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 27 February 2020

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 February 2020,

in the following composition:

Clifford Hendel (USA), Deputy Chairman

Roy Vermeer (The Netherlands), member

Stefano La Porta (Italy), member

on the claim between the player,

Bruno Araujo Da Silva Chalkiadakis, Greece

represented by Ms Penny Ap. Konitsioti

as Claimant / Counter-Respondent I

against the club,

AFC Hermannstadt, Romania

represented by Mr Pana Cosmin Razsvan

as Respondent / Counter-Claimant

and against the club,

Palmacia Esporte Clube, Brazil

as Counter-Respondent II

regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 4 July 2018, the Greek player, Bruno Araujo Da Silva Chalkiadakis (hereinafter: the Claimant / Counter-Respondent or the player) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) with the Romanian club, AFC Hermannstadt (hereinafter: the Respondent / Counter-Claimant or the club), valid as of 9 July 2018 until 30 June 2020.

2. The object of the contract was “the performance of the football activity by the player – professional footballer for the club- AFC Hermannstadt (...)”.

3. According to the contract, the club undertook to pay to the player the following amounts:

- EUR 10,000 as signing on fee;

- EUR 10,000 on 1 July 2019 and a monthly salary “(24 months) of 8.000 euro neto”.

In this respect, the contract further specified that “in the first month the player will receive one salary and a half, the second month half salary, followed then by normal monthly salaries.”

4. In addition, the player was entitled to receive several bonuses depending on his performances, respectively on the performances of the club. In particular, the contract provided for the player to receive from the club the sum of EUR 200 “for each goal, assist, penalty made – during the official games of the first team of the club”.

5. The player was also entitled to receive from the club a car and a furnished apartment.

6. The contract further stipulated: “The date on which the remuneration is paid is on the 20th of the month for the previous month.”

7. As per clause X of the contract “a) any litigation regarding inappropriate performance or non-performance of the obligations assumed by the parties under this contract shall be settled amicably. In the event that such settlement is not possible, the parties will only address LPF / FRF / AJF jurisdictions in accordance with the provisions of the LPF / FRF / AJF Statutes and Regulations. Upon exhaustion of internal jurisdictional proceedings, the unsuccessful party may appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne. (..)”.

8. In accordance with its clause XIII, the contract could be terminated as follows: “a) upon the competition of the term for which it was concluded, if the parties do not agree to its extension; b) by written agreement of the parties; c) force majeure (…); d) at the initiative of one of the Parties under the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of the Football Players; e) if the participant in the sporting activity is found guilty of doping / refuses the anti-doping test.”

9. The contract does not include a provision related to the payment of compensation by either party in case of breach of contract.

10. The contract was terminated on 8 December 2018 by the player with a termination letter in which the latter accused the club of having breached the contract by excluding him from its first team as of 27 October 2018.

11. The following is inter alia stated by the player in the English translation of the termination letter: “my exclusion from the first team squad is revealed with no doubt from the fact that as from October 27, 2018 I did not have any training with the first team and I did not play in any match; after you have been notified by my attorney, you have communicated a training program that I’ve done it all by myself, without a team, without a coach and without a doctor. Moreover, the ’training’ consisted of running around the ground without any other training.”

12. The player also accused the club of having failed to pay his rent during the months of October and November 2018, of having caused his eviction from the apartment as well as of having failed to pay his October and November 2018 salary.

13. Finally, the player specified that he considered the contract terminated “with a sporting just cause”.

14. According to the information included in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player concluded an employment contract with the Brazilian club, Palmacia, (hereinafter: Counter-Respondent II) valid from 11 June 2019 until 9 June 2022 by means of which he was entitled to receive as remuneration a monthly salary of BRL 1,000.

15. When the FIFA administration requested the player about his labour situation as of 6 December 2018, the player provided FIFA with an extension to the aforementioned contract concluded with Palmacia, dated 18 August 2019 and valid until 8 June 2024. The remuneration payable to the player remained the same, i.e. BRL 1,000.

16. The player also provided a copy of a loan agreement concluded with Palmacia and with the Greek club Athlitiki Enosi Larissas, valid from 28 August 2019 until 30 June 2021, which includes a total remuneration of EUR 89,600.

17. According to the information included in TMS the player returned to Palmacia on 31 January 2020.

18. On 24 January 2019, the player lodged a claim for breach of contract against the club in front of FIFA and requested payment of outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 7,141, corresponding to his salary between 1 November and 5 December 2018 as well as of compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 150,710, corresponding to his remaining salary under the contract.

19. Additionally, the player requested payment of 5% interest p.a. on the sum of EUR 150,710 as of 6 December 2018 and asked FIFA to impose sanctions on the latter in accordance with art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.

20. Finally, the player asked FIFA to “order the Respondent football club to pay all the costs incurred in the present arbitral procedure.”

21. The player alleged having had just cause to terminate the contract following the unilateral decision of the club to have him train with its second team as of 27 October 2018.

22. According to the player, as of this date he had no longer been allowed to train or play with the first team of the club. In this regard, the player provided several letters addressed to the club, dated between 21 November and 5 December 2018. In said letters, he inter alia requested to be informed about the training of the club’s first team.

23. In this regard, the player pointed out that even if the object of the contract did not “contain an explicit reference to the activity of the first team”, its art. 5 confirmed the “will and the agreement of the parties for the evolution of the player only for the first team of the club”.

24. In the same context, the player emphasized that, in Romania, “at this moment, only the First League National Championship is a competition disputed in play off / play out system”.

25. From the player’s point of view, the parties had clearly agreed that he would only play with the first team of the club.

26. In addition, the player alleged that, anyway, in accordance with the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, he could have never played with the second team of the club because it only participated in the third Romanian National Football Championship, where only “legitimized amateur players” were to be fielded, whereas he had been registered with the Romanian Professional League as professional player.

27. The player further accused the club of having had him train with its second team for the last time on 22 November 2018 and of having subsequently provided him with “a training program (..) for 6 days out of 14 (..)”, in clear breach of “its obligation to ensure continuous training (..)”.

28. Equally, the player alleged having received his October 2018 salary only on 20 December 2018 and accused the club of having only paid part of his November 2018 salary, i.e. the sum of EUR 2,149.

29. Similarly, the player mentioned that the club had paid the rent of his apartment for the months of October and November 2018 only at the beginning of December 2018.

30. In view of all of the aforementioned, the player deemed having had just cause to terminate the contract. The player added that the “clear breach of contract” by the club had occurred during the protected period.

31. As a result of all the aforementioned, the player deemed that, in accordance with the Regulations, he was entitled to receive from the club, as compensation for breach of contract, the amount of EUR 150,710, corresponding to his remaining salary between 6 December 2018 and 30 June 2020.

32. Similarly, the player requested the payment of EUR 7,141, corresponding to his November 2018 salary and a part of his December 2018 salary (i.e. 5 days).

33. The player further requested FIFA to sanction the club in accordance with art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players “by banning [it] from registering any new players, either nationally or international, for two entire consecutive registration periods.”

34. Lastly, the player alleged having unsuccessfully tried to find an amicable settlement of the dispute with the club.

35. In the same context, the player added that because he had refused the club’s offer, the latter, on 28 December 2018, had started disciplinary proceedings against him “for alleged absence from trainings and official matches in the period 01 December – 18 December 2018”.

36. In its reply to the claim, the club contested the competence of FIFA. In this respect, the club reverted to clause X a) and clause XIII d) of the contract, arguing that, in accordance with art. 26 of the Regulations concerning the Statute and Transfer of Football Players adopted by the Executive Committee of the Romanian Football Federation (hereinafter: RSTFP), the dispute at stake was to be decided by the Romanian National Dispute Resolution Chamber.

37. According to the club, the aforementioned tribunal was independent and fulfilled the “fair proceedings conditions” and the equal representation principle of the clubs and players.

38. As evidence the club provided FIFA with a letter of the Romanian Football Federation in its original version as well as in its translation into English in which the latter confirmed that the “National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) and the Board of Appeals (BoA) within the RFF have been established in compliance of all statutory provisions mentioned in your correspondence and especially in accordance with the FIFA Regulations on the National Dispute Resolution Chamber (FIFA Circular letter 1129/2007). We furthermore state that the RFF fully observes the principles set-forth in the content of RFF’s RSTFP respectively the principles of independence, impartiality, and equal representation of players and clubs.”

39. The club also provided FIFA with a copy of the “relevant provisions of the Regulation concerning the Statute and Transfer of Football Players of the Romanian Football Federation (...) which concerns Disputes (Article 25), Authority to resolve disputes (Jurisdiction – Article 26) and Confidentiality, incompatibilities, forbearance and challenging (Article 27)” and of the “relevant provisions of the Articles of incorporation of the Romanian Football Federation (...) which concern International affiliation (Article 6) RFF bodies and the RFF Jurisdictional bodies (Article 57)”.

40. In addition, the club informed FIFA that the “Regulation concerning the Statute and Transfer of Football Players adopted by the Romanian Football Federation and the Statutes of the Romanian Football Federation can be downloaded from the Romanian Football Federation website, (..).”

41. Secondly, as to the substance, the club rejected the claim of the player and lodged a counterclaim against the latter.

42. In addition, the club argued the applicability of “Romanian laws and the regulations adopted by Romanian Football Federation”.

43. The club further alleged that the player had agreed, on 26 October 2018, to “participate in the practice sessions of our Club’s second team (…) for a brief period of time” and attended the relevant trainings “without voicing any discontentment” In order to support said allegation, the club provided a statement of the first team coach.

44. The club further maintained that the player had agreed to “help improve the performances of the team and avoid relegation”.

45. Similarly, the club maintained that the contract did not “contain any exclusivity clause in regard to the Player’s right to practice exclusively with the Club’s first team” and that the clause invoked by the player in his claim, had been wrongly interpreted by the latter. The club was of the opinion that the provision in question was of a purely financial nature and did not determine “with which team should the Player (..) carry-out his football activity”.

46. The club further clarified that 17 professional players had been playing for its second squad and that the RSTFP gave “3rd League Clubs the right to register only amateur players” but did not oblige them to do so.

47. The club also maintained that, between 22 and 27 November 2018, the player had attended the practice sessions of its first team and that, as of 28 November 2018, the latter “was unreasonably absent from the team’s practice sessions”.

48. What’s more, the club contested having deprived the player “of the opportunity to work/play” and argued that it had always “provided him with adequate facilities for a professional football player”.

49. In addition, the club alleged having officially informed the player about the practice schedule of its first team on 27 November and on 3 December 2018 respectively, after having received several correspondence from the player’s lawyer.

50. From the club’s point of view, it had been the player’s obligation to “be present at practice sessions, as such were carried-out (...) in one place exclusively, the Sibiut Municipal Arena”.

51. According to the club, its “practice schedule was continuously conveyed, using various methods of communication (...)”: by postage in the lock rooms, directly to the player by our Club’s coaches/employees, through team mates, text messaging (SMS and whatsApp), by email, though the intercession of our Club’s conventional representative, even though an Official Receiver.

52. The club held that, if at all, it had been the player who had created a “conflictual situation” when he had started to allege that he had not been informed of the “practice schedule”. The club was of the opinion that the relevant letters of the player had been drafted with the sole intention of “creating a false appearance of the reality” in order to be able to terminate the contract.

53. The club deemed that, by using “minimal diligence”, the player could have attended all training sessions.

54. Similarly, the club stressed that “in the notifications submitted by the Player though his counsellor, as well as in the stated claim, there is no indication of a situation wherein the Player states to having been present at the practice sessions but such practice sessions were not carried-out or that the Player was not allowed to attend such sessions, or that he might have been removed from such practices”.

55. The club considered the claim of the player “insubstantial, constructed solely on false allegations without any backing evidence” in order to obtain compensation.

56. Subsequently, the club contested the allegation of the player that he would have been evicted from his apartment pointing out that the rent of October and November 2018 had been paid on 5 December 2018. In the same context, the club alleged having been in the apartment in question on 18 December 2018, where it took several photos demonstrating that the latter still lived there.

57. The club also contested the allegation of the player that it would have failed to pay part of his salary and provided a statement of a bank indicating that the total sum of EUR 53,221.16 had been wired to the latter between July and January 2019 as follows: - EUR 10,000 on 12 July 2018

- RON 1,388 on 26 July 2018 (according to the club EUR 4,6273);

- RON 929 on 10 August 2018 (according to the club EUR 4,6567);

- RON 2,789 on 30 August 2018 (according to the club EUR 6430);

- RON 55,933 on 7 September 2018 (according to the club EUR 4,6410);

- RON 18,574 on 20 September 2018 (according to the club EUR 4,6519);

- RON 37,337 on 24 October 2018 (according to the club EUR 4,6500);

- RON 10,000 on 13 December 2018 (according to the club EUR 4,6485);

- RON 37,330 on 20 December 2018 (according to the club EUR 4,6598);

- RON 37k,580 on 23 January 2019 (according to the club EUR 4,7569).

58. Hence, the club deemed that the claim of the player related to the payment of outstanding remuneration had to be rejected.

59. The club mentioned that a disciplinary proceedings was pending against the player in front of the Ethics and Disciplinary Committee within the Romanian Football Federation in connection with his absence from “practice sessions and official matches of the first team starting November 28, 2018 and ending December 18, 2018” but clarified having requested the suspension of proceedings in question pending the outcome of the “trial before FIFA DRC”.

60. The club held that the player had had no sporting just cause to terminate the contract and pointed out that the termination letter did not “state any statutory grounds, not from the internal regulations (RFF) or from FIFA Regulations”. The club also deemed that the termination of contract had not occurred with just cause “in the sense of art. 14 [of the Regulations]”.

61. The club requested FIFA to reject the request of the player related to the imposition of sanctions as it was “clearly unreasonable, formulated with ill-intent”.

62. Finally, the club lodged a counterclaim against the player arguing that the latter had terminated the contract without just cause during the protected period and therefore had to pay, in line with art. 17 of the Regulations, compensation in the amount of EUR 55,021.26 net “representing all the amounts paid by the Club for the period between July 2018 and December 2018”, i.e. “the financial entitlements paid to the Player for the period between July, 4 2018 and December 6, 2018 (53.221,16)” plus “the rent paid by our Club for the rent of the apartment, period between July 2018 and December 2018 (1800 euro net for six month rent)”.

63. In addition, the club requested FIFA to impose a “four-month ban” against the player as per art. 17 par. 3 of the Regulations.

64. Finally, the club requested the reimbursement of all costs incurred in connection with the relevant proceedings.

65. Lastly, the club explained that its “counterclaim was not lodged as an alternative or subsidiary request, but rather as its means of defence after receiving a copy of the claim”.

66. Although the FIFA administration requested the player to provide his comments on the response of the club as well as on the counterclaim of the latter, he failed to do so.

67. In addition, the FIFA administration was provided the Counter-Respondent II with a copy of the file and asked to provide its position to the counterclaim. Nevertheless, the Counter-Respondent II failed to reply.

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC or the Chamber) analyzed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 24 January 2019. Consequently, the 2018 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 and 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall adjudicate on employment-related disputes between a player and a club of an international dimension.

3. As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber would, in principle, be competent to decide on the present litigation which involves a Greek player, a Romanian club and a Brazilian 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 clause X of the contract, alleging that the matter should be referred to the Romanian NDRC.

5. Taking into account all the above, the Chamber emphasized that in accordance with art. 22 lit. b) 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. Finally, art. X of the contract stipulated the following: “a) any litigation regarding inappropriate performance or non-performance of the obligations assumed by the parties under this contract shall be settled amicably. In the event that such settlement is not possible, the parties will only address LPF / FRF / AJF jurisdictions in accordance with the provisions of the LPF / FRF / AJF Statutes and Regulations. Upon exhaustion of internal jurisdictional proceedings, the unsuccessful party may appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne. (..)”.

9. Having examined the relevant provision, the Chamber came to the unanimous conclusion that art. X of the contract does not constitute a clear jurisdiction clause in favour of one specific court or arbitration tribunal in Romania, since it only appears to be a generic reference to “LPF / FRF / AJF jurisdictions”. In particular, the Chamber highlighted that it remains unclear from the aforementioned stipulation whether said bodies are part either of the Romanian Football Association and/or the Romanian Professional Football League.

10. On account of all the above, the Chamber established that the aforementioned 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.

11. The competence having been established, the Chamber decided thereafter to analyse 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, it 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 present matter was submitted to FIFA on 19 January 2019, the June 2018 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

12. Having established the foregoing, and entering into the substance of the matter, the DRC continued by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file in relation to the substance of the matter. 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. In particular, the Chamber recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, FIFA may use, within the scope of proceedings pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS).

13. In this respect, the members of the DRC acknowledged that, on 4 July 2018, the player and the club signed an employment contract valid as of 9 July 2018 until 30 June 2020.

14. In continuation, the DRC took note that it remained undisputed by the parties that said contract was terminated by the player in writing by means of a letter dated 8 December 2018.

15. The Chamber further took note of the position of the player, which maintained that he had just cause to terminate the contract as he was no longer allowed to train with the first team as of 27 October 2018 and, as of 22 November 2018, he had not been trained at all by the club. According to the player the salary of November 2018 and 5 days of December had remained unpaid. In this regard, the DRC acknowledged that the player requested payment of his outstanding dues as well as compensation for breach of contract.

16. Equally, the members of the Chamber noted that the club which, for his part, rejected the claim of the player, argued that the latter had agreed to train with the second team and was always offered a proper training. Furthermore, the DRC noted that the club lodged a counterclaim against the player arguing that the latter terminated the contract without just cause.

17. The player, for his part, failed to present its response to the counterclaim of the club, in spite of having been invited to do so. In this way, the Chamber considered that the player renounced his right of defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of the club in its reply and counterclaim.

18. Moreover, the Respondent II, for its part, failed to present its response to the counterclaim of the club, in spite of having been invited to do so. In this way, the Chamber considered that the Respondent II renounced its right of defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of the club.

19. Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the Chamber concurred that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules it shall take a decision upon the basis of the documents already on file.

20. On account of the above, the members of the Chamber highlighted that the underlying issues in this dispute, considering the diverging position of the parties, was to determine when the player terminated the contract, whether he had just cause for the termination and to decide on the consequences thereof.

21. In so doing, the Chamber proceeded with an analysis of the circumstances surrounding 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.

22. In continuation, the DRC started to analyze the termination of the player, dated 8 December 2018, according to which he claimed having been forced to train with the second team as of 27 October 2018 and having not had the possibility to train at all as of 22 November 2018.

23. In this context, the members of the Chamber highlighted that the club maintained that the player agreed to train with the second team and that the contract does not establish that the player could only be part of the first team of the club.

24. Along those lines, the members of the Chamber agreed that at. 9.1 of the annex cannot be taken into consideration due to its potestative nature. In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that the player did not have the same possibility to early terminate the contract.

25. In this regard, the members of the Chamber wished to emphasise that, to train with a second team does not automatically constitute a just cause to leave such club. The Chamber took furthermore into account, that the club’s argument that the player agreed to such training plan, remained uncontested by the player. Furthermore, from the documents on file, the Chamber was of the opinion that the club kept on providing proper training possibility to the player.

26. Further, the Chamber noted that the player’s claim for outstanding remuneration, which accounted to his salary of November 2018 and 5 days of December 2018. Such alleged outstanding remuneration cannot constitute just cause to terminate the contract for itself, as a termination of a contract has to be the ultima ratio.

27. On account of the above, the DRC concluded that the player terminated the contract with the club without just cause.

28. Subsequently, prior to establishing the consequences of the termination of the employment contract without just cause by the player in accordance with art. 17 of the Regulations, the Chamber held that it, in general, had to address the issue of unpaid remuneration at the moment when the contract was terminated.

29. In this context, the Chamber took note of the player’s claim as well as the club’s reply, in which it contested said outstanding remuneration. Based on the documents on file, the DRC established that the club failed to remit a total amount of EUR 5,807.67 to the player until the contract was terminated.

30. Bearing in mind the above, the Chamber, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, decided that the club is liable to pay to the player the amount of EUR 5,807.67 with regard to the remuneration due to him.

31. Having established the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the consequences of the termination of the contract without just cause by the player on 8 December 2018.

32. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the club is entitled to receive compensation from the player for the termination of the contract without just cause based on the player’s breach of contract.

33. Furthermore, in accordance with the unambiguous contents of art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations, the Chamber established that the player’s new club, i.e. the Respondent II, shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of compensation. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to point out that the joint liability of the player’s new club is independent from the question as to whether the new club has induced the contractual breach. This conclusion is in line with the well-established jurisprudence of the Chamber and has been repeatedly confirmed by the CAS.

34. The members of the Chamber then 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 on 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 player under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, the fees and expenses paid or incurred by the former club 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 whether the pertinent employment contract contained any clause, by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon a compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the members of the Chamber noted that no such clause was included in the contract.

36. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the player to the club 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.

37. In view of the above, the members of the Chamber established that for the amount of compensation payable by the player, other criteria, as established in art. 17 of the Regulations, must be taken into account.

38. Therefore, in order to calculate the amount of compensation due, the Chamber firstly turned its attention to the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contract and/or any new contract(s), a criterion which 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 any potential new contract in the calculation of the amount of compensation.

39. On account of the above, taking into account the players contract with the club, the new contract with Respondent II as well as the amount requested as compensation in its counterclaim, and after having duly taken into account the specificities of the present case, a compensation of EUR 55,021.26 payable by the player to the club, would appear fair and proportionate.

40. In addition, with regard to club’s request for interest and as per the well-established jurisprudence of the DRC, the Chamber decided that the club is entitled to 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of the date the claim was lodged until the date of effective payment.

41. Furthermore, the Chamber decided that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations, Respondent II shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of the aforementioned amount of compensation.

42. In addition, as regards the claimed legal expenses, the Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as to its long-standing and well-established jurisprudence, in accordance with which no procedural compensation shall be awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject the request relating to legal expenses.

43. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claims lodged by the player and the club are rejected.

44. Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./11. 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.

45. In this regard, the Chamber pointed out that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.

46. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the Respondent does not pay the amounts due to the Claimant within 45 days as from the moment in which the Claimant, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become effective on the Respondent in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.

47. Additionally, the Chamber established that, in virtue of the aforementioned provision, it has competence to impose a restriction on the player. More in particular, the DRC pointed out that, against players, the sanction shall consist in a restriction on playing in official matches up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of six months.

48. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the player does not pay the amount due to the club within 45 days as from the moment in which the club, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the player, a restriction on playing in official matches for the maximum duration of six months shall become effective on the player in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.

49. Finally, the Chamber recalled that the above-mentioned ban/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 / Counter-Respondent I, Bruno Araujo Da Silva Chalkiadakis, is admissible.

2. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent I is partially accepted.

3. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, AFC Hermannstadt, has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent I outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 5,807.67.

4. Any other claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent I is rejected.

5. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent I is directed to inform the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, 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 / Counter-Claimant must pay the amount under point 3. above.

6. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with point 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).

7. In the event that the amount due in accordance with point 3. above is not paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant within 45 days as from the notification by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent I 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 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).

8. The ban mentioned in point 7. above will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.

9. In the event that the aforementioned sum 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 FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

10. The counter-claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is partially accepted.

11. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent I has to pay to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 55,021.26 plus 5% interest p.a. from 24 January 2019 until the date of effective payment.

12. The Counter-Respondent II, Palmacia Esporte Clube, is jointly and severally liable for the payment of the aforementioned amount.

13. Any further claim lodged by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected.

14. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant is directed to inform the Claimant / Counter-Respondent I and the Counter-Respondent II, immediately and directly, preferably to the e-mail addresses as indicated on the cover letter of the present decision, of the relevant bank account to which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent I and the Counter-Respondent II must pay the amount mentioned under point 11. above.

15. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent I and the Counter-Respondent II shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with point 11. 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).

16. In the event that the amount due in accordance with point 11. above is not paid by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent I and/or the Counter-Respondent II within 45 days as from the notification by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant of the relevant bank details to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent I and the Counter-Respondent II:

16.1 The Claimant / Counter-Respondent I shall be restricted from playing in official matches up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of six months (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).

16.2 The Counter-Respondent II 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).

17. The restriction and ban mentioned in point 16. above will be lifted immediately and prior to complete serving, once the due amount is paid.

18. In the event that the aforementioned sum is still not paid by the end of the restriction from playing of six months of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent I or the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods of the Counter-Respondent II, 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 article 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 (cf. point 4 of the directives).

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