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 22 October 2020

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed on 22 October 2020,

regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Zoran Gajic

COMPOSITION:

Clifford J. Hendel (USA/France), Deputy Chairman Angela Collins (Australia), member

Abu Naheem Shohag (Bangladesh), member

CLAIMANT:

Zoran Gajic, Serbia

Represented by Mr Vladimir Bojovic

RESPONDENT:

PFC Arda Kardzhali 1924, Bulgaria

Represented by Mr Radostin Vasilev

I. FACTS OF THE CASE

1. On 1 July 2019, the Serbian player, Zoran Gajic (hereinafter: player or Claimant) and the Bulgarian club, PFC Arda Kardzhali 1924 (hereinafter: club or Respondent) signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as of 1 July 2019 until 31 May 2021.

2. According to the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant the following amounts:

- EUR 11,000 as monthly salary during the season 2019/2020;

- EUR 12,000 as monthly salary during the season 2020/2021, starting from 1 July 2020.

3. Clause IX. 1. of the contract stipulates: “The present contract […] shall be terminated only pursuant to the provisions of the labor code of republic of Bulgaria”.

4. Clause IX. 4. of the contract reads as follows: “All questions and disputes relating to the execution, interpretation and termination of this contract as well as questions for eventual compensations due shall be exclusively decided by the Kardzhali District Court, which is the only competent court”.

5. On 1 April 2020, the Respondent terminated the contract with the Claimant due to “Reducing the staff of the company as of 1 April 2020”.

6. On 2 April 2020, the Respondent remitted a payment of three monthly salaries to the Claimant “for not complying with the notice period” in accordance with Bulgarian law.

7. On 6 April 2020, the Claimant sent a letter to Respondent, stating that he club terminated the contact without just cause and paid three monthly salaries as compensation. In this regard, the player requested the club to pay the residual value of the contract, i.e. USD 144,000.

8. On 10 June 2020, the Claimant sent another letter to the Respondent, requesting payment of the residual value of the contract.

9. According to information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), on 16 September 2020, the player signed an employment contract with the Czech club, FC Zbrojovka Brno, valid as of 16 September 2020 until 30 June 2021, including a total remuneration of Czech Koruna (CZK) 1,345,000 (approx. USD 60,000).

10. On 16 July 2020, the player lodged a claim for breach of contract against the club in front of FIFA.

11. In his claim, the player held that the Respondent had no just cause to terminate the contract on 1 April 2020.

12. In this context, he pointed out that he fulfilled all of his contractual obligations.

13. In conclusion, the player claims compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to the residual value of the contract, i.e. USD 144,000 (12x USD 12,000) plus 5% interest p.a. as of the due date.

14. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent contested FIFA’s jurisdiction based on art. IX.4. of the relevant contract due to the exclusive jurisdiction of the local court in Kardzhali.

15. In this context, the Respondent argued that art. 22 of the RSTP does allow the parties to agree upon the exclusive jurisdiction of a local civil court.

16. The Respondent further held that the parties agreed in the contract to submit disputes exclusively to said court.

17. Alternatively, the Respondent requested to reject the claimants claim.

II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DRC JUDGE

1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred as DRC or Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 28 July 2020. Consequently, the DRC concluded that the June 2020 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 members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition October 2020), the Dispute Resolution Chamber, would in principle, be competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player and club.

3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Player (edition June 2020), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 3 March 2020, the March 2020 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

4. In continuation, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent contested the competence of the FIFA DRC to deal with the present case, alleging the exclusive competence of the local court in Kardzhali, based on clause IX.4. of the contract.

5. Therefore, in order to examine its competence and for the sake of good order, the Chamber wished to recall the wording of the relevant clauses in contract 2, which read:

“All questions and disputes relating to the execution, interpretation and termination of this contract as well as questions for eventual compensations due shall be exclusively decided by the Kardzhali District Court, which is the only competent court”.

6. In this context, the Dispute Resolution Chamber duly analysed the above-mentioned clause and wished to emphasize that clause IX.4. of the contract unequivocally establishes exclusive competence of the Kardzhali district court in relation to “All questions and disputes relating to the execution, interpretation and termination of this contract as well as questions for eventual compensations”.

7. At this point, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to emphasise that art. 22 of the Regulations is clearly “without prejudice” to the parties “right to seek redress before a civil court for employment related disputes”. As such, the aforementioned provision indeed allows players and clubs to refer any employment-related disputes possibly arisen between them to the local, national courts.

8. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that, in the present case, the parties had voluntarily and beforehand agreed upon the content and the applicability of clause IX.4. of the contract and, therefore, accepted the exclusive jurisdiction of the local court in Kardzhali to decide upon any employment-related dispute arisen between them.

9. In consideration of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant’s claim before the FIFA DRC is inadmissible.

III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER

The claim of the Claimant, Zoran Gajic, is inadmissible.

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