F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2020-2021) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 5 August 2020
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed on 5 August 2020,
regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Iasmin Latovlevici
COMPOSITION:
Clifford J. Hendel (USA/France), Deputy Chairman
Joel Talavera (Paraguay), member
Alexandra Gómez Bruinewoud (Uruguay/the Netherlands), member
CLAIMANT:
Iasmin Latovlevici, Romania
Represented by Mr Mr Riza Köklü
RESPONDENT:
Bursaspor Kulübü Dernegi, Turkey
I. FACTS OF THE CASE
1. On 28 August 2018, the Romanian player Monther Iasmin Latovlevici (hereinafter: player or Claimant)
and the Turkish club Bursaspor Kulübü Dernegi (hereinafter: club or Respondent) signed an
employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as of 28 August 2018 until 31 May 2019.
2. Furthermore, the contract stipulated: “In the event that, if the Player, play total 22 or more Super league
Games in a season 2018/2019 Season, this Employment Agreement will automatically extend for one
year (i.e. for the 2019-2020 Season) under the following conditions. In case the above mentioned
condition is realized, then this Agreement will terminate on 31.5.2020.”
3. According to the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant the following amounts:
- EUR 25,000 on 30 October 2018;
- EUR 25,000 on 28 February 2019;
- EUR 30,000 as salary between August 2018 and May 2019 (10x), payable at the end of the month;
- EUR 25,000 on 30 October 2019;
- EUR 25,000 on 28 February 2020;
- EUR 30,000 as salary between August 2019 and May 2020 (10x), payable at the end of the month;
4. Furthermore, the contract stipulates that at the end of each season: “If the collective team bonus amount
cashed by the player remains under 50.000 EUR net after calculations, Bursaspor will add difference
up to complete the amount for 50.000,00€.”
5. Moreover, the contract defined that the player “during the term of the contract” is entitled to a
“monthly rental allowance” of Turkish Lira (TRY) 2,500.
6. On 3 January 2020, according to the Claimant, he put the club in default for the payment of EUR
288,500 and TRY 40,000 –corresponding to the abovementioned instalments– granting the club
a 15 days’ deadline to remedy its default.
7. On 22 January 2020, the player terminated the contract with the club due to its nonfulfillment of its
financial obligations.
8. On 3 February 2020, the Claimant signed a new employment contract with the Hungarian club,
Varda Labdarugo Szolgaltato Kit, valid as from the date of its signature until 30 June 2020
including a total remuneration of EUR 20,000.
9. On 3 March 2020, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA, requesting
outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR
634,000 and TRY 40,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the due dates until the date of effective
payment, broken down by the player as follows:
Outstanding amounts: EUR 288,500 and TL 40,000
EUR 20,000 corresponding to the unpaid part of the salary of February 2019;
EUR 30,000 corresponding to the salary of March 2019;
EUR 30,000 corresponding to the salary of April 2019;
EUR 30,000 corresponding to the salary of May 2019;
EUR 30,000 corresponding to the salary of August 2019;
EUR 30,000 corresponding to the salary of September 2019;
EUR 25,000 corresponding to the salary of October 2019;
EUR 30,000 corresponding to the salary of November 2019;
EUR 30,000 corresponding to the salary of December 2019;
EUR 3,500 corresponding to the alleged unpaid part of the bonus of EUR 50,000 for the season
2018/2019;
TL 40,000 corresponding to 16 monthly accommodation allowances in the amount of TL 2,500
each.
Compensation: EUR 345,500
EUR 195,500 as mitigated compensation for breach of contract;
EUR 150,000 as additional compensation.
10. In his claim, the player explained that despite complying with his contractual obligations, the
club failed to comply with its financial obligations as from February 2019 and that he had just
cause to terminate the contract after the club did not react to his default notice.
11. As to the amount of EUR 195,500, the player held that, since the residual value of the contract
with the Respondent amounted to EUR 215,500 and he managed to mitigate his damages in the
amount of EUR 20,000, he shall be entitled to a mitigated compensation of EUR 195,500 (215,500
– 20,000 = 195,500).
12. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent requested to reject the claim.
13. In doing so, the Respondent sustained that it had paid the Claimant a total amount of EUR
295,956.47. In addition, the Respondent sustained that it paid additional payments to the
Claimant via “relevant institutions and people” , however of which it could not provide evidence
due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
14. Moreover, the Respondent held that the Claimant failed to provide the notification of his default
notice of 3 January 2020. As such, the Respondent deemed that the Claimant terminated the
contract without just cause.
15. Furthermore, the Respondent held that the Claimant and it’s new club concluded other
agreements which provided more remuneration and as such, that those amounts should be
added on top of the final amount to consider for the mitigated compensation, in case FIFA
considers the termination to have occurred with just cause.
16. In continuation, the Respondent requested the bonus payments due after termination, claimed
by the Claimant as compensation, to be deducted considering that the Claimant did not
participate to any matches after termination.
17. In addition, as to the alleged payment receipts provided by the Respondent and upon being
requested by FIFA to comment on said alleged payments, the Claimant sustained that the
Respondent “only presented payment receipts, which were not contested by the Claimant at all.
The amounts paid by the Respondent were not claimed and the paid guaranteed bonus amounts
were already deducted from the demands”. Moreover, despite having not been requested to do
so, the Claimant also provided a proof of notification of his default notice sent on 3 January 2020.
II. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE DRC JUDGE
1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred as DRC or Chamber) analysed
whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the
present matter was submitted to FIFA on 3 March 2020. Consequently, the DRC concluded that the
November 2019 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and
the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand
(cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules).
2. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and
confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players (edition June 2020), 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 Romanian player and a Turkish club.
3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which regulations 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 Player (edition June 2020), and considering that the present claim was lodged on
3 March 2020, the March 2020 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to
the matter at hand as to the substance.
4. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber
entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the
above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties.
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.
5. First of all, the members of the Chamber recalled that, on 28 August 2018, the parties concluded a
contract, valid as of 28 August 2018 until 31 May 2020, taking into account the extension.
6. In continuation, the DRC noted that the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent maintaining
that he had terminated the contract with just cause on 22 January 2020 since the club failed to remit
remuneration in the total amount of EUR 288,500 and TRY 40,000, corresponding to more than 8
monthly salaries, bonuses and accommodation allowances. Consequently, the Claimant asks to be
awarded his outstanding dues as well as the payment of compensation for breach of the employment
contract.
7. The Respondent, for its part, rejected the claim, held that the player terminated the contract without just
cause and submitted various payment receipts in the total amount of EUR 295,956.47 without
specification. In addition, the Respondent sustained that it paid additional payments to the Claimant via
“relevant institutions and people”, however of which it could not provide evidence due to the Covid-
19 pandemic.
8. Moreover, the Chamber noted that the Claimant acknowledged receipt of the payments referred to in
the payment receipts, but argued that those amounts were not claimed and are therefore irrelevant.
9. Having said this, the DRC acknowledged that the central issue in the matter at stake was to determine
as to whether the contract was terminated by the Claimant with or without just cause and to decide on
the consequences thereof.
10. With the above in mind, 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.
11. In doing so, the DRC wished to point out that the Respondent did not substantiate its request in relation
to not being able to provide further evidence due to COVID-19, which is why the Chamber could not
take it into account.
12. Subsequently, the DRC recalled that according to the player, he put the club in default on 3 January
2020, giving the Respondent 15 days to remedy its default, before the Claimant terminated the contract
on 22 January 2020 by means of a letter, referring to outstanding remuneration.
13. In this context, the members of the Chamber established that the Respondent failed to proof that it
actually remitted the amounts claimed by the player. In this context, the DRC concluded that the
payments receipt submitted by the Respondent do not correspond to the amounts claimed. Therefore,
the members of the Chamber established that the Respondent, without any valid reason, failed to remit
to the Claimant remuneration totalling EUR 288,500 and TRY 40,000 corresponding to more than 8
monthly salaries, bonuses and accommodation allowances.
14. Consequently, considering that the Respondent had thus repeatedly and for a significant period of time
been in breach of its contractual obligations towards the Claimant, the Chamber decided that the
Claimant had just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment contract on 22 January 2020 and that,
as a result, the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contact with
just cause by the Claimant.
15. Subsequently, prior to establishing the consequences of the termination of the employment contract with
just cause by the Claimant in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 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 by the Claimant.
16. Bearing in mind the considerations above, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta
sunt servanda, the Chamber established that the Claimant is entitled to EUR 288,500 and TRY 40,000,
corresponding to salaries between February 2019 until December 2019, bonuses relating to the season
2018/2019 and accommodation allowances for 16 months.
17. In addition, taking into consideration the player’s claim, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the respective due dates and as of the dated of claim for the monthly
allowances, since there was no specification of a due date.
18. Moreover, and taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the
Claimant is entitled to receive compensation for breach of contract from the Respondent.
19. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for
breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of the Chamber firstly recapitulated
that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated,
in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due
consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria,
including, in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant under the existing
contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five
years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.
20. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether
the pertinent employment contract contains a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand
agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of
contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that no such compensation clause was included in the
employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.
21. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable
by the Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in
art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive
enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation
payable. Therefore, other objective criteria may be taken into account at the discretion of the deciding
body. In this regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber emphasised beforehand that each request for
compensation for contractual breach has to be assessed by the Chamber on a case-by-case basis taking
into account all specific circumstances of the respective matter.
22. The members of the Chamber then turned their attention to the remuneration and other benefits due to
the Claimant under the existing contract and/or the new contract, which criterion was considered by the
Chamber to be essential. The members of the Chamber deemed it important to emphasise that the
wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows the Chamber to take into account both the existing
contract and the new contract, if any, in the calculation of the amount of compensation.
23. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to
the player under the terms of the employment contract as from the date of termination with just cause
by the Claimant until its natural expiration, bearing in mind that he would have received in total EUR
215,500 as remuneration for the period as from January 2020 until 31 May 2020. Consequently, the
Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 215,500 serves as the basis for the final determination of
the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.
24. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an employment contract
with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been enabled to
reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC, such remuneration under a
new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation
for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.
25. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Claimant indeed found new employment with the Hungarian
club, Varda Labdarugo Szolgaltato Kit for the period of February 2020 until 30 June 2020 ,
including a total remuneration of EUR 20,000, which shall be deducted, leading to a mitigated
compensation in the amount of EUR 195,500.
26. Consequently, on account of the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber decided to partially
accept the Claimant’s claim and that the Respondent must pay the amount of EUR 195,500 as
compensation for breach of contract to the Claimant, which is considered by the Chamber to be a fair
and reasonable amount.
27. In addition, taking into consideration the player’s claim, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of the claim, i.e. 3 March 2020, until the date of effective
payment.
28. The DRC concluded its deliberations by rejecting any further claim of the Claimant.
29. Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./3. 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.
30. In this regard, the Chamber established that, in virtue of the aforementioned provision, it has competence
to impose a sanction on the Respondent. More in particular, the DRC pointed out that, against clubs, the
sanction shall consist in a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up
until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration
periods.
31. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the Respondent does not
pay the amount due to the Claimant within 45 days as from the moment in which the Claimant, following
the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent, a ban
from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three
entire and consecutive registration periods shall become effective on the Respondent in accordance with
art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
32. Finally, the Chamber recalled that the above-mentioned sanction will be lifted immediately and prior to
its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis par. 3 of the
Regulations.
III. DECISION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CHAMBER
1. The claim of the Claimant, Iasmin Latovlevici, is partially accepted.
2. The Respondent, Bursaspor Kulübü Dernegi, has to pay to the Claimant, the following amounts:
- EUR 288,500 and TRY 40,000 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest p.a. until the
date of effective payment as follows:
- on the amount of EUR 20,000 as from 1 March 2019;
- on the amount of EUR 30,000 as from 1 April 2019;
- on the amount of EUR 30,000 as from 1 May 2019;
- on the amount of EUR 30,000 as from 1 June 2019;
- on the amount of EUR 30,000 as from 1 September 2019;
- on the amount of EUR 30,000 as from 1 October 2019;
- on the amount of EUR 25,000 as from 31 October 2019;
- on the amount of EUR 30,000 as from 1 November 2019;
- on the amount of EUR 30,000 as from 1 December 2019;
- on the amount of EUR 30,000 as from 1 January 2020;
- on the amount of EUR 3,500 as from 1 June 2019;
- on the amount of TRY 40,000 as from 3 March 2020.
- EUR 215,500 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest p.a.
as from 3 March 2020 until the date of effective payment.
3. Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
4. The Claimant is directed to immediately and directly inform the Respondent of the relevant bank
account to which the Respondent must pay the due amount.
5. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in accordance with this
decision to psdfifa@fifa.org, duly translated, if applicable, into one of the official FIFA languages
(English, French, German, Spanish).
6. In the event that the amount due, plus interest as established above is not paid by the Respondent
within 45 days, as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the
Respondent, the following consequences shall arise:
1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or
internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three
entire and consecutive registration periods. The aforementioned ban mentioned will be
lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.
(cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).
2. In the event that the payable amount as per in this decision is still not paid by the end of
the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee.
For the 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