a decision upon the basis of the
documents already on file, in other words, upon the statements and documents presented by the
Claimant.
16. This having been established, the DRC held that, based on the elements on file, the execution of the
contract in fact did not appear to have started. This is confirmed by the fact that the relevant transfer
instruction was never uploaded to TMS. Indeed, according to the system, the Claimant moved from
the Israeli club Hapoel Haifa FC to the Cypriot club Enosis Neon Paralimniou FC, “out of contract free
of payment”, in August 2019. Notwithstanding, it remains uncontested that the parties signed a valid
employment contract.
17. Furthermore, although the Claimant stated having participated in a friendly match for the
Respondent on 23 June 2019, the Chamber noted that, at that time, the employment contract had
not yet entered into force.
18. The Chamber then noted that the Respondent had actually informed the Claimant in writing, with
its letter dated 18 July 2019, that it was no longer interested in his services, since the “technical staff
analysed profoundly the [Claimant’s] activity and arrived at the conclusion that the team does not
need this kind of football player profile”.
19. In addition, the DRC was able to confirm that the Claimant had duly put the Respondent in default
to remedy the situation by requesting the latter to reintegrate him to the senior team and,
incidentally, to pay his signing-on fee. The Respondent, however, did not react to the Claimant’s
plea.
20. In light of the above, the Chamber determined that the Respondent had signaled to the Claimant
that the employment contract would not be executed with its letter dated 18 July 2020 and that, by
doing so, it had de facto terminated the employment contract without just cause. The Claimant’s
subsequent termination of the contract must be seen merely as an additional formality in light of the
Respondent’s decision to discontinue the employment relationship.
21. Having established that the Respondent is 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 Claimant is entitled to receive from
the club an amount of money as compensation for breach of contract.
22. The Chamber thus focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach
of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, it firstly recalled 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.
23. 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. The employment contract does not contain any compensation clause; therefore, the
calculation of the compensation for breach of contract shall be based on the other criteria list 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.
24. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber established that the entire value of the employment
contract amounted to EUR 226,200 (24 x EUR 8,800 + EUR 15,000). Thus, this amount shall serve as
a basis for the calculation of the compensation for breach of contract.
25. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player 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.
26. Indeed, the player entered into two subsequent employment contracts:
On 10 August 2019, the Claimant signed a new employment contract with the Cypriot
club, Enosis Neon Paralimniou FC, valid as from 10 August 2019 until 30 June 2021, for a
net monthly salary of EUR 2,500 payable 10 times from 31 August 2019 to 31 May 2020
and of EUR 3,000 net payable 10 times from 31 August 2020 to 30 May 2021,
The aforementioned contract was mutually terminated on 2 January 2020,
On 14 February 2020, the player signed a new employment contract with the North
Macedonian club, Alashkert FC, valid as from 15 February 2020 until 1 December 2020,
for a monthly salary of USD 6,000 net.
27. The Chamber, therefore, that the Claimant earned a total of EUR 12,500 with Enosis Nean
Paralimniou (5 x EUR 2,500) and a total of EUR 58,117 with Alashkert FC (10.5 months x USD 6,000
(approx. EUR 5,535)). Thus, the Claimant was able to mitigate his damages in the amount of EUR
183,117 during the period of validity of the employment contract concluded with the Respondent.
28. On account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the
Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of EUR 155,583 to the Claimant as
compensation for breach of contract.
29. Furthermore, and in accordance with the Claimant’s respective claim, an interest rate of 5% interest
p.a. shall apply on the aforesaid amount as from 23 December 2019, i.e. the date of the claim, until
the date of effective payment.
30. 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.
31. In this regard, the Chamber established that, in virtue of the aforementioned provision, it has
competence to impose a sanction on the club. In particular, the sanction against clubs shall consist
in a ban 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.
32. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the Chamber decided that in the event that the Club does not
pay the amount 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.
33. The Chamber recalled that the above-mentioned sanction 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.
34. The DRC concluded its deliberations by establishing that the claim of the Claimant is partially
accepted and all further claims are rejected.
III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1. The claim of the Claimant, Risto Mitrevski, is partially accepted.
2. The Respondent, Associatia Club Sportiv Sepsi OSK, has to pay to the Claimant, the following
amount:
EUR 155,583 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 23 December 2019 until the date of effective payment.
3. Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4. The Claimant is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent of the relevant bank
account to which the Respondent must pay the due amount.
5. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with this
decision to psdfifa@fifa.org, duly translated, if applicable, into one of the official FIFA languages (English,
French, German, Spanish).
6. In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established above is not paid by the
Respondent within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the
Respondent, the following consequences shall arise:
1. 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. The aforementioned ban mentioned will be
lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.
(cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).
2. In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision 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 the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
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) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, 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 Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | psdfifa@fifa.org | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777