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 19 February 2020
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 19 February 2020,
by Daan de Jong (The Netherlands), DRC judge,
on the claim presented by the player,
Sadat Bukari, Ghana,
represented by Mr Josep F. Vandellos
as Claimant / Counter-Respondent
against the club,
Churchill Brothers SC, India
as Respondent / Counter-Claimant
regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties
I. Facts of the case
1. On 26 December 2018, the Ghanaian player, Sadat Bukari (hereinafter: Claimant I Counter-Respondent) signed an employment contract (hereinafter: contract) with the Indian club, Churchill Brothers SC (hereinafter: Respondent / Counter-Claimant).
2. As per clause 1 of the contract, “the agreement shall commence from the day/date he reports to the management”. The contract further stipulated that it “shall also further remain in force from 1 August 2019 till the end of the last I-League / Super Cup match of the season 2018-2019 or 30th April 2020 whichever is earlier without any prejudice to the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant]”.
3. Furthermore, pursuant to clause 10 of the contract, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was inter alia entitled to a monthly salary of Indian Rupee (INR) 360,000 (“equivalent to USD 5,000”).
4. According to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the employment contract was valid as from 26 December 2018 until 30 April 2020
5. On 31 December 2018, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant informed the Indian Embassy in Accra, Ghana, of the following: “We are enclosing herewith the following documents with a request to kindly issue the necessary employment visa to the abovementioned player:
a) Invitation letter […] dated 31 December 2018;
b) Notarized Contract/Agreement;
c) Copy of Passport;
d) Certificate of Incorporation.”
6. On 15 January 2019, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent informed the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in writing of the following: “I have not been able to facilitate my travel and visa issues due to my financial challenges… Please I will like to humbly ask you to send me [USD] 1,000 to aid me resolve the situation and come to join you soon. Please note that I will refund all monies sent me on my arrival.”
7. On 20 January 2019, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent informed the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in writing of the following: “Due to my financial challenges I have applied for the visa online and I have been advised by the embassy that to complete the application successfully I must come and pay the visa fees […] In my previous email [to you] I expressed the fact that I cannot afford to finance my travelling to [Accra] and also pay the visa fees with my current financial situation […] I remain fully committed to our contract and the club.”
8. On 21 January 2019, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant informed the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in writing of the following: “We would like to inform you that we cannot send the money to you from here. However, we are requesting your agent to help you in getting the visa. Please note that there are only six matches left to play.”
9. On that same day, 21 January 2019, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent responded to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s correspondence as follows: “I will communicate with my agent and see how best he can help fix my visa and travel issues so that I can join the club in the earliest possible time”.
10. In continuation, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent contacted the Respondent / Counter-Claimant via email and WhatsApp on 23 February 2019, 3 March 2019 and 11 May 2019, followed by the following communication on 13 June 2019: “We are writing to express our displeasure of the fact that many messages sent to [you] regarding your plans for [the Claimant] which has been left unanswered. Meanwhile [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant] and [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] have signed and concluded a professional contract. And the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] has sent nursery documents backing the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] to secure a visa which is successfully done”.
11. On 14 June 2019, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant sent an email to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, which contained the following: “Kindly arrange to send us your visa”.
12. On 8 July 2019, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent informed the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in writing of the following: “I want to bring to your notice that I have travelled to [Accra] to take the visa which was scheduled to be ready today. However, the consul ask the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] should send a confirmation letter from the Indian FA and Minister of Your Sports in India. I have called the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] but no answer. I have also left message to them. Please reply soonest. I’ll be waiting at the embassy.”
13. On 12 July 2019, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent put the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in default, holding the following: “I am giving the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] one more reminder about the documents I need for my visa […]:
- Confirmation letter from [the Indian FA];
- Letter from Ministry of [Sports] in India.
Please send me the documents as soon as possible […] I am very keen to […] start training with the team because my contract is valid until 30 April 2020 and I want to fulfil my contractual duties. I also want to remind you that I signed the contract in December 2018 and have not been able to report to management, because the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] did not help me get my visa, even though I did everything possible from my end […] Also, let me remind you that the contract started in December 2018 and the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] promised to pay me USD 5,000 per month, but the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] has not paid me any salary till date. I request you to pay me due salaries from January 2019 to June 2019 (the total amount is USD 30,000) within 15 days”.
14. On 17 July 2019, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant informed the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in writing of the following: “You never reported to Management for the entire season. So the question of paying you never arises. As you never reported to Management, your contract stands null and void […] Wishing you good luck in your career].”
15. On 23 July 2019, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent lodged a claim against the Respondent / Counter-Claimant for termination of contract without just cause, requesting the following:
a) USD 30,000 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount, calculated as follows:
i) as from 1 February 2019, on the amount of USD 5,000;
ii) as from 1 March 2019, on the amount of USD 5,000;
iii) as from 1 April 2019, on the amount of USD 5,000;
iv) as from 1 May 2019, on the amount of USD 5,000;
v) as from 1 June 2019, on the amount of USD 5,000;
vi) as from 1 July 2019, on the amount of USD 5,000.
b) USD 50,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 17 July 2019 until the date of effective payment.
c) USD 15,000 as “additional compensation” plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 17 July 2019 until the date of effective payment;
16. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent further requested the imposition of sporting sanctions against the Respondent / Counter-Claimant.
17. According to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant “has failed to acknowledge the fact that it is the responsibility of the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] to provide the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] with a valid employment visa/work permit, so as to allow him to render his services and fulfill his contractual obligations”.
18. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent further argued that he “took it upon himself to duly file the application. The [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] informed the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] of his financial difficulties and requested them to make an advance payment of USD 1,000 and mentioned that the requisite amount was to be deducted from his salary. However, the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] refused to provide any assistance, falsely claiming that it was impossible to transfer money from India to Ghana.”
19. As per the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Respondent / Counter-Claimant “has mentioned in the Notice of Termination that the Contract never came into force since the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] failed to report to the Management. The [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] disagrees with the contention of the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant]. Making the validity of the contract contingent on the Player “reporting to the Management” essentially means that the validity of the Contract is contingent on the obtainment of the work permit. Such clauses are invalid in accordance with Art. 18 (4) of the RSTP.”
20. In light of the above, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent maintained that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had terminated the employment contract without just cause on 17 July 2019.
21. As such, by means of his claim, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent held that he was entitled to outstanding remuneration for the period of 26 December 2018 until 30 June 2019, and compensation for the period July 2019 until and including April 2020.
22. As regards his request for outstanding remuneration, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent stated that he was entitled to a monthly salary of USD 5,000. Therefore, as per the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the total amount outstanding equalled USD 30,000 corresponding to the six monthly instalments of January 2019 until and including June 2019.
23. With regard to the compensation for termination of contract without just cause, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent firstly explained that the residual value of the contract equalled USD 50,000, corresponding to the 10 monthly instalments of USD 5,000 each of July 2019 until and including April 2020.
24. By means of its reply and counterclaim, dated 9 January 2020, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant requested, inter alia, the following:
a) INR 1,000,000 as compensation “for mental harassment and litigation costs;
b) INR 500,000 as compensation corresponding to “exemplary costs […] for initiating frivolous litigation;
25. In this context, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant held that following the email of 31 December 2018, it requested the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to visit the Embassy “as per standard visa procedure”. In this context, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant held that before signing the contract, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent “had informed the club that they would take care of the visa application fee, and the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] would reimburse them once the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] reached India. Before this date, the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] had never informed the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] of his financial difficulties […] As per the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] policy, we do not make any advance payments to players, unless expressly mentioned in the employment contract […] However, in this case, we communicated with the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s] agent and asked him to bear the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s] expenses.”
26. As per the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, by means of his email of 13 June 2019, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent confirmed that he had obtained his visa. However, according to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent never sent its visa the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, as it requested in its email of 14 June 2019.
27. In continuation, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant referred to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s email of 8 July 2019, and maintained that neither the Indian FA, nor the Indian Ministry of Sports could not provide the relevant documents, as it is not their responsibility. In this regard, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant further argued that it had already sent the relevant documents to the Embassy by means of its email of 31 December 2018.
28. Finally, and following the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s default letter of 12 July 2019, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant understood that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent “had no intention to obtain his visa and fulfil his contractual obligations”. Consequently, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant decided to inform the Claimant / Counter-Respondent that “his contract was being terminated” on 17 July 2019.
29. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant underlined that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had failed to cooperate with the club in obtaining his visa. In this regard, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant highlighted that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent contradicted himself by “explicitly” stating that on 13 June 2019 he had obtained his visa, only to inform the Respondent / Counter-Claimant on 8 July 2019 that he had not.
30. Given all of the above, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was of the firm opinion that it had a just cause to terminate the contract on 17 July 2019 and, as a consequence, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim is to be rejected.
31. On 23 January 2020, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent informed FIFA that he has remained unemployed “as from 26 December 2018”.
II. Considerations of the DRC judge
1. First of all, the DRC Judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 23 July 2019. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the 2019 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, DRC Judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players 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 Ghanaian player and an Indian club.
3. In continuation, the DRC Judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2018) and considering that the present claim was lodged on 23 July 2019, the 2019 edition of the said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
4. The competence of the DRC Judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC Judge entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC Judge started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts and arguments as well as the documentation on file. However, the DRC Judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
5. In this respect, the DRC Judge recalled that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant signed an employment contract which was valid as from “the date [the Claimant / Respondent-Respondent] reports to the management and shall remain in force till […] 30 April 2019”. The DRC Judge acknowledged that, in accordance with the employment contract, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was obliged to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, a monthly salary of Indian Rupee (INR) 360,000 (“equivalent to USD 5,000”).
6. The DRC Judge further took into consideration that remained undisputed that, by means of its correspondence dated 17 July 2019, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant terminated the employment contract.
7. In continuation, the DRC Judge recalled that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent lodged a claim before FIFA for breach of contract requesting, inter alia, to be awarded the amount USD 30,000 as outstanding remuneration, as well as the total amount of USD 65,000 compensation for breach of contract.
8. In light of the above, the DRC Judge established that the primary issue at stake is determining as to whether the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had a just cause to terminate the contract with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent on 17 July 2019 and to determine the consequences thereof. In this respect, the DRC Judge deemed it essential to make a brief recollection of the facts as well as the parties’ main arguments and the documentation on file.
9. With regard to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s arguments, the DRC Judge noted that, as per the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant failed to carry out its responsibility of providing the Claimant / Counter-Respondent with a valid employment visa/work permit, while making reference to art. 18 (4) of the Regulations. The DRC Judge further recalled that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent argued that he “did everything possible from [his] end” in order to obtain the visa and to provide his services to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant.
10. In continuation, the DRC Judge analysed the arguments brought forward by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, who firstly stated that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s obligation to visit the relevant Indian embassy is “standard visa procedure”.
11. Thereafter, the DRC Judge educed that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant referred to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s alleged financial difficulties to obtain the visa, but who also held that, as per its policy, it does “not make any advance payments to players, unless expressly mentioned in the employment contract”.
12. Furthermore, the DRC Jude took into account that, as per the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had contradicted himself in his correspondences and that he “had no intention to obtain his visa and fulfil his contractual obligations”. Consequently, the DRC Judge recalled, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was of the firm opinion that it had a just cause to terminate the employment contract.
13. Having analysed the arguments brought forward by the parties, the DRC Judge deemed it firstly necessary to determine on which date the employment contract became valid and binding. In this context, he referred to clause of the contract, and recalled that “the agreement shall commence from the date the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] reports to the management”. However, the DRC Judge was quick to point out that such a condition should be declared invalid, since the validity of a contract depends on the willingness of the parties to enter into the agreement. As such, the DRC Judge determined that the contract entered into force on the date of signature, i.e. 26 December 2018.
14. By way of summary, the DRC Judge therefore concluded that the Contract entered into force on 26 December 2018, and that it was unilaterally terminated by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant on 17 July 2019.
15. In continuation, the DRC Judge turned to the question regarding who is responsible for the obtainment of the visa and/or work permit. In this light, the DRC Judge recalled that Art. 18 (4) of the Regulations provides that the validity of a contract may not be subject to the grant of a work permit. Moreover, as per the DRC Judge, it is established DRC jurisprudence that the responsibility for obtaining a visa or work permit lies with the club, although the player must cooperate fully in the efforts aimed at obtaining the visa or the work permit.
16. Having said this, the DRC Judge understood that a fundamental question in this matter is thus whether the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and Claimant / Counter-Respondent fully cooperated in the efforts aimed at obtaining the visa.
17. In this context, the DRC Judge observed that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant never disputed that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had to pay USD 1,000 in order to obtain the visa through the Indian Embassy in Ghana. Instead, as per the DRC Judge, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant argued that it refused to make any advance payments to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, because it was not contractually established. Consequently, the DRC Judge interpreted this refusal as the Respondent / Counter-Claimant not fully complying with its responsibility in accordance with Art. 18 of the Regulations.
18. Next, the DRC Judge understood that it remained undisputed that between January 2019 and June 2019 the Claimant / Counter-Respondent did have not his visa. Having said this, the DRC Judge noted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was of the opinion that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had obtained his visa by referring to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s correspondence of 13 July 2019 (cf. I.10 and I.26). However, after analyzing said correspondence, the DRC Judge was unable to draw the same conclusion. Furthermore, the DRC Judge deduced that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent never acknowledged to having obtained the visa in his subsequent emails.
19. Similarly, the DRC Judge felt it safe to assume that on the date the Respondent / Counter-Claimant sent its last email, i.e. 17 July 2019, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had still not obtained his visa.
20. Given all of the above, given the fact that the responsibility for obtaining a visa permit lies with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, and given that the parties failed to obtain said visa, it can consequently be determined that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant terminated the contract on 17 July 2019 without just cause.
21. Consequently, the DRC Judge decided to fully reject the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s argumentation and counterclaim.
22. That said, the DRC Judge concluded that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract without just cause by the Respondent and should therefore bear the consequences of its unjustified breach of the employment contract.
23. In continuation, prior to entering into the issue of the consequences of the early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the DRC Judge firstly proceeded to determine the amount of outstanding remuneration, if any, still due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to this day.
24. In this regard, the DRC firstly referred to clause 10 of the contract and recalled that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was entitled to a monthly salary of INR 360,000. Therefore, and contrary to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s request, the DRC Judge understood that any amount due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent would be paid in INR.
25. In continuation, and taking into account that the contract was in force for the period between 26 December 2018 and 17 July 2019, the DRC Judge determined that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was entitled to the monthly salaries of January 2019 until and including June 2019. Thus, the DRC Judge concluded that the total amount outstanding to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent amounted to INR 2,160,000.
26. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC Judge decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is liable to pay to the player outstanding remuneration in the total amount of INR 2,160,000.
27. Furthermore, considering the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim for interest and also taking into account the DRC’s longstanding jurisprudence, the DRC Judge ruled that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay 5% interest p.a. on the amount of INR 2,160,000 as from the respective due dates.
28. In continuation, the DRC Judge focused his attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract payable by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the DRC Judge first 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 / Counter-Respondent 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.
29. In application of the relevant provision, the DRC Judge held that he first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained 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 DRC Judge established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.
30. As a consequence, the DRC Judge determined that the amount of compensation payable by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The DRC Judge 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 DRC Judge emphasized beforehand that each request for compensation for contractual breach has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis taking into account all specific circumstances of the respective matter.
31. In order to estimate the amount of compensation due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in the present case, the DRC Judge first turned its attention to the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent under the existing contract and/or the new contract(s), which criterion was considered to be essential. The DRC Judge deemed it important to emphasise that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows it to take into account both the existing contract and the new contract, if any, in the calculation of the amount of compensation.
32. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the DRC Judge proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent under the terms of the employment contract as from its date of termination with just cause by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, i.e. 17 July 2019 until 30 April 2020, and concluded that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent would have received INR 3,600,000 in total as remuneration had the contract been executed until its expiry date.
33. Consequently, the DRC Judge concluded that the amount of INR 3,600,000 serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.
34. In continuation, the DRC Judge acknowledged that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s request for compensation included USD 15,000 as “additional compensation”. In this regard, the DRC Judge deemed it appropriate to point out that the request for said compensation presented by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had no legal or regulatory basis and pointed out that no corroborating evidence had been submitted that demonstrated or quantified the damage suffered.
35. In continuation, the DRC Judge verified as to whether the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been able 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 termination of contract with just cause in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.
36. Having said this, the DRC Judge noted that according to the information on file, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent remained unemployed as from 17 July 2019.
37. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the DRC Judge decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay the amount of INR 3,600,000 to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent as compensation for breach of contract.
38. In addition, taking into account the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s request, the DRC Judge decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of compensation as of the date on which the claim was lodged, i.e. 23 July 2019, until the date of effective payment
39. Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./3. above, the DRC Judge 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.
40. In this regard, the DRC Judge 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.
41. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC Judge decided that, in the event that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant does not pay the amounts due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent within 45 days as from the moment in which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, 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 / Counter-Claimant in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
42. Finally, the DRC Judge 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.
43. The Dispute Resolution Chamber Judge concluded his deliberations in the present matter by establishing that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim is partially accepted and that any further claims lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected. Furthermore, the DRC Judge concluded that the counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected.
III. Decision of the DRC Judge
1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Sadat Bukari, is partially accepted.
2. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Churchill Brothers SC, has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent outstanding remuneration in the amount of Indian Rupee (INR) 2,160,000, plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the aforementioned amount until the date of effective payment as follows:
a) As from 1 February 2019, on the amount of INR 360,000;
b) As from 1 March 2019, on the amount of INR 360,000;
c) As from 1 April 2019, on the amount of INR 360,000;
d) As from 1 May 2019, on the amount of INR 360,000;
e) As from 1 June 2019, on the amount of INR 360,000;
f) As from 1 July 2019, on the amount of INR 360,000.
3. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent compensation for breach of contract in the amount of INR 3,600,000, plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the aforementioned amount as from 23 July 2019 until the date of effective payment.
4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected.
5. The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Churchill Brothers SC, is rejected.
6. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent 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 III.2. and III.3. above.
7. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall provide evidence of payment of the due amounts in accordance with III.2. and III.3. 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 III.2. and III.3. above are not paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant within 45 days as from the notification by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent of the relevant bank details to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall be banned 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 (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).
9. The ban mentioned in III.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