TAS-CAS – Tribunal Arbitral du Sport/Tribunale Arbitrale dello Sport – Court of Arbitration for Sport/Corte Arbitrale dello Sport (2017-2018) – tas-cas.org – atto non ufficiale – Arbitration CAS 2017/A/5350 FK Sileks v. FK Tabane 1970, award of 24 April 2018

Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport

Arbitration CAS 2017/A/5350 FK Sileks v. FK Tabane 1970, award of 24 April 2018

Panel: Prof. Petros Mavroidis (Greece), Sole Arbitrator

Football

Waiver of training compensation

I. PARTIES

1. FK Sileks is a football club with its registered office in Kratovo, FYROM. It is a member of the Football Federation of FYROM, itself affiliated with the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (“FIFA”).

2. FK Tabane 1970 is a club with its registered office in Jagodina, Serbia. It is a member of the Football Association of Serbia (“FAS”), which is, in turn, affiliated with FIFA.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Background facts

3. Below is a summary of the relevant facts and allegations based on the Parties’ written submissions and evidence adduced. References to additional facts and allegations found in the Parties’ written submissions and evidence will be made, where relevant, in connection with the legal analysis that follows. While the Sole Arbitrator has considered all the facts, allegations, legal arguments, and evidence submitted by the Parties in the present proceedings, he refers in his Award only to the submissions and evidence he deems necessary to explain his reasoning.

B. D.’s background

4. The player D. (hereinafter the “Player”) is of Serbian nationality and was born in 1995.

5. According to the player passport issued by the FAS, the Player was registered as an amateur with:

- GFK Dubočica Leskovac between 23 August 2005 and 2 February 2011;

- FK Sloga Leskovac between 27 January 2011 and 1 August 2012;

- FK Jedinstvo Bošnjace between 12 August 2015 and 17 February 2016;

- FK Tabane 1970 between 17 February 2016 and 14 June 2016.

6. It is undisputed that the Player first turned professional, when he entered into an employment contract with FK Sileks on 27 June 2016.

C. The Proceedings before the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber

7. In April 2017, FK Tabane 1970, FK Sloga Leskovac, GFK Dubočica Leskovac and FK Jedinstvo Bošnjace (the “Training Clubs”) each filed a separate claim with FIFA against FK Sileks, requesting the payment of training compensation. In four distinct decisions, the same Single Judge of the sub-committee of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (“FIFA Single Judge”) fully accepted the respective claims of the Training Clubs.

8. More specifically, on 24 April 2017, FK Tabane 1970 filed a claim with FIFA against FK Sileks, requesting the payment of training compensation amounting to EUR 7,500, plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as from 24 September 2016. The case was recorded under TMS 1474/pam.

9. In spite of having been duly invited to do so, FK Sileks did not submit any reply before the FIFA Single Judge to the claim filed by FK Tabane 1970.

10. In a decision issued on 18 July 2017, the FIFA Single Judge awarded training compensation to FK Tabane 1970 based upon the following considerations:

- the Player had signed his first professional contract with FK Sileks;

- the number of months that he considered the Player had been registered with FK Tabane 1970, i.e. from 17 February until 14 June 2016;

- the fact that FK Sileks is a category III club, under the terms of the applicable FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (“RSTP”);

- the parameters and indicative amounts reflected in Annex 4 of the RSTP.

11. Consequently, in his decision of 18 July 2017, the FIFA Single Judge ordered FK Sileks to pay:

- to FK Tabane 1970 “within 30 days of the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 7,500 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 24 September 2016 until the date of effective payment”;

- to FIFA “The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 5,000 (…) within 30 days as from the date of the notification of the present decision”.

12. On 4 September 2017, the Parties were notified of the decision issued by the FIFA Single Judge (hereinafter the “Appealed Decision”).

13. The decisions in the cases opposing FK Sileks and FK Sloga Leskovac (recorded under TMS 1446/pam), FK Sileks and GFK Dubočica Leskovac (recorded under TMS 1442/pam) as well as FK Sileks and FK Jedinstvo Bošnjace (recorded under TMS 1422/pam) were also issued on 18 July 2017, and the interested Parties were notified on 4 September 2017.

III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

14. On 21 September 2017, FK Sileks lodged its Statement of Appeal and Appeal Brief with the CAS in accordance with Article R47 et seq. of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (the “Code”). Within such document, FK Sileks requested that the procedure be referred to a Sole Arbitrator.

15. It must be observed that, with the same Statement of Appeal and Appeal Brief, FK Sileks challenged the four decisions issued by the FIFA Single Judge, for the purpose of consolidating the four procedures initiated against the Training Clubs. Eventually, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties that a consolidation was not possible as the requirements of Article 52, para. 4, of the Code had not been met. As a consequence, the procedure initiated against FK Tabane was recorded under CAS 2017/A/5350, the procedure initiated against FK Sloga Leskovac was recorded under CAS 2017/A/5351, the procedure initiated against GFK Dubočica Leskovac was recorded under CAS 2017/A/5352 and the procedure initiated against FK Jedinstvo Bošnjace was recorded under CAS 2017/A/5353.

16. On 6 October 2017, the CAS Court Office acknowledged receipt of the Statement of Appeal and Appeal Brief of FK Sileks as well as of its payment of the CAS Court Office fee. It granted FK Tabane 1970 a deadline of twenty days from receipt of the Appeal Brief to file its Answer. The CAS Court Office also invited:

- FK Tabane 1970 to comment within five days on the request of FK Sileks to submit the present matter to a Sole Arbitrator;

- the Parties to state within three days whether they agreed to submit the present procedure to the same Panel/Sole Arbitrator as in the proceedings CAS 2017/A/5351, CAS 2017/A/5352 and CAS 2017/A/5353.

17. On 10 October 2017, FK Sileks expressly accepted that the present procedure and the proceedings CAS 2017/A/5351, CAS 2017/A/5352 and CAS 2017/A/5353 be submitted to the same Panel/Sole Arbitrator.

18. On 13 October 2017, FK Tabane 1970 sent a document entitled “STATEMENT OF DEFENCE” to the CAS Court Office, which reads, inter alia, as follows (“Statement of Defence”):

“Respondent consider that the Printout is a document that applies only to the territory of FA Serbia, because with this document a Serbian player can not be registered in Macedonia, but he needs a Certificate to be registrated in Macedonia or any other country.

Hereby we wish to inform Court that we do not have money to continue with the procedings before CAS and use the opportunity to apologize to FK Sileks if we have done any damage to them.

in accordance with the above we acknowledge that the Appellant’s request has been established”.

19. On 19 October 2017, FK Sileks sent a letter to the CAS Court Office whereby it highlighted the fact that, with its Statement of Defence, FK Tabane 1970 was accepting the “appeal in full as justified [and recognized] that it [was] not entitled on training compensation regarding the registration of the player”. In this document, FK Sileks also amended the requests for relief contained in its Statement of Appeal and Appeal Brief.

20. As FK Tabane 1970 failed to provide its position on the request of FK Sileks for a Sole Arbitrator as well as on the submission of the present procedure to the same Panel/Sole Arbitrator as CAS 2017/A/5351, CAS 2017/A/5352 and CAS 2017/A/5353, the issue was referred to the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division.

21. On 30 October 2017, the CAS Court Office advised the Parties that the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division decided to submit the present matter to a Sole Arbitrator, who would also be appointed for the cases CAS 2017/A/5351, CAS 2017/A/5352 and CAS 2017/A/5353.

22. On 6 November 2017, the CAS Court Office observed that FK Tabane 1970 failed to submit an Answer (distinct from its Statement of Defence) within the given time limit and invited the Parties to state by 13 November 2017 whether their preference was for a hearing to be held in the present matter.

23. On 7 November 2017, FK Sileks confirmed to the CAS Court Office that it preferred for the matter to be decided solely on the basis of the Parties’ written submissions, whereas FK Tabane 1970 failed to express its position with regards to a hearing.

24. On 24 November 2017, the CAS Court Office advised the Parties that the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division appointed Mr Petros C. Mavroidis, Professor, Commugny, Switzerland, as Sole Arbitrator. Mr Patrick Grandjean was appointed and acted as ad hoc clerk.

25. On 13 December 2017, the CAS Court Office informed the Parties that the Sole Arbitrator considered himself to be sufficiently well informed to decide this matter without the need to hold a hearing.

26. On 28 December 2017, the CAS Court office sent the parties the Order of Procedure which was returned duly singed by FK Sileks on 29 December 2017. FK Tabane 1970 did not return a duly signed copy of the said document within the prescribed deadline.

IV. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

A. The Appellant

27. FK Sileks submitted the following requests for relief:

“- To accept and upheld the current appeal before the CAS in full.

- Issue a new decision which will replace and set aside the challenged decisions case nr. TMS 1474/pam in which it would be stated that the claim of the Respondent is without grounds for claim and void, therefore the Appellant should be released from the obligation to pay the before awarded sum of money in the before mentioned FIFA challenged decision.

- The final amount of the costs, including the Court Office fee, the administrative costs of the CAS, the costs and fees of the Sole Arbitrator and a contribution to the expenses of the CAS, as well as the Appellant contribution towards the legal fees and other expenses incurred in connection with this proceeding in the fixed sum of EUR 7.200,00 : 4 = EUR 1.800,00 (divided equally to every of all 4 (four) Respondents) shall be bear by the Respondent.

- The Appellant is not liable to pay the procedural costs awarded against it in the Appealed Decisions”.

28. The submissions of FK Sileks, in essence, may be summarized as follows:

- Before signing the employment contract with the Player, FK Sileks made sure that no training compensation would be claimed. In this regard, it obtained from Mr Nikola Milosavljević, General Secretary of FK Tabane 1970, a written statement, dated 13 June 2016, whereby he had waived all rights to claim training compensation.

- Under these circumstances, the proceedings initiated before FIFA came as a surprise to FK Sileks. FK Tabane 1970 had manifestly acted, in its view, in bad faith.

- In view of the Statement of Defence sent by FK Tabane 1970 to the CAS Court Office on 13 October 2017, “it is very easy and without any complexity to conclude that the Respondent acknowledges and accepts the Appellant’s appeal in full as justified with legal grounds and recognizes that it is not entitled on training compensation regarding the registration of the player D. for FK Sileks Kratovo on 27 June 2016. Therefore, there is no room to enter into further discussion about the Respondent’s claim for training compensation. This recognition and confession by the Respondent leads to the clear factual and legal situation about the case at hand”.

B. The Respondent

29. FK Tabane 1970 did not file any submission other than the Statement of Defence sent to the CAS Court Office on 13 October 2017.

V. JURISDICTION

30. The jurisdiction of the CAS, which is not disputed, derives from Articles 57 et seq. of the applicable FIFA Statutes (April 2016 edition) and Article R47 of the Code.

31. It follows that the CAS has jurisdiction to decide on the present dispute.

32. Under Article R57 of the Code, the Sole Arbitrator has the full power to review the facts and the law.

VI. ADMISSIBILITY

33. The appeal is admissible as FK Sileks submitted it within the deadline provided by Article R49 of the Code as well as by Article 58 para. 1 of the applicable FIFA Statutes. It complies with all the other requirements set forth by Article R48 of the Code.

VII. APPLICABLE LAW

34. Article R58 of the Code provides the following:

“The Panel shall decide the dispute according to the applicable regulations and, subsidiarily, to the rules of law chosen by the parties or, in the absence of such a choice, according to the law of the country in which the federation, association or sports-related body which has issued the challenged decision is domiciled or according to the rules of law that the Panel deems appropriate. In the latter case, the Panel shall give reasons for its decision”.

35. The present case was submitted to FIFA on 24 April 2017, i.e. after 1 January 2017, 27 April 2016 and 1 June 2016, which are the dates when a) the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, edition 2017, b) the FIFA Statutes, edition 2016 and c) the RSTP, edition 2016, came into force. These are the editions of the rules and regulations under which the present case shall be assessed.

36. Pursuant to Article 57 para. 2 of the applicable FIFA Statutes, “[t]he provisions of the CAS Code of Sports-Related Arbitration shall apply to the proceedings. CAS shall primarily apply the various regulations of FIFA and, additionally, Swiss law”.

37. As a result and in light of the foregoing, subject to the primacy of applicable FIFA’s regulations, Swiss Law shall apply complementarily, whenever warranted.

VIII. MERITS

38. FK Sileks is asking the CAS to set aside the Appealed Decision, which awarded FK Tabane 1970 training compensation in the amount of “EUR 7,500 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 24 September 2016 until the date of effective payment” and ordered FK Sileks to bear the “final costs of the proceedings [before FIFA] in the amount of CHF 5,000 (…) within 30 days as from the date of the notification of the present decision”.

39. In support of its submissions, FK Sileks claims that before signing the Player, it had obtained from Mr Nikola Milosavljević, General Secretary of FK Tabane 1970, a written statement, dated 13 June 2016, whereby he had agreed to waive all rights to claim training compensation. The document at issue has been filed by FK Sileks along with its Statement of Appeal. In its Statement of Defence filed on 13 October 2017, FK Tabane 1970 stated that “in accordance with the above we acknowledge that the Appellant’s request has been established” and, thereby, accepts the fact that it is not entitled to the payment of any training compensation with respect to the Player. This Statement of Defence a) appears on a document with the letterhead of FK Tabane 1970, b) carries a stamp of the club and c) was sent to the CAS Court Office with the reference number of the present dispute (CAS 2017/A/5350). Moreover, FK Tabane 1970 has not doubted its authenticity or that of the written statement dated 13 June 2016, implicitly thus, acquiescing to it. Under these circumstances, the Sole Arbitrator does not see any reason to question either the authenticity or the accuracy of the Statement of Defence as well as the submissions contained therein.

40. In light of the above findings, it is clear that the Appealed Decision was incorrect and should be set aside.

ON THESE GROUNDS

The Court of Arbitration for Sport rules that:

1. The appeal filed by FK Sileks against the decision issued by the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber on 18 July 2017 (TMS 1474/pam) is upheld.

2. The decision issued by the Single Judge of the sub-committee of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber on 18 July 2017 (TMS 1474/pam) is set aside.

3. (…).

4. (…).

5. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.