F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee / Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori – overdue payables / debiti scaduti – (2020-2021) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 26 January 2021

Decision of the

Single Judge of the Players' Status Committee

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 January 2021,

regarding a contractual dispute concerning the player Toni DATKOVIC

BY:

Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member

CLAIMANT:

NK LOKOMOTIVA, Croatia

Represented by Mr. Jan Schweele

RESPONDENT:

ARIS FC, Greece

I. FACTS

1. On 14 August 2020, Lokomotiva and Aris signed a transfer agreement for the transfer of the plyer Toni Datkovic from Lokomotiva to Aris for the amount of EUR 160,000, payable in four instalments of EUR 40,000 each.

2. The due dates of said instalments were 1 October 2020, 1 March 2021, 1 September 2021 and 1 March 2022.

3. Furthermore, the transfer agreement stipulated the following:

‘Both parties agree that, in case of ARIS not meeting any of the above payments according to the above schedule or according to the payment conditions of the bonus amount specified above, ARIS will compensate LOKOMOTIVA not only with the payment due as principal, but with an interest of 5% per annum and by payment of a (supplementary) penalty fixed to the amount of EUR 5,000 (five-thousand euros), after the expiry of an agreed grace period of ten (14) days from the stipulated date of each payment and after granting in writing a deadline of ten (10) extra days for the club (after the grace period).’

4. On 15 October 2020, Lokomotiva put Aris in default, asking for the payment of the amount of EUR 45,000, however to no avail.

5. On 16 November 2020, Lokomotiva lodged a claim against Aris, asking for the payment of the overdue amount of EUR 45,000, as well as 5% interest p.a. as from the respective due date.

6. In its claim, Lokomotiva explains that Aris failed to timely pay the first instalment of EUR 40,000, due on 1 October 2020, and that therefore, an additional penalty of EUR 5,000 fell due.

7. Despite having been invited to do so, Aris did not reply to Lokomotiva’s claim.

II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE SINGLE JUDGE OF THE PSC

1. First of all, the Single Judge of the PSC (hereinafter also referred to as Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. 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.

2. Subsequently, the Single Judge of the PSC referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and emphasised that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. c) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Single Judge of the PSC is competent to deal with matters which concern employment-related disputes with an international dimension between a coach and clubs.

3. In continuation, the Single Judge of the PSC analysed which edition of the Regulations of the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable to the present matter. In this respect, the Single Judge of the PSC confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, and considering that the claim was lodged on 26 October 2020, the June 2020 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand.

4. With the above having been established, the Single Judge of the PSC 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 Single Judge of the PSC emphasized that in the following considerations it will refer only to facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.

5. Having said this, the Single Judge of the PSC acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent signed a transfer agreement for the transfer of the player Toni Datkovic from the Claimant to the Respondent for an amount of EUR 160,000, payable in four instalments of EUR 40,000 each, payable on 1 October 2020, 1 March 2021, 1 September 2021 and 1 March 2022.

6. Moreover, the parties agreed that a penalty of EUR 5,000 would fall due in case the Respondent would fail to timely pay any of the instalments mentioned above, after having been granted a deadline to remedy its default.

7. The Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, maintaining that the Respondent has overdue payables towards him in the total amount of EUR 40,000 (first instalment), as well as EUR 5,000 (penalty), plus 5% interest p.a. on said amounts as from the respective due dates.

8. In this context, the Single Judge of the PSC took particular note of the fact that, 15 October 2020, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the aforementioned amounts, setting a time limit expiring on 25 October 2020 in order to remedy the default.

9. Consequently, the Single Judge of the PSC concluded that the Claimant had duly proceeded in accordance with art. 12bis par. 3 of the Regulations, which stipulates that the creditor (player or club) must have put the debtor club in default in writing and have granted a deadline of at least ten days for the debtor club to comply with its financial obligation(s).

10. Subsequently, the Single Judge of the PSC took into account that the Respondent, for its part, failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant, in spite of having been invited to do so. In this way, Single Judge of the PSC considered that the Respondent renounced its right to defence and thus accepted the allegations of the Claimant.

11. Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the Single Judge of the PSC concurred that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules he 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.

12. Having said this, the Single Judge of the PSC acknowledged that, in accordance with the employment contract provided by the Claimant, the Respondent was obliged to pay to the Claimant the first instalment of EUR 40,000 as per the transfer agreement no later than 1 October 2020.

13. Taking into account the documentation presented by the Claimant in support of his petition, the Single Judge of the PSC concluded that the Claimant had substantiated his claim pertaining to overdue payables with sufficient documentary evidence.

14. Furthermore, the Single Judge of the PSC deemed that also the penalty in the amount of EUR 5,000 can be awarded to the Claimant, as all conditions laid down in the transfer agreement for this amount to become due, are fulfilled. The Single Judge of the PSC however wished to point out that no interest on such penalty fee shall be awarded, as this would correspond to a double sanction.

15. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the Single Judge of the PSC established that the Respondent failed to remit the Claimant’s remuneration in the total amount of EUR 40,000, as well as 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 15 October 2020 until the date of effective payment.

16. In addition, the Single Judge of the PSC established that the Respondent had delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis.

17. Consequently, the Single Judge of the PSC decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant overdue payables in the total amount of EUR 40,000, as well as 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 15 October 2020 until the date of effective payment, as well as a penalty in the amount of EUR 5,000.

18. Moreover, the Single Judge of the PSC decided that any further request filed by the Claimant is rejected.

19. In continuation, taking into account the consideration under number II./15. above, the Single Judge of the PSC referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations which stipulates that any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis may be sanctioned in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations.

20. The Single Judge of the PSC established that by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations he has competence to impose sanctions on the Respondent. Therefore, and in the absence of the circumstance of repeated offence, the Single Judge of the PSC decided to impose a warning on the Respondent in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. a) of the Regulations.

21. In this connection, the Single Judge of the PSC wished to highlight that a repeated offence will be considered as an aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty in accordance with art. 12bis par. 6 of the Regulations.

22. Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./3. above, the Single Judge of the PSC 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.

23. In this regard, the Single Judge of the PSC 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.

24. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, Single Judge of the PSC 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.

25. Finally, Single Judge of the PSC 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 PLAYERS' STATUS COMMITTEE

1. The claim of the Claimant, NK Lokomotiva, is partially accepted.

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

- EUR 40,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. as from 15 October 2018 until the date of effective payment;

- EUR 5,000 as penalty.

3. Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.

4. A warning is imposed on the Respondent.

5. 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.

6. 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).

7. 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 Players' Status Committee:

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