F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2020-2021) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision18 February 2021
pas sed on 18 February 2021
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Mr William
Joel Tchuameni Kouemo
COMPOS ITION:
Omar Ongaro (Italy), Deputy Chairman
Stijn Boeykens (Belgium), member
Elvis Chetty (Seychelles), member
CLAIMANT:
Mr William Joel Tchuameni Kouemo, Cameroon
Represented by Mr Mathieu Rebboah
RES PONDENT:
NK Inter Zapreš i ć, Croatia
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
1. On 22 July 2019, the Cameroonian player, William Joël Tchuameni Kouemo (hereinafter:
Claimant or player), and the Croatian club, NK Inter Zapresic (hereinafter: Respondent)
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid for a period of two
sporting seasons from 22 July 2019 to 15 June 2021.
2. The contract provides for the payment by the Respondent of a monthly salary of EUR
3,000 gross in the first year of contract and then a monthly salary of EUR 3,300 gross in
the second year of the contract.
3. According to art. 7 i) of the contract, “The player is obliged for the duration hereof to
conclude with an insurance company an occupational disease and injury insurance
policy”.
4. According to art. 16 e) of the contract, “The law of the Republic Croatia is competent
for this Contract”.
5. Art. 16 g) of the contract stipulates the following:
“In case of dispute, the contractual parties establish the competence of the Croatian
Football Federation’s Court of Arbitration. The Club and the Player are obligated not to
settle possible disputes arising hereof in front of regular courts. The Club and the Player
are expressly obliged to completely adhere to all the provisions on the Croatian Football
Federation’s regulations which regulate the work of the Croatian football Federation’s
Court of Arbitration, including the way of electing the arbiter of the arbitration council.
The Club and the Player, pursuant to the provisions of the Law of Arbitration, have
expressly agreed that the adjudication of the Croatian Football Federation’s Court of
Arbitration may be challenged in front of the international Court of Arbitration for Sport
(CAS) in Lausanne, Switzerland. An eventual successful challenge of the adjudication of
the Croatian Football Federation Court of Arbitration does not affect the effectiveness of
this adjudication.“
6. Art. 16 h) of the contract provides as follows: “if this Contract is written in more than
one language, the valid version in case of dispute is the one in Croatian language. If the
contract is concluded by a Player who is a foreign national, the contract needs to be
translated and certified by an authorized court interpreter for the language used by the
Player, which is not the Croatian language, and one copy of the translated and certified
contract is to be given to the Player”.
7. In December 2019, the player sustained an injury during a match.
8. On 16 April 2020, the Respondent sent the Claimant a letter explaining that due to the
COVID-19 pandemic, it found itself in an unprecedented situation and that it must reduce all players’ salary to 1/3. The Respondent included a draft of an agreement
between the parties to be signed by the Claimant in order to modify the terms of the
contract and to agree to a reduction of the Claimant’s salary to 1/3 of his contractually
agreed salary.
9. On an undetermined date, the Respondent made an offer to the Claimant to terminate
the contract prematurely and mutually. The Respondent offered to pay the Claimant an
amount of EUR 16,600 in three instalments.
10. On 5 June 2020, the Claimant sent a letter and an email to the Respondent through his
legal representative, whereby he demanded the payment of all his unpaid wages. In this
regard, the Claimant stated the following: “To date your club is owed a sum of € 18,000
as unpaid wages towards my client (€ 3,000 x 06 months: January to June 2020)”.
Furthermore, the Claimant declined the Respondent’s proposal to terminate the contract
mutually and requested to be paid all outstanding salaries in a single payment.
Notwithstanding, the Claimant indicated that he would not be opposed to an early
termination of the employment contract. Finally, the Claimant reminded the Respondent
of their failure in the treatment of his injury and to take out a mandatory insurance.
11. On 1 August 2020, the Claimant sent a default notice to the Respondent, requesting the
payment of his salaries from January to August 2020 in the total amount of EUR 24,000
within the next 15 days.
12. On 10 August 2020, the Respondent informed the Claimant, inter alia, of the following:
“(…) As you know that you are professional football player who have with the club valid
contract with the club till 15th of June 2021 and you didn't agreed about the agreed
termination of the contract, you also didn't come to the preparations on 3rd August
2020 at 9 AM even if you were informed about the beginning of the preparations (22nd
of July 2020) from director Mr. Branko Laljak.
You left the Republic of Croatia without the club's permission and did not come to
beginning of the preparations on August 3, 2020. According to that, you have
committed a serious breach of obligations under the Agreement on Professional Football
Playing which we signed on July 22nd 2019.
(…)
According to all mentioned above, we would like to invite you immediately or at least
within 10 days after receiving this invitation, to come to Zapresic and continue with your
obligations from the contract that you have currently with the club.
Otherwise, the club will break your contract which was signed 22nd of July 2019 and
also
the club will give the case to the Arbitral Tribunal HNS for the indemnity which was
caused
because you didn't come to the preparations (…)”
13. On 21 August 2020, the Respondent sent a letter to the Claimant, notifying the latter
of the unilateral termination of the contract. The Respondent stated the following: “From
the day of receiving this warning before the termination of the contract, you did not
come to the club within a proper time limit, which caused great damage to the club and
by this confirmed the harsh violation of the terms of our mutual Contract on professional
playing from 22.07.2019. Based on the above, NK Inter Zapresic points out that your
absence from the club in this long time period, all after the warning we have sent you,
presents a serious violation of the contract terms, as a result the club NK Inter Zapresic
declares a unilateral termination of your contract, because of your guilt”.
14. Following the termination of the contract, the Claimant remained unemployed up until
the date of the present decision.
II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE FIFA
15. On 26 August 2020, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary
of the position of the parties is detailed below.
a. The claim of the Claimant
16. According to the Claimant, starting in January 2020, the Respondent suddenly stopped
paying his salary, and he had not received any salary payment ever since.
17. The Claimant further explained that he sustained a serious injury in December 2019 and
that the Respondent did not take all necessary measures to care for this injury.
18. Moreover, and taking as a pretext the health crisis caused by COVID-19, the Respondent
exerted pressure on him to prematurely terminate the contract.
19. The Claimant emphasised that the Respondent eventually sent him a proposal aiming at
mutually terminating the contract, which provided for the payment of unpaid wages in
three instalments.
20. In its letter dated 5 June 2020, the Claimant declined such offer and demanded to be
paid all of his salaries in a single payment, while underlining that the Respondent owed
him more than 6 months’ salary. The Claimant held that the Respondent did not reply
to this letter.
21. On 1 August 2020, the Claimant again reminded the Respondent of the outstanding
salaries due to him, this time putting the Respondent in default to pay within the next
15 days.
22. On 10 August 2020, the Respondent replied to the Claimant’s letter of 1 August 2020,
merely referring to the fact that the Claimant was absent during the pre-season training
but not referring to the outstanding salaries.
23. According to the Claimant, the COVID-19 pandemic cannot serve as an excuse for the
Respondent to refrain from paying his salary. The Claimant underlined that the Claimant
stopped paying his salary starting in January 2020, this is, prior to the COVID-19
outbreak.
24. The Claimant then referred to the fact that the Respondent tried to impose a salary
reduction to 1/3 in light of the pandemic. He deems that such salary reduction was
unlawful and in violation of the contractual terms.
25. Finally, the Claimant requested that the Dispute Resolution Chamber recognise that the
termination of the contract occurred due to the Respondent’s fault in light of the lack of
payment of his salaries for a substantial amount of time.
26. Aside from the outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract, the
Claimant claimed moral damages in light of the fact that the Respondent left him
without any resources for more than 6 months and failed to procure proper treatment
of his injury. The Claimant alleged in this regard that he underwent surgery only in
February 2020, more than 2 months after the injury. Furthermore, the Claimant
discovered that the Respondent had never taken an insurance on his behalf to cover his
injury treatments.
27. The requests for relief of the Claimant were the following:
Outstanding remuneration:
January 2020: EUR 3,000
February 2020: EUR 3,000
March 2020: EUR 3,000
April 2020: EUR 3,000
May 2020: EUR 3,000
June 2020: EUR 3,000
July 2020: EUR 3,300
August 2020: EUR 3,300
TOTAL: EUR 24,600
Compensation for breach of contract:
Salaries as from September 2020 until June 2021: 9 x EUR 3,300
TOTAL: EUR 29,700
Moral damages: EUR 50,000
Legal fees: EUR 5,000
b. Position of the Respondent
28. In reply to the claim, the Respondent first challenged the competence of the Dispute
Resolution Chamber to adjudicate the present dispute.
29. According to the Respondent, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is not competent to pass
a decision in the present matter as “this case concerns a national dispute where the
parties, the Claimant and the Respondent, by their mutual agreement agreed to the
jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration of the Croatian Football Federation”. In this regard,
the Respondent deems that such deciding body meets procedural standards of
independent arbitration tribunals guaranteeing fair proceedings.
30. Furthermore, the Respondent referred to art. 16 g) of the contract (cf. par. 5 above),
which, in its opinion, constitutes a jurisdiction clause in favour of the aforementioned
national deciding body.
31. The Respondent also wished to state that although the Rules of Procedure of the Court
of Arbitration of the Croatian Football Federation (CFF) do not specifically state that an
appeal against the decisions of the Court of Arbitration of the CFF is permissible (this is
because the Rules were adopted in accordance with the Arbitration Act which does not
foresee appeals against the arbitration institution, but challenging of awards before
materially and locally competent regular courts) the Croatian Football Association has
ensured this through the Statutes of the CFF to all its members, including coaches and
clubs, so that they can appeal against all of its decisions, including the decisions of the
Court of Arbitration of the CFF, before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
32. Furthermore, the Respondent underlined that there have been many appeal proceedings
before the CAS where, on the basis of the "statutory jurisdiction" under the Statutes of
the CFF, appeals were filed with the CAS against the decisions of the Court of Arbitration
of the CFF.
33. In support of its position, the Respondent provided the following documentation:
the Statutes of the Croatian Football Federation (CFF),
the CFF Regulations on the Status of Player and Registrations,
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Arbitration of the CFF,
an opinion of the Regulations Commission of the CFF.
34. As to the merits of the dispute, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim and
pointed out that in the period between 10 February 2020 and 23 July 2020, it paid the
Claimant part of his remuneration on eight occasions, in accordance with the Professional Football Player Contract of 22 July 2019 as well as the “financial capabilities
of the club due to the complete cessation of any work with the Claimant due to Covid-
19”. In this regard, the Respondent provided, the following table of payments dating
back to August 2019:
35. In this context, the Respondent explained that it had proposed to all players a temporary
reduction in their salaries during the pandemic in Croatia until the normal situation is
restored and training resumes.
36. The Respondent maintained that out of 26 of its footballers, 22 accepted a temporary
reduction in their salaries but the player was among 4 players who refused to accept a
salary reduction and to sign the offered Annex to the contract. Therefore, the
Respondent had no choice but to make a decision to reduce his earnings unilaterally
during the pandemic.
37. According to the Respondent, the Claimant stopped coming to the Respondent's
trainings without any reason and thus grossly violated the contractual terms. In view of
this, the Respondent proposed to terminate the contract on 21 August 2020 in
accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance on the status of players and HNS
(Croatian Football Federation) regulations as well as the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (RSTP).
38. In continuation, the Respondent underlines that the Claimant did not terminate the
contract but merely sent a default notice, and that the latter cannot request the DRC to
terminate the contract.
39. On the other hand, the Respondent sent a letter to the Claimant on 10 August 2020
before the termination of the contract asking him to resume his activities with the
Respondent within 10 days at the latest.
40. As the Claimant did not react on that warning within the given period of 10 days, the
Respondent had no choice but to terminate the contract unilaterally on 21 August 2020.
41. The Respondent further denied all accusations as to the treatment of the Claimant’s
injury and held that it was in fact the Claimant who had failed to subscribe to a health
insurance. The Respondent in this regard claimed that it assisted the Claimant in applying
to the Croatian Health Care Institute for health insurance. In addition, the Respondent
paid a supplementary health insurance policy for the Claimant in order to allow the
Claimant to avoid paying additional hospital treatment costs, which was in fact the
Claimant's obligation under art. 7 of the employment contract.
42. With regard to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the situation of force majeure,
the Respondent first highlighted that Croatian law applies in the present matter,
specifically the Obligations Act of the Republic of Croatia.
43. The Respondent refers in this regard to Article 373 of the Obligations Act of the Republic
of Croatia, which reads:
“Impossibility of Performance Where Neither Party Is Liable for Impossibility of
Performance
(1) Where performance of an obligation of one party to a bilateral contract becomes
impossible due to extraordinary external events that occurred after entering into a
contract and before the performance is due and which could not have been foreseen or
prevented, avoided or eliminated by a party to a contract and for which neither of the
parties is liable, the obligation of the other party shall also cease, and if it has performed
its obligation partially, it has the right to restitution according to the regulations relating
to restitution in case of unjust enrichment.
(2) In case of partial impossibility of performance of one party due to an event for which
neither of the parties is liable, the other party may terminate the contract if partial
performance does not meet its needs; otherwise the contract shall remain valid and the
other party shall be entitled to request proportional reduction of its obligation.“
44. According to the Respondent, this means that during the events of the pandemic in the
Republic of Croatia (which condition is a force majeure event for FIFA, too), the
Respondent tried to partially fulfil its obligations towards the Claimant through the
proposed decision to reduce his salaries. However, since the Claimant explicitly refused
such performance of the obligations towards him, the Respondent was left with no
choice than to terminate the contract in accordance with Article 373 of the Obligations
Act.
45. Finally, the Respondent underlined that the Claimant is not entitled to claim the total
amount of EUR 104,300 as this constitutes a gross amount. Since the contract was
prematurely terminated, it is no longer possible for the Claimant to be entered in the
register of sports activities performed independently in the Republic of Croatia.
c. Claimant comment’s on competence and replica as to the merits
46. With respect to the competence of FIFA, the Claimant stated that the FIFA DRC is
“automatically” competent in light of the international dimension of the dispute.
47. Furthermore, according to the Claimant, art. 11 of the CFF Statutes states that the Court
of Arbitration of the CFF is competent only for “national disputes”.
48. With respect to the jurisdiction clause, the Claimant alleged that he was not fully aware
of the existence of such clause when signing the employment contract. The Claimant
referred to the fact that his mother tongue is French, whereas art. 16 h) provides: “if this
Contract is written in more than one language, the valid version in case of dispute is the
one in Croatian language. If the contract is concluded by a Player who is a foreign
national, the contract needs to be translated and certified by an authorized court
interpreter for the language used by the Player, which is not the Croatian language, and
one copy of the translated and certified contract is to be given to the Player”.
49. In any event, the Claimant deemed that the Court of Arbitration of the CFF does not
meet the minimum requirements in accordance with the FIFA Circular no. 1010. Indeed,
according to the Claimant, such deciding body is not independent, since the President
and Vice-President are appointed by the executive committee of the CFF. Equally, the
executive committee of the CFF appoints the arbitrators.
50. The Claimant also pointed out that the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Arbitration of
the CFF provide that the decisions of the Court of Arbitration are final, and finds it
dubious that the competence of the CAS for appeals is only included in the Statutes of
the CFF. The Claimant also referred to art. 43 par. 1 of the Croatian Arbitration Act,
according to which, arbitral decisions may not be appealed as to the merits; one can only
file a request for a cancellation of the decision if a party proves that the composition of
the Court of Arbitration or the arbitration procedure did not comply with the Arbitration
Act or if there was no agreement between the parties on the matter. Thus, parties are
not entitled by law to appeal in front of CAS.
51. The Claimant further mentioned that the proceedings are not free of charge and that
the costs are fixed by the executive committee of the Federation, which raises doubts as
to the independence of the Court of Arbitration.
52. Finally, the Claimant raised doubts as to the equal representation of players and clubs
since the arbitrators are appointed amongst a list of 3 to 5 arbitrators, therefore the
Claimant deems that the exact number of representatives may fluctuate.
53. As to the merits of the dispute, the Claimant denied any impact of the COVID-19
pandemic on the payment of his salaries as he underlined that the Respondent was in
default of his salaries since January 2020, whilst the pandemic only started in March
2020.
54. Moreover, according to the Claimant, the Respondent had, since the beginning of the
season, been paying his salary irregularly. The Claimant expressed his shock regarding
the Respondent's allegations that they paid part of his salaries "08 times".
55. These irregularities in the payment of salaries are also proven by the Respondent itself in
the table of payments which it provided. In this regard, the Claimant referred to the fact
that the amounts on the payment table provided by the Respondent are in Kuna, the
national currency in Croatia, even though the salary was to be paid in euros according
to the employment contract.
56. The Claimant recalls that the Respondent had agreed to pay him a monthly salary of EUR
3,000 gross for the first year of his contract. However, the Chamber will be able to notice
that from August 2019, the Respondent did not pay the totality of his salary that month.
57. According to the Claimant, “while the club had to pay him EUR 3,000 gross, that is
22,629.60 kuna, on 06 September 2019 the club only paid him 11,085.93 kuna gross,
that is EUR 1,469.66 gross, which is barely half of the contractually agreed salary for
August 2019”.
58. Equally, the Claimant stated that the Chamber will also be able to note that the salary
for the month of September 2019 was not paid. Thereafter, the Respondent paid the
following sums in 2019:
Date of payment Amount in Kuna (gross) Amounts in Euros (gross)
07/11/2019 2,500 331.42
25/11/2019 2,463.54 326.59
13/12/2019 4,000 530.28
59. According to the Claimant, these amounts correspond to the payment of a food
allowance awarded to players since the President informed them that the Respondent
had no money to pay their salary. Therefore the Claimant deems that these amounts
shall not be taken into account as payment of his salary.
60. In continuation, the Claimant states that he received fully the following amounts:
Date of
payment
Amount in Kuna
(gross)
Amount in Euros (gross) To be allocated to
03/01/2020 22,140 2,935.09 September 2019
08/01/2020 22,140 2,935.09 October 2019
10/02/2020 33,300 4,414.57 Half August 2019
and Full
November 2019
61. Thus, according to the Claimant, as of December 2019, the Respondent did not pay him
any salary.
62. In 2020, the Respondent continued to pay him a food allowance as follows:
Date of payment Amount in Kuna (gross) Amount in Euros (gross)
14/04/2020 3,500 463.99
13/05/2020 3,000 397.14
27/05/2020 2,000 265.14
12/06/2020 2,000 265.14
63. Furthermore, the following amounts were paid as follows:
7,100 Kuna (gross) as a match bonus,
6,158.85 Kuna (gross) for the Claimant’s flight ticket to Cameroon
64. Finally, the Claimant contests having received the following amounts, which are not
reflected in his bank statements:
840 Kuna (EUR 111,36) allegedly paid on 14 January 2020,
6.356,28 Kuna (EUR 842,65) allegedly paid on 7 January 2020,
3,000 Kuna (EUR 397,71) allegedly paid on 1 June 2020.
65. The Claimant concludes that the few salaries paid in full were charged against those that
had not been paid previously, so that as from January 2020, he did not receive any
amount in respect of his contractually agreed salaries. Therefore, the Claimant insisted
on his initial claim for outstanding salaries.
66. Equally, the Claimant maintained his argumentation as to the treatment by the
Respondent of his injury and the absence of an insurance on the Respondent’s part.
III. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
a. Competence and applicable legal framework
67. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or
DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect,
it took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 26 August 2020 and
submitted for decision on 18 February 2021. Taking into account the wording of art. 21
of the January 2021 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status
Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the
November 2019 edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
68. Furthermore, the Chamber confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition February 2021), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 26 August 2020, the August 2020
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter.
69. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural
Rules and observed 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 (edition August 2020), the
Dispute Resolution Chamber is in principle competent to deal with employment-related
disputes with an international dimension between players and clubs.
70. This being said, the Chamber took note of the Respondent’s challenge as to its
competence to adjudicate the present dispute. Indeed, according to the Respondent, the
employment contract concluded between the parties contains an exclusive jurisdiction
clause in favour of the Court of Arbitration of the Croatian Football Federation
(hereinafter: NDRC), namely clause 16 g) of the employment contract. Furthermore, the
Respondent stated that the NDRC meets the minimum standards in accordance with the
FIFA Circular no. 1010.
71. The Claimant, for his part, maintained that the DRC is competent to rule on the present
matter.
b. Admissibility of the claim
72. While analysing its jurisdiction to pass a decision in the present matter, the Chamber first
referred to art. 22 b) of the Regulations, according to which, as a general rule, FIFA is
competent to deal with employment-related disputes between a player and a club with an
international dimension such as the one at hand, unless the parties have explicitly opted in
writing for such disputes to be decided by an independent arbitration tribunal that has been
established at national level within the framework of the association and/or a collective
bargaining agreement. Any such arbitration clause must be included either directly in the
contract or in a collective bargaining agreement applicable on the parties. The independent
national arbitration tribunal must guarantee fair proceedings and respect the principle of
equal representation of players and clubs.
73. With regard to the standards applicable to an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing
fair proceedings, the Chamber referred to FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20 December 2005
as well as to the National Dispute Resolution Chamber Standard Regulations issued by FIFA.
74. Considering the above, the Chamber established that it should, first and foremost, analyse
whether art. 16 g) of the employment contract constitutes a valid jurisdiction clause. The
said clause stipulates the following:
“In case of dispute, the contractual parties establish the competence of the Croatian
Football Federation’s Court of Arbitration. The Club and the Player are obligated not to
settle possible disputes arising hereof in front of regular courts. The Club and the Player
are expressly obliged to completely adhere to all the provisions on the Croatian Football
Federation’s regulations which regulate the work of the Croatian football Federation’s
Court of Arbitration, including the way of electing the arbiter of the arbitration council.
The Club and the Player, pursuant to the provisions of the Law of Arbitration, have expressly agreed that the adjudication of the Croatian Football Federation’s Court of
Arbitration may be challenged in front of the international Court of Arbitration for Sport
(CAS) in Lausanne, Switzerland. An eventual successful challenge of the adjudication of
the Croatian Football Federation Court of Arbitration does not affect the effectiveness of
this adjudication.“
75. The Chamber concurred that such clause is clear in its wording as to the fact that disputes
between the parties shall be brought exclusively before the NDRC.
76. At this stage of the deliberations, the Chamber took note of the Claimant’s argument,
according to which, allegedly, he was not fully aware of the existence of such a jurisdiction
clause in the contract, and that his mother-tongue is French. The Claimant referred to art.
16 h) of the contract and claimed that he should have been provided with a certified
translation of the contract in his native language.
77. In this regard, the Chamber referred to its well-established jurisprudence, according to which
a party who signs a document in a language they do not understand or without knowledge
of its contents does so on their own risk. Furthermore, in light of the fact that the contract
was drafted in Croatian and in English, art. 16 h) of the contract is moot. Indeed, the
Claimant, who concluded an employment contract with a foreign club, cannot reasonably
argue that the contract should have been translated into French when he was already
provided with an English version of it. Besides, the DRC noted that nothing on file indicates
that the player had ever requested such additional translation.
78. In continuation, the Chamber went on to examine the documentary evidence presented by
the Respondent, i.e. the following documents:
the Statutes of the Croatian Football Federation (CFF),
the CFF Regulations on the Status of Player and Registrations,
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Arbitration of the CFF,
an opinion of the Regulations Commission of the CFF.
79. In particular, the Chamber took note of the following provisions.
80. Article 11 of the Statutes of the CFF provides:
“The Federation, its bodies and official persons, members of the Federation, league,
clubs, players, coaches, referees, official persons, licensed match agents, licensed players’
agents and other stakeholders in football shall:
(…)
c) respect at all times the Statutes, regulations and decisions of FIFA and UEFA;
d) recognize the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne
(Switzerland), as specified in the relevant provisions of the FIFA and UEFA Statutes;
e) recognize the jurisdiction of the Federation’s Court of Arbitration and accordingly refer
in the last instance any dispute of national dimension arising from or related to the
application of the HNS Statutes or regulations only to these arbitrations which will settle all disputes to the exclusion of any ordinary court, unless expressly prohibited by the
legislation in force in the Republic of Croatia (…)”
81. Article 66 of the CFF Regulations on the Status of Player and Registrations provides:
“1. The Court of Arbitration of the Croatian Football Federation has jurisdiction to
adjudicate on player status related matters and property disputes arising in that respect
among individual entities of HNS (club – club, player – club, club – individual ŽNS) in
terms of the relevant provisions of the Statutes and other regulations of HNS, FIFA and
UEFA regulations and the laws of the Republic of Croatia. The Court of Arbitration
adjudicates also in disputes relating to the performance of employment contracts,
professional player contracts and scholarship contracts entered into by the clubs and
players.
2. The composition and operation of the Court of Arbitration are governed by the Rules
of Procedure of the Court of Arbitration enacted by the HNS Executive Committee”
82. Article 5 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Arbitration of the CFF reads:
“1) The Court of Arbitration shall consist of a president, vice president and arbitrators,
who have a four-year term which may be renewed.
2) The President and the vice president of the Court of Arbitration shall be appointed by
the Executive Committee of the CFF among arbitrators that have been proposed by the
clubs and players’ representatives.
3) The arbitrators shall be appointed by the Executive Committee of the CFF.
a) three to five arbitrators at the proposal of the FIFPro recognized players’ association
or, if no such association exists, at the proposal of senior teams’ captains of the First CFL,
b) three to five arbitrators at the proposal of the clubs of the First CFL,
c) common list of five arbitrators at the proposal of the player’s representatives under a)
of this Article and the clubs of the First CFL,
4) Members of the Court of Arbitration shall have master of laws degree".
83. Article 15 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Arbitration of the CFF reads:
“The claimant is required to pay a fee to initiate proceedings before the Court of
Arbitration.
The amount of the fee shall be determined by the Executive Committee of the CFF.
If the claimant fails to pay the fee when submitting the claim, the court will ask him to
pay in within a further period of 15 days under threat of dismissal of the claim.
If the claimant, wholly or partially succeeds in his claim, the cost of the procedure
(expertise, lawyers’ fees, etc.) will in entirety or in relevant part be reimbursed by the
defendant.”
84. Article 48 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Arbitration of the CFF reads:
“1) The award of the Court of Arbitration is final and may not be appealed against”.
85. In continuation, the Chamber referred to art. 12 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, which
allows the DRC to also consider evidence which was not presented by the parties.
86. Against such background, the Chamber emphasised that some consultations were made
prior to the passing of the present decision. These have shown that the said union is
supportive of the national decision making body and does not appear to have any
particular objections as to its functioning.
87. In this regard, the Chamber deemed that it should not stand in the way of a dispute
resolution system established at national level, which appears to be properly functioning
and is recognised as such by the local stakeholders. Such reasoning is in line with the
orientation given in FIFA Circular no. 1129, which, inter alia, states that “member
associations that have traditionally relied on a particular body for [the purpose of dispute
resolution] and have developed their own procedural rules to this end may retain them
provided that they are able to prove (…) that the principles of the standard regulations
are duly respected”.
88. This being said, the Chamber duly analysed the various provisions of the Statutes of the
CFF, of the CFF Regulations on the Status of Player and Registrations as well as the Rules
of Procedure of the Court of Arbitration of the CFF. The Chamber came to the conclusion
that this set of national rules and regulations does not appear to jeopardise the basis of
the principles as indicated in Circular no. 1010 and the National Dispute Resolution
Chamber Standard Regulations.
89. Furthermore, the Chamber also addressed the Claimant’s argument that, on the basis of
art. 11 e) of the Statutes of the CFF, the NDRC would be competent for national disputes
only, but did not share such point of view. The reference to “any dispute of national
dimension” contained in the aforementioned provision, relates to the application of the
federation’s Statutes or regulations, i.e. to the so-called “vertical disputes”, and not to
contractual litigations, such as the one at hand. On the other hand, art. 66 par. 1 of the
CFF Regulations on the Status of Player and Registrations explicitly provides that “the
Court of Arbitration [i.e. the NDRC! adjudicates also in disputes relating to the
performance of employment contracts, professional player contracts and scholarship
contracts entered into by the clubs and players”, without any distinction between
national and international disputes.
90. Finally, and as to whether the decisions of the NDRC may be appealed against, the DRC
assumed, based on clause 16 g) of the contract, together with art. 11 d) of the Statutes
of the CFF, that such decisions may in any case be appealed against in front of CAS.
91. In light of the aforementioned considerations, the Chamber found that, in view of the
specific circumstances at hand, in particular, the recognition of its proper functioning by
the local stakeholders, the NDRC should be recognised as a potentially competent body
to deal also with employment-related disputes between a player and a club of an international dimension. Furthermore, since the parties had explicitly opted to refer their
disputes exclusively to the NDRC, it follows that, in accordance with art. 22 b) of the
RSTP, this Chamber must deny its jurisdiction in the present matter.
92. The Chamber concluded its deliberations by establishing that the claim of the Claimant is
inadmissible.
IV. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
The claim of the Claimant, Mr William Joel Tchuameni Kouemo, is inadmissible.
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE:
According to article 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before
the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this
decision.
NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION:
FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request
of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an
anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 20 of the Procedural Rules).
CONTACT INFORMATION:
Fédération Internationale de Football Association
FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland
www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | psdfifa@fifa.org | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777