F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2019-2020) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 20 May 2020

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed on 20 May 2020,

in the following composition:

Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman

Jérôme Perlemuter (France), member

Angela Collins (Australia), member

on the claim lodged by the player,

Lucas de Carvalho Serra, Brazil

represented by Mrs Markéta Vochoska Haindlová

as Claimant

against the club,

FC Hlucin, Czech Republic

represented by Mr Michal Mitura

as Respondent

regarding an employment-related dispute

between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 19 October 2018, the Brazilian player, Lucas de Carvalho Serra (hereinafter: the Claimant or the player), and the Czech club, FC Hlucin (hereinafter: the Respondent or the club) (hereinafter jointly referred to as the parties), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 1 February 2019 until 31 December 2021.

2. Art. III. a) of the contract provided the following remuneration:

“the club is obliged to provide the player with monthly remuneration amounting CZK 30,000 (in words: thirty thousand Czech crowns). The remuneration will be paid by bank transfer to the bank account number: 3130205163/0800. The player is entitled for the monthly remuneration in case of proper fulfilment of his contractual obligations during the relevant month. The monthly remuneration for relevant calendar month is payable till the end of the following calendar month after the month, for which it should be paid”.

3. Furthermore, art. VI. 5. of the contract stipulated that “The player is entitled to terminate this contract (…) only if the club is in any extent for at least three months in delay in fulfilling its obligation pay duly and on time the remuneration to the player, and does not fulfil this obligation even within an additional period of 7 days from receipt of the written notice (sent after a delay lasting for at least three months). In this case, the player is entitled to terminate the contract without a notice period”.

4. In continuation, art. VI. 7. read as follows : “In the event of disagreement between the parties regarding the validity or invalidity of the termination, the contracting parties undertake to subject the decision of the relevant FAČR body”.

5. Moreover, in accordance with art. VII. 4. of the contract, “The parties undertake to exercise their mutual obligations in accordance with the laws of the Czech Republic, regulations of FACR, UEFA and FIFA, with regards to fact that any dispute between them arising from the contract or initiated in connection with it will be decided based on proposal of any of them in accordance with the Code of Procedure of FACR, whereas the arbitral award, by which the dispute was decided, may be based on the request of any contracting party or both reviewed in accordance with Code of Procedure of FACR by the Arbitral Committee of FACR, without prejudice to the possibility of seeking a review of the FACR’s by the Lausanne-based Arbitration Court for Sport, as provided for in the FIFA and UEFA regulations”.

6. On 31 January 2020, the player sent a default letter to the club and requested the payment of CZK 120,000, corresponding to a part of his outstanding salaries of March, April, May and June 2019, as well as to his two entire outstanding salaries for July and August 2019. The player granted the club a deadline of 7 days to remedy the situation.

7. On 12 February 2020, the player sent a termination letter to the Respondent, holding that more than three months were outstanding to him and, therefore, that he had the right to terminate the contract according to art. VI. 5. of the contract. As such, by means of said letter, the player further requested the payment of the outstanding remuneration, i.e. CZK 120,000, and compensation for breach of contract.

8. On 9 March 2020, the player lodged a claim for breach of contract against the club in front of FIFA and requested the following:

i. CZK 120,000 as overdue payables, plus interest for late payment at the rate of 5% p. a. as follows:

a. from the amount of CZK 15,000, for the period from 1st May 2019 until the date of effective payment,

b. from the amount of CZK 15,000, for the period from 1st June 2019 until the date of effective payment,

c. from the amount of CZK 15,000, for the period from 1st July 2019 until the date of effective payment,

d. from the amount of CZK 15,000, for the period from 1st August 2019 until the date of effective payment,

e. from the amount of CZK 30,000, for the period from 1st September 2019 until the date of effective payment,

f. from the amount of CZK 30,000, for the period from 1st October 2019 until the date of effective payment.

ii. CZK 650,000 as compensation for breach of contract, plus interest at the rate

of 5% p.a. from such amount for the period from 13th February 2020 until the date of effective payment.

9. In his claim, the player explained that despite having duly put the club in default by means of his letter dated 31 January 2020 and delivered to it on 4 February 2020, the club did not react.

10. As such, the player deemed that he terminated the contract on 12 February 2020 in accordance with art. VI. 5. of the contract and that said unilateral termination “was filed based on just cause arising from the Contract”.

11. In reply to the claim, the club referred to art. VI. 7. and art. VII. 4. of the contract and sustained that the parties had opted for the competence of the appropriate bodies among the Czech FA. Consequently, in its opinion, the DRC would not be competent to adjudicate on the present as to the substance.

12. In continuation and as to the substance, the club explained firstly that the parties mutually agreed, allegedly on the player’s request, to postpone the player’s arrival and joining of the team to 19 March 2019 and, as well, that the round trip flight ticket would be paid accordingly by the club. In continuation, the club held that the parties also agreed to deduct CZK 17,738 as the flight ticket price form the player’s remuneration. In addition, the club sustained that, as apparently also agreed between the parties, it paid CZK 117,600 to a third party for the player’s accommodation as from 1 November 2018 until 31 August 2019, said amounts being deducted from the player’s remuneration.

13. In continuation and according to the aforementioned agreed deductions to be made as sustained by the club, it explained the following :

- for March 2019, the player would be entitled to CZK 10,645 for 11 labour days : as such the club sustained that it paid said amount by deducting part of the flight ticket and by performing various cash payments. In this respect, it also held that it paid in total CZK 19,000 and provided a “Payment voucher” dated 15 June 2019, allegedly signed by the player, which appeared to cover what was owed to the player for March 2019.

- for April 2019, the club held that it paid in total CZK 24,000 as evidenced by the provided bank transfer.

- for May 2019, the club held that it did not perform any payment, the salary for May 2019 being covered by the aforementioned deduction which the parties allegedly agreed upon.

- for June 2019, the club held that it paid in total CZK 15,000 as evidenced by the provided bank transfer.

- for July 2019, the club held that the player went training with another club on trial and was therefore only entitled to CZK 3,871 for 4 labour days. The club sustained in this respect that it did not perform any payment, the salary for July 2019 being covered by the aforementioned deduction which the parties allegedly agreed upon.

- for August 2019, the club held that the player performed only 23 days returning late. In addition, the club held that the player was provided with a car on lease and committed traffic offences, said costs being also deducted from his salary. Therefore, the club did not perform any payment, the salary for August 2019 being covered by the aforementioned deduction which the parties allegedly agreed upon.

14. Moreover, the club held that “the Claimant hosted in 1. SC Znojmo fotbalový klub a.s. where contract between the parties and 1. SC Znojmo fotbalový klub a.s. was concluded on 1st of September 2019. Included in the contract was statement of the Claimant that he has no outstanding claims against the Respondent arising from the contract and that the remuneration according to the contract for the duration of the hosting shall by paid by the 1. SC Znojmo fotbalový klub a.s.. Hosting contract terminated on 31st January 2020“.

15. With the above in mind, the club also explained that the Claimant owed it CZK 73,864 and that the “Claimant also has been repeatedly and substantially breaking the contract and the Respondent would be entitled to claim contractual penalties which the Respondent did not do”.

16. In respect to the above, in case FIFA should be competent in the present case, the Respondent requested that the claim be rejected and the final costs of the proceedings be imposed on the Claimant.

17. Furthermore, upon being requested to comment exclusively on the alleged proof of payment provided by the Respondent in the amount of CZK 19,000, the Claimant referred to the contract that the salaries would be payable via bank transfer to his account. Despite acknowledging having received “some money (…) paid by cash (…) for buying food or other necessities”, the Claimant held that he could not recall having signed the cash receipt linked to the alleged payment of CZK 19,000, in any case, said amount being not connected with the monthly remuneration arising from the contract.

18. Finally, the player explained that on 25 February 2020 he concluded a new employment contract with the Czech club, SC Znojmo, valid as from 1 March 2020 until 30 June 2020 and entitling him to receive a monthly remuneration of CZK 10,000.

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to 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 9 March 2020. Consequently, the 2019 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 (March 2020 edition) the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall adjudicate on employment-related disputes between a club and a player that have an international dimension.

3. As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber would, in principle, be competent to decide on the present litigation which involves an Brazilian player and a Czech club regarding an employment-related dispute.

4. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent contested the competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of art. VI. 7. and art. VII. 4. of the contract alleging that the competent bodies to deal with any dispute deriving from the relevant employment contract were the ones of the Football Association of the Czech Republic (hereinafter: Czech FA).

5. On the other hand, the Chamber noted that the Claimant referred to the competence of the FIFA DRC to adjudicate in and on the claim lodged by him against the Respondent.

6. Taking into account all the above, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 22 lit. b) of the March 2020 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players it is competent to deal with a matter such as the one at hand, unless an independent arbitration tribunal, guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of players and clubs, has been established at national level within the framework of the association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. With regard to the standards to be imposed on an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings, the Chamber referred to the FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20 December 2005. Equally, the members of the Chamber referred to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008.

7. In relation to the above, the Chamber also deemed it vital to outline that one of the basic conditions that needs to be met in order to establish that another organ than the DRC is competent to settle an employment-related dispute between a club and a player of an international dimension, is that the jurisdiction of the relevant national arbitration tribunal or national court derives from a clear reference in the employment contract.

8. Therefore, while analysing whether it was competent to hear the present matter, the Dispute Resolution Chamber considered that it should, first and foremost, analyse whether the employment contract at the basis of the present dispute contained a clear jurisdiction clause.

9. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that art. VI. 7. and art. VII. 4. of the contract stipulate respectively that: “In the event of disagreement between the parties regarding the validity or invalidity of the termination, the contracting parties undertake to subject the decision of the relevant FAČR body” (art. VI. 7.), and “The parties undertake to exercise their mutual obligations in accordance with the laws of the Czech Republic, regulations of FACR, UEFA and FIFA, with regards to fact that any dispute between them arising from the contract or initiated in connection with it will be decided based on proposal of any of them in accordance with the Code of Procedure of FACR, whereas the arbitral award, by which the dispute was decided, may be based on the request of any contracting party or both reviewed in accordance with Code of Procedure of FACR by the Arbitral Committee of FACR, without prejudice to the possibility of seeking a review of the FACR’s by the Lausanne-based Arbitration Court for Sport, as provided for in the FIFA and UEFA regulations” (art. VII. 4.).

10. Having examined the relevant provisions, the Chamber came to the unanimous conclusion that said provisions do not constitute a clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of specific bodies among the Czech FA such as a National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) of the Czech FA. In addition, the Chamber also underlined that the Respondent failed to provide any kind of evidence in support of its arguments as to the alleged competence of said bodies.

11. As such, on account of all the above, the Chamber established that the Respondent’s objection towards the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected, and that the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent, on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, to consider the present matter as to the substance.

12. In continuation, the Chamber analyzed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (March 2020 edition) and, on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged on 9 March 2020. Therefore, the Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded that the March 2020 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

13. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber continued by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation 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.

14. Having said this, the Chamber proceeded with an analysis of the circumstances surroundings the present matter, the parties’ arguments as well the documentation on file, bearing in mind art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof.

15. First of all, the DRC acknowledged that, on 19 October 2018, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an employment contract valid as from 1 February 2019 until 31 December 2021.

16. The Chamber further observed that the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent seeking payment of the total amount of CZK 770,000, asserting that the Respondent had not fulfilled its contractual obligations towards him. More specifically, the Chamber recalled that in accordance with the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive, inter alia, a monthly remuneration of CZK 30,000, payable at the end of the calendar month following the one for which the payment was due.

17. In continuation, the members of the Chamber took into account that, on 31 January 2020, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment, granting it a 7 days’ deadline to recover the default and requested the payment of CZK 120,000, corresponding to four half monthly salaries of CZK 15,000 each for the months as from March 2019 until June 2019, plus two entire monthly salaries of CZK 30,000 each for the months of July and August 2019.

18. Moreover, the DRC also acknowledged that the Claimant notified the Respondent of the termination of the contract on the basis of outstanding remuneration on 12 February 2020.

19. The Respondent, for its part, submitted that it had applied several deductions to the player’s salary; amounts regarding a flight ticket which the club paid, accommodation, deduction due to the fact that the player allegedly went to a trial with another club in July 2019, the lease of a car and some traffic offenses. Therefore, in the Respondent’s opinion, it had no outstanding dues towards the Claimant.

20. As such, the DRC highlighted that the central issue in the matter at stake would be, thus, to determine as to whether the Claimant had just cause to terminate the contract on 12 February 2020.

21. In this respect, the Chamber wished to emphasize that, according to the Claimant, at the time of the termination of the contract on 12 February 2020, the total amount of CZK 120,000 was yet to be paid by the Respondent. The DRC also took due note of the Claimant’s allegation that, at the date of termination, more than 3 months were outstanding to him and, therefore, he had the right to terminate the contract according to article VI. 5. of the contract.

22. The Chamber then turned its attention to the arguments of the Respondent and acknowledged that according to the latter, it had duly demonstrated that it had paid all outstanding amounts to the claimant in accordance with the contract considering several deductions made to the player’s salaries, the payment arrangements concluded between the parties and other justified calculations operated by the Respondent as to the payment of said salaries as described in point I./12. to I./14.

23. Moreover, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant, inter alia, did not recall having received CZK 19,000 on 15 June 2019 in cash and reminded instead that, in any case said amount was not connected with monthly remuneration arising from the contract as the contract clearly provided that the salaries would be payable via bank transfer to his account.

24. As such, after having meticulously examined the evidence provided by the parties, the Chamber deemed that from the information on file, it appeared that none of the numerous evidences provided by the Respondent did confirm that it had duly paid the amounts claimed as to the outstanding salaries, i.e. half and full salaries as of March 2019 until August 2019.

25. In addition, the Chamber was of the opinion that the operated deductions had not been supported by conclusive evidence, i.e. the Respondent failed, inter alia : 1) to remit any agreement between the parties as to the various deduction calculations to be made; 2) to provide evidence as to the alleged agreement on the allocation of the costs linked to the flight ticket; 3) to provide evidence of each alleged individual cash payment for March 2019; 4) to provide evidence of the player’s alleged absence in July 2019; 5) to provide the car rental agreement, and more generally; 6) the Respondent did no prove that the Claimant could exercise his rights of defense according to the operated deductions which were, apparently, not communicated to him.

26. Finally, the Chamber also took note that the Respondent held that the Claimant repeatedly breached the contract and owed it CZK 73,864. However, the Chamber also recalled that the Respondent confirmed that it did not have any claim against the Claimant and, as such, that no counterclaim had been lodged in the present proceedings.

27. Consequently, the DRC recalled that according to the legal principle of the burden of proof contained in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. As such, the DRC deemed that the Respondent had not provided the necessary evidence in support of its arguments and in accordance with said principle.

28. Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned considerations and taking into account the documentation presented by the parties to the dispute, the Chamber established that four half salaries, corresponding to March, April, May and June 2019, as well as two entire monthly salaries corresponding to July and August 2019, i.e. the total amount of CZK 120,000, had fallen due and remained outstanding at the time of the termination of the contract by the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concurred that the Respondent had seriously neglected its financial contractual obligations towards the Claimant.

29. On account of the above and taking into consideration the Chamber’s longstanding jurisprudence in this respect, the Chamber decided that the Claimant had just cause to unilaterally terminate the contract on 12 February 2020 in accordance with art. 14 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the contract with just cause by the player.

30. Bearing in mind the previous considerations, the Chamber went on to deal with the consequences of the early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant.

31. First of all, the members of the Chamber concurred that the Respondent must fulfill its obligations as per the employment contract in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda” as a consequence of the termination with just cause on 12 February 2020. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the player the remuneration that was outstanding at the time of the termination, i.e. CZK 120,000, considering that no salary deduction had been substantiated.

32. Furthermore, considering the player’s claim for interest and also taking into account the Chamber’s longstanding jurisprudence, the Chamber ruled that the club must pay 5% interest p.a. on the amount of CZK 120,000, as from the due dates until the date of effective payment, as follows:

a. on CZK 15,000 as from 1 May 2019 until the date of effective payment;

b. on CZK 15,000 as from 1 June 2019 until the date of effective payment;

c. on CZK 15,000 as from 1 July 2019 until the date of effective payment;

d. on CZK 15,000 as from 1 August 2019 until the date of effective payment;

e. on CZK 30,000 as from 1 September 2019 until the date of effective payment;

f. on CZK 30,000 as from 1 October 2019 until the date of effective payment.

33. Having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequences of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Claimant would, in principle, be entitled to receive from the Respondent an amount of money as compensation for breach of contract.

34. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of the Chamber firstly recapitulated 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 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.

35. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contains 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. 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.

36. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out 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. Therefore, other objective criteria may be taken into account at the discretion of the deciding body. In this regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber emphasised beforehand that each request for compensation for contractual breach has to be assessed by the Chamber on a case-by-case basis taking into account all specific circumstances of the respective matter.

37. The Chamber then turned its attention to the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contract and/or the new contract, which criterion was considered by the Chamber to be essential. The members of the Chamber deemed it important to emphasise that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows the Chamber to take into account both the existing contract and the new contract, if any, in the calculation of the amount of compensation.

38. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the employment contract as from the date of termination with just cause by the Claimant until its natural expiration, bearing in mind that he would have received in total CZK 690,000 as remuneration for the period as from February 2020 until 31 December 2021. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of CZK 690,000 serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.

39. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been enabled 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.

40. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant had concluded a new employment contract with the Czech club, SC Znojmo, valid as from 1 March 2020 until 30 June 2020, whose remuneration during the overlapping period shall be deducted, leading to a mitigated compensation in the amount of CZK 650,000.

41. Furthermore, taking into account art. 17 par.1 (ii), the DRC recalled that it had found that the Claimant had unilaterally terminated the contract due to overdue payables and took note that the player had been able to mitigate his damages. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Claimant should in principle be entitled to an additional compensation in the amount of CZK 90,000 corresponding to the equivalent of 3 monthly salaries. However, in accordance with said provision, as the overall compensation would exceed the residual value, the DRC deemed that the Claimant should be awarded as final compensation the residual value of the contract, i.e. CZK 690,000.

42. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant limited his compensation to CZK 650,000. Consequently the Chamber decided to award CZK 650,000 as final compensation to the Claimant.

43. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request and the DRC’s well-established jurisprudence, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of CZK 650,000 as of the date on which the claim was lodged, i.e. 9 March 2020, until the date of effective payment.

44. The DRC concluded its deliberations by establishing that the Claimant’s claim is partially accepted and by rejecting any further claim of the Claimant.

45. Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./12. 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.

46. In this regard, the Chamber established that, in virtue of the aforementioned provision, it has competence to impose a sanction on the Respondent. More in particular, the DRC pointed out that, against clubs, the sanction 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.

47. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the Respondent does not pay the amount 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.

48. Finally, 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.

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant, Lucas de Carvalho Serra, is admissible.

2. The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.

3. The Respondent, FC Hlucin, has to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the amount of Czech Koruna (CZK) 120,000 plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as follows:

a. 5% p.a. on CZK 15,000 as from 1 May 2019 until the date of effective payment;

b. 5% p.a. on CZK 15,000 as from 1 June 2019 until the date of effective payment;

c. 5% p.a. on CZK 15,000 as from 1 July 2019 until the date of effective payment;

d. 5% p.a. on CZK 15,000 as from 1 August 2019 until the date of effective payment;

e. 5% p.a. on CZK 30,000 as from 1 September 2019 until the date of effective payment;

f. 5% p.a. on CZK 30,000 as from 1 October 2019 until the date of effective payment.

4. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant compensation for breach of contract in the amount of CZK 650,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 9 March 2020 until the date of effective payment.

5. Any further claim of the Claimant is rejected.

6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent, immediately and directly, preferably to the e-mail address as indicated on the cover letter of the present decision, of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the amounts mentioned under point 3. and 4. above.

7. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with point 3. and 4. above to FIFA to the e-mail address psdfifa@fifa.org, duly translated, if need be, into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).

8. In the event that the amounts due plus interest in accordance with point 3. and 4. above are not paid by the Respondent within 45 days as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the Respondent, 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 (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).

9. The ban mentioned in point 8. above will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amounts are paid.

10. In the event that the aforementioned sums plus interest are 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 FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

*****

Note related to the publication:

The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the Players’ Status Committee or the DRC. Where such decisions contain confidential information, 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 Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).

Note related to the appeal procedure:

According to art. 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS.

The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:

Court of Arbitration for Sport

Avenue de Beaumont 2

1012 Lausanne

Switzerland

Tel: +41 21 613 50 00

Fax: +41 21 613 50 01

e-mail: info@tas-cas.org

For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Emilio García Silvero

Chief Legal & Compliance Officer