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 20 July 2020

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed via videoconference, on 20 July 2020,

regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Gheorge Teodor Grozav

COMPOSITION:

Omar Ongaro (Italy), Deputy Chairman Roy Vermeer (the Netherlands), member José Luis Andrade (Portugal), member

CLAIMANT:

Gheorghe Teodor Grozav, Romania

Represented by Mr Marius Lazar

RESPONDENT:

Kisvarda, Hungary

Represented by Mr Danyi Szilard

I. FACTS OF THE CASE

1. On 14 January 2019, the Romanian player, Gheorghe Teodor Grozav (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant) and the Hungarian club, Kisvarda (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from 15 January 2019 until 30 June 2019, with the option for the Respondent to extend the contract for the season 2019/2020. Such option was duly exercised.

2. According to the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive a fixed remuneration of HUF 3,840,000 per month, payable on the 10th day of the next month.

3. Clause II.4 of the contract established the following:

“4. The [player] undertakes to pursue his sports activities and to use his corresponding physical and intellectual capacities exclusively in favour of the [club] and in order to achieve the objectives of the [club]. He will make all efforts to keep and improve the professional level of himself and of the football teams managed by the [club], as well as to keep and improve the recognition of the [club] by the professional sports public, by the fans and by the press”.

4. Clauses II.8, lit. f), g) h) and i) of the contract established the following:

8. The [player]'s obligations are the following:

(…)

f) To always cooperate with the managers, trainers, sportsman of the [club], to behave in a sporting manner towards people of the [club], its managers, trainers, professional management and to have cooperative attitude at the matches, trainings, in the training camps and at all other occasions, and to make all efforts not to damage or endanger with his behaviour the physical safety or health of others an not to cause moral damage.

g) During work and besides that not to show a behaviour which is not worthy to his position, to the [club], to its managers, trainers, professional management and sportsmen or to the activities performed by the [club], or is not compatible with the, and to refuse all other contradictory and incorrect practice.

h) To keep the good reputation of the [club], its managers, trainers, professional management and sportsmen and that of football, to always abstain from statements, behaviour and expressions which damage the good reputation of the above and bring them into unfair position.

i) During the work and besides that to take into account and comply with the general sports professional practices, the rules of the game as well as the possible legal regulations in force, the rules and codes relating to his work – validly handed over or communicated with the [player] and signed by him – including especially the job description, the policy, procedure, decisions and regulations of the [club] as well as instructions of the person exercising the [club]’s rights, of the professional management or other superiors, and of the [club]’s doctor (hereinafter these legal regulations, rules and instructions are jointly referred to as: regulations relating to the work of the [player]), furthermore to accept and adhere to the decisions of the official persons of the matches.”

5. Clauses II.9 of the contract read as follows:

“9. The [club] is obliged:

a) to ensure all professional and objective conditions required by the [player] to the fulfilment of this agreement.

b) to meet his payment obligations in time and without delay;

to respect and observe the human rights of the [player], in particular his right to freedom of expression and the prohibition on unjustifiable discrimination.”

6. Clause IX.39 of the contract established the following:

“39. With respect to termination of contract with immediate effect the below listed cases are in particular serious breach of the employment contract obligations by the [player], or are behaviour which make the maintenance of the employment relationship impossible:

- the breach by the [player] of obligations contained in Chapter II of the work contract, or specifically formulated by the employment contract;

(…)

- Unjustified absence without serious reasons from any matches, trainings, reparation programs, or other preliminarily defined events; the [player] may exempt himself from this with presenting proper certification.

(…)”

7. According to item 7 of the club’s general rules, the player “must get a permission travelling farther than 50 kms from Kisvarda”.

8. On 29 April 2020, the player filed a claim against the club before FIFA.

9. The Claimant indicated that in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Respondent sent an email to its players on 16 March 2020, in which it indicated that “according to the Government Decree of the Hungarian Football Association, we would like to inform the players and employees that the trainings will be cancelled from today. The players are required to stay at home and complete the training schedule (running) by the coach (2X1 hour per day). The obligation of these rules results a 2000 EUR fine and other law consequences (sic). We urge everyone to strictly follow these rules in order to preserve the health of their companions, families and their own health. We will inform you about any further changes”. The Respondent enclosed a training programme for the Claimant to follow.

10. The Claimant explained that in view of the above as well as his “physical/mental safety and wellbeing”, he decided to return to his native country, Romania, “in order to enter isolation”.

The Claimant indicated that in Romania he could benefit from a bigger accommodation with a garden, which would make the completion of his training schedule more convenient, as the apartment that the Respondent was providing him did not have “adequate fitness equipment” and that Hungary had forbidden citizens to leave their accommodation for runs and/or walks. The Claimant also stated that he took this decision based on the fact that his house in Romania was close from Kisvarda (i.e. approx. 80 kilometres).

11. The Claimant pointed out that the email dated 16 March 2020 was the only one he received regarding individual fitness programs to follow, and that he did not receive any communication in which the Respondent “expressed an interdiction for the Player to leave the country”.

12. Then, the Claimant explained that on 31 March 2020, the Respondent sent another email, by means of which it terminated the contract of the Claimant on the basis of breaches of art. II.4 and II.8 lit. f), g), h) and i) of the contract. The Respondent, inter alia, declared that it had terminated the contract due to the intentional and serious breach of the agreement by the Claimant. In fact, the Respondent stated that it had clearly instructed its employees that they had to stay in the city of Kisvarda, and that the Claimant left the city and Hungary “without any prior or ex post permission, or informing the [club] about it”, which constituted a violation of art. IX.39 of the contract. In addition, the Respondent indicated that “in accordance of the Hungarian legislation, [the Claimant] will not receive salary or any other entitlement from the start of [his] absence”. Finally, the Respondent gave him 3 days to return the company car.

13. The Claimant argued that the Respondent terminated the contract without just cause: in his opinion, art. IX. 39 of the contract required “(1) a breach of the obligations contained in Chapter II of the contract and (2) the breach makes the maintenance of the employment relationship impossible”. In this respect, the Claimant pointed out that he did not commit any breach of art. II.4 and II.8 lit. f), g), h) and i) (i.e. he did not breach any regulation nor engage in any misconduct towards the Respondent’s management) nor of art. II.39 (i.e. a conduct that makes the continuation of the employment impossible). In fact, the Claimant insisted that he left to Romania in order to facilitate the implementation of his individual training programme, and where he could benefit from a better personal environment that helps his wellbeing during the COVID-19 situation.

14. The Claimant, making reference to CAS jurisprudence, argued that there was no breach of a certain severity that would constitute just cause to terminate a contract: there was no “clear and objective violation of the employment contract” in view of the fact that the Respondent never requested the Claimant to remain in Kisvarda, Hungary or to return to Kisvarda, Hungary upon realizing that the Claimant had left the country. The Claimant pointed out that by not requesting his return, the Respondent had created a legitimate expectation that he had been tacitly authorised to be away, and that such absence does not justify the termination of the contract.

15. What is more, the Claimant referred to art. 3 of the FIFA Statutes and art, II. 9 lit. c) of the contract according to which the Respondent must respect his human rights. In this respect, the Claimant indicated that should the Respondent have forced him to stay in his apartment in Kisvarda, this would have constituted a breach of his human rights, i.e. the protection of the well-being of an individual and the right for an individual to be with his family.

16. In view of all the above, the Claimant concluded that the Respondent did not have just cause to terminate the contract, and requested inter alia the following relief:

a. To determine that the Respondent terminated the contract without just cause;

b. To be awarded HUF 3,840,000 as the unpaid salary of March 2020 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 11 March 2020;

c. To be awarded HUF 11,520,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 March 2020.

17. The Respondent replied to the Claimant’s claim, contesting the Claimant’s argumentation.

18. According to the Respondent, the Claimant needed to have permission to travel more than 50 kilometres away from Kisvarda (cf. section 7 of the General Rules of the club). What is more, according to the Respondent, on 6 March 2020, the Claimant was provided with clear instructions not to leave the city for an indefinite period of time, and to receive permission from the “team leader” to leave for other things than going to the supermarket or the training. Also, the Respondent maintains to have given further instructions to its players on 16 and 24 March 2020.

19. The Respondent further alleged that on 31 March 2020, it found out that the Claimant, as well as his teammate, Mr Latovlevici, had left Hungary on 25 March 2020 without permission from the Respondent. On that same day, the Respondent made the decision to continue the training of its team in small groups.

20. Further, the Respondent argued that the Championship in Hungary would be resumed after 23 May 2020. In addition, the Respondent pointed out that the Claimant was living farther away from the Hungarian-Romanian border then he explained in his claim, and that the circumstances he was in in Kisvarda, were not as severe as the Claimant explained in his claim.

21. In relation to the termination of the contract, the Respondent argues that it did not send a preliminary warning, as for the immediate termination “only Claimant’s material and wilful violation of the employment contract as an employee was required’, as well as that ’the legal consequences of violating the instructions was already stipulated in the Instructions Claimant violated’”. Also, because of the fact the Claimant had to go in quarantine for 14 days would he have returned to Hungary, the Respondent deems that the employment relationship could not be continued anymore.

22. In addition, the Respondent pointed out that other players of its team strictly followed the instructions, whereas the Claimant and Mr Latovlevici refused to do so. In this respect, the Respondent deemed that it had no other option but to terminate the contract of the Claimant, in order to “apply the principle of equal treatment”.

23. What is more, the Respondent referred to the fact that the Claimant and Mr Latovlevici were the only players committing a breach of contract, whereas other players fully complied with the club’s instructions, which, amongst others, were to continue individual training and to stay in contact with teammates via a community e-platform. Further, the Respondent argues that the competition in Hungary was only suspended, but that further “football activities in Hungary were not halted”. The Respondent explicitly denies that it acted in bad faith towards the Claimant.

24. As a result of the foregoing, as well as the fact that the Claimant committed a “material breach of a key contractual obligation”, the Respondent deemed to have had just cause to terminate the contract with the Claimant.

25. In this respect, the Respondent clarified that the player in particular breached the articles 8f), 8g), 8h) and 8i) of the contract, being inter alia damaging the Respondent’s reputation and showing bad behaviour, as well as not taking into account the Respondent’s instructions. Moreover, according to the Respondent also several articles of the Hungarian Labour Code were violated, mainly because the Claimant was not “in a fit condition for work”.

26. Subsequently, the Respondent also referred to the FIFA COVID-19 Regulatory Issues, which inter alia stipulate “employment agreements shall be governed by national law and the contractual autonomy of the parties”. As the termination was made in line with Hungarian law, the Respondent deems that FIFA has to conclude that the termination was made with just cause.

27. The Respondent requested the rejection of the Claimant’s claim and the payment of the sum of HUF 635,000 as “the fees of the legal representative”.

28. Upon request of the FIFA Administration, the Claimant informed FIFA that he remained unemployed after the unilateral termination of the contract by the Respondent.

II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER

29. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as 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 presented to FIFA on 29 April 2020 and submitted for decision on 20 July 2020. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the June 2020 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.

30. 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 June 2020), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Romanian player and an Hungarian club. Such competence is not disputed by the parties.

31. In continuation, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (June 2020 edition), and considering that the claim was lodged on 29 April 2020, the March 2020 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

32. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. 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.

33. Having said that, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that on 14 January 2019, the Claimant and the Respondent signed an employment agreement valid as from 15 January 2019 until 30 June 2019, with an extension option for the season 2019/2020, pursuant to which the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant, inter alia, a monthly payment of HUF 3,840,000.

34. In continuation, the Chamber observed that the parties do not dispute that such option was exercised and therefore that the contract’s term was extended until the end of the season 2019/2020.

35. What is more, the Chamber noted that the Claimant explained that on 31 March 2020, the Respondent had terminated the contract in force between the parties without any prior notice, chiefly on account of the allegation that by leaving Hungary the player had acted in direct contravention to the club’s instruction, and therefore, the player committed a material and wilful violation of the contract, in particular its clause IX.39.

36. The Claimant, maintained that the Respondent had terminated the contract without just cause. First of all, the Claimant referred to the fact that the Respondent only issued on 16 March 2020 instructions regarding individual training and fitness programs, and no directive that he could not leave Hungary. In this regard, the Claimant explained that in his residence in Romania he had a better infrastructure in order to comply with such training program.

37. What is more, the Claimant argues that the reason brought forward by the Respondent in the termination letter, the violation of clause IX.39 of the contract, cannot be upheld. In this respect, the Clamant argued that he neither breached any regulation, nor engaged in any misconduct towards the Respondent’s management, nor engaged into a conduct that made the continuation of the employment impossible.

38. In addition, the Claimant indicated that the Respondent’s termination was not in line with FIFA Regulations, since only a breach of a certain severity could constitute just cause to terminate a contract.

39. Finally, the Claimant further explained that the Respondent was obliged under the contract to respect his human rights inter alia the protection of the well-being of an individual and the right for an individual to be with his family, and argued that being forced to stay in his apartment in Hungary would entail a violation of such rights.

40. The Chamber noted that the Respondent, for its part, rejected the claim put forward by the Claimant and argued that in line with section 7 of the Respondent’s general rules, the player needed to have permission to travel more than 50 kilometres away from Kisvarda. Additionally, the DRC observed that the Respondent claimed to have given clear instructions to the Respondent on 6 March 2020 that he was not to leave the city of Kisvarda, and that he needed permission from the “team leader” to engage in activities other than attending training sessions or buying groceries. The DRC noted that the Respondent indicated having given further instructions to its players in this regard on 16 and 24 March 2020.

41. Furthermore, according to the Respondent, the local league would be resumed on 23 May 2020 and the club had decided as of 31 March 2020 to carry on with small group activities, which the player could not attend as he had travelled without authorization. In view of these circumstances, the Respondent explains that it had no other option but to terminate the contract with the Claimant on 31 March 2020, based on article IX.39 of the contract, given the fact that the player had committed a “material breach of a key contractual obligation”. According to the Respondent, the player had also violated articles 8 f), 8g), 8h) and 8i) of the contract, inter alia by damaging the Respondent’s reputation and by showing bad behaviour, as well as by not taking into account the Respondent’s instructions.

42. Finally, the Respondent referred to the FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines and argued that since the termination of the contract was made in line with Hungarian law, it was done so with just cause.

43. The members of the Chamber highlighted that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the diverging position of the parties, was to determine whether the contract had been terminated with or without just cause by the Respondent on 31 March 2020. The Chamber also underlined that, subsequently it would be necessary to determine the consequences for the party that was responsible for the early termination of the contractual relation.

44. The Chamber, first of all, wished to highlight that the unilateral termination of the contract by the Respondent on 31 March 2020, was made within the context of the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic.

45. Having said that, the Chamber highlighted that FIFA issued a set of guidelines, the COVID-19 Guidelines, which aim at providing appropriate guidance and recommendations to member associations and their stakeholders, to both mitigate the consequences of disruptions caused by COVID-19 and ensure that any response is harmonised in the common interest. Moreover, on 11 June 2020, FIFA has issued an additional document, referred to as FIFA COVID-19 FAQ, which provides clarifications on the most relevant questions in connection with the regulatory consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak and identifies solutions for new regulatory matters.

46. The DRC also wished to refer to the fact that said guidelines – as per the explicit wording of FAQ no. 16, as well as pages 6 and 7 of the FIFA COVID-19 Guidelines – are only applicable to “unilateral variations to existing employment agreements”. Therefore, except where a termination of a contract occurred following a unilateral variation made as a result of COVID-19 (in which case the validity of the variation must first be assessed under the guidelines), said guidelines do not apply to assess unilateral terminations of existing employment agreements. The members of the Chamber further noted that for the assessment of disputes that are presented before the FIFA judicial bodies concerning the unilateral termination of a contract, the FIFA Regulations as well as the established jurisprudence of the Chamber shall apply. The Chamber noted that, in the present case, there was no variation of the contract prior to its termination. The guidelines are therefore inapplicable and only the FIFA Regulations and the jurisprudence of the Chamber will apply.

47. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, as per the long-standing and constant jurisprudence of both the DRC and CAS, only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract. In other words, only when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect a continuation of the employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken in order for an employer to ensure the employee’s fulfilment of his contractual duties, such measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of an employment contract can only ever be an ultima ratio measure.

48. In view of the above, the Chamber observed that the Respondent had unilaterally terminated the contract on 31 March 2020, without any prior indication or warning towards the player.

49. Furthermore, regardless of the question of the consequences and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the contract relation and how they would affect a party’s behaviour, the Chamber was of the firm opinion that the Respondent did not manage to prove that the concrete circumstances of this case could legitimately be considered as being severe enough to justify the termination of the contract without any form of prior warning. The Chamber considered that there would have been more lenient measures to be taken, in order to find a solution for the circumstances that occurred as from March 2020.

50. On account of all the above mentioned considerations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent had no justification to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent and, therefore, concluded that the Respondent had terminated the employment contract without just cause on 31 March 2020. Consequently, the Respondent is to be held liable for such early termination.

51. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber reverted to the contents of the file and emphasized, in particular in the context of the current pandemic, that pursuant to their right to direct and instruct, employers may implement reasonable health and safety measures in the context of the labour relationship with their employees. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the player disrespected the club’s clear general normative and direct instructions that were sent to him as of the beginning of March – both of which were issued within the framework of the contract pursuant to clause 7 of the club’s general rules - and left Hungary without the club’s authorisation. In this context, the DRC was observant of the fact that the local league was suspended initially for 30 days, and already on the sixth day after said suspension the player left to Romania, without informing the club in advance.

52. Equally, the Chamber was of the opinion that by leaving the country, the player ran the risk of not being available to play for the club after his return, since, once back, he would have been likely to be quarantined, as fittingly argued by the Respondent. The Chamber concluded therefore that such circumstances must be taken into consideration as a mitigating factor when assessing the consequences of the aforementioned termination of the contract without just cause.

53. Bearing in mind the previous considerations, the Chamber went on to deal with the consequences of the early termination of the employment contract without just cause by the Respondent.

54. As a first point, the members of the Chamber concurred that the Respondent must fulfil its obligations as per the employment contract up until the date of termination of the contract in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”.

55. On account of the above considerations and the documentation on file, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the remuneration that was outstanding at the time of the termination i.e. the amount of HUF 991,046, consisting of the unpaid portion of the player’s salary for the month of March 2020. Indeed, following the player lodging his claim, part of the due amount had been paid, as confirmed by the Claimant.

56. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s claim, as well as the Chamber’s longstanding jurisprudence in this respect, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. as of the respective due date, i.e. 11 April 2020, one day after the aforementioned amount fell due.

57. In continuation, the Chamber 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 any outstanding remuneration on the basis of the relevant employment contract.

58. 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.

59. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it firstly 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 employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.

60. Subsequently, and in order to evaluate the compensation to be paid by the Respondent, the members of the Chamber took into account the remuneration due to the Claimant in accordance with the employment contract as well as the time remaining on the same contract, along with the professional situation of the Claimant after the early termination occurred. In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that at the time of the termination of the employment contract on 31 March 2020, the contract would run for another three months, that is, until June 2020. Consequently, taking into account the financial terms of the contract, the Chamber concluded that the remaining value of the contract as from its early termination by the Respondent until the regular expiry of the contract amounts to HUF 11,520,000 and that such amount shall serve as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.

61. Nonetheless, as outlined before, the Chamber decided that the player’s behaviour, consisting of a direct disrespect of instructions issued by the Respondent, shall be considered as a mitigating circumstance in light of the particularities of the case at hand as well as the specificity of sport.

62. In this respect, the Chamber considered, in particular, that by disrespecting the instruction of the club not to leave Hungary, the player ran the risk of being quarantined upon his return, in which case his services would not have been fully available to the club for a period of at least 15 days. Accordingly, the Chamber deemed that such period of time should serve as basis for considering the player’s behaviour as a mitigating circumstance.

63. Consequently, the DRC decided that the compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant should be reduced to two and a half months of salary due to the player’s disrespect of the club’s clear instructions which were made available to him. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the amount of compensation the player is entitled to receive corresponds to HUF 9,600,000, i.e. 2.5 times his monthly earning.

64. In continuation, the Chamber remarked that following the early termination of the employment contract at the basis of the present dispute, the Claimant was not able to find new employment. As a result, the Claimant was not able to mitigate his damages.

65. In view of all of the above, and referring to art. 17 par. 1.2 i. of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of HUF 9,600,000 to the Claimant as compensation for breach of contract without just case, which is considered by the Chamber to be a reasonable and justified amount as compensation.

66. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s claim and the longstanding jurisprudence of the Chamber in this respect, it was decided to award the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. as of 29 April 2020.

67. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter stipulating that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. In conclusion, the Claimant’s claim is admissible and partially accepted.

68. Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./31.. 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.

69. 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.

70. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the Respondent does not pay the amounts due to the Claimant within 45 days as from the moment in which the Claimant, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent, 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 Respondent in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.

71. 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 DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER

1. The claim of the Claimant, Gheorghe Teodor Grozav, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent, Kisvarda, has to pay to the Claimant the following amounts:

- HUF 991,046 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 11 April 2020 until the date of effective payment;

- HUF 9,600,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. as from 29 April 2020 until the date of effective payment.

3. Any further claim of the Claimant is 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