Decis ion of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge - FIFA.com

Page created by Brad Oliver
 
CONTINUE READING
Decis ion of the
           Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge

                                  passed on 15 January 2020,

                                             by

                                   Om ar Ongaro (Italy),

                            on the claim presented by the player,

Patrick dos S antos Cruz, Brazil,
represented by Mr Marcelo Franklin dos Santos Filho
                                                                      as Claimant

                                        and the club,

S ai Gon Football Club, Vietnam
                                                                    as Respondent

                          regarding an employment-related dispute
                                 arisen between the parties

                                                                              1/6
I.     Facts of the cas e

1.   On 30 December 2016, the player Patrick dos Santos Cruz (hereinafter: the player or the
     Claimant) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) with the club Sai Gon
     Football Club (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent) valid as from 30 December 2016 until
     30 November 2017.

2.   In accordance with the appendix 1 of the contract the player was, inter alia, entitled to a
     monthly salary in the amount of USD 2,000.

3.   In addition, according to art. 4 of the appendix 1 of the contract “if Party B [the player] is sick,
     injured, Party A [the club] has the responsibility to take Party B for treatment in specialized
     hospitals of Vietnam. Party A shall support a part of treatments costs and the remained cost
     shall be paid by Party B.
     Party A shall not be responsible for cases of sickness or injury not cause by Party B’s training
     and competition for Party A under direction of Coach or Board of Leaders of Party A or the
     injury, illness cause by Party B’s violation against Party A’s regulation, not following the
     instructions of coaches, doctors or injury or sickness caused by Party B suffers from
     cardiovascular disease, hypertension or historic diseases.”

4.   On 24 November 2017, the parties signed a document titled “Contract Liquidation
     Minutes”, according to which the parties agreed to “liquidate the labor contract” and
     acknowledged that “from the signing date of this contract liquidation minutes, the two
     parties do not have any related rights and obligations and none of the parties shall execute
     any appeal or protest which is related to the signed labor contract, Player is free to
     negotiate or sign contract with other club.”.

5.   On 6 March 2019, the player put the club in default for the payment of USD 89,800, setting a
     10 days’ deadline

6.   On 21 March 2019, the Claimant lodged a claim for breach of contract and requested the
     payment of the following amounts:

       - USD 1,000 as “reimbursement of medical expenses”;
       - USD 4,800 “for the 12 working days withdrawn from the original contract by the Club after
         the player’s arrival in Vietnam”;
       - USD 3,600 “for the 9 days of work withdrawn from the contract by the Club on termination
         of contract without just cause”;
       - USD 32,400, as “the salaries corresponding to the 81 days in which the athlete could not
         work as a result of the surgery”;
       - USD 36,000 as “damages due to the specificity of the sport”;
       - USD 10,000 as moral damages;
       - “5% of interest counted from the moment in which each request is demandable”.

7.   The Claimant further requested the payment of USD 8,700 corresponding to “defense costs”.

8.   In his claim the player deemed that “the Club breached the contract and FIFA regulations since
     the Player had a severe injury during a match played on 5 November 2017, had to go under
     surgery and received no support by the Club. Also, the Defendant modified the dates of the

Player Patrick dos Santos Cruz, Brazil / Club Sai Gon Football Club, Vietnam                          2/6
original contract and its values to harm the player, in addition to having terminated the
     contract without just cause”.

9.   According to the player “the Club gave the Player two separate contracts, one of USD 2,000
     […] and one of USD 12,000”, the latter was dated 28 December 2016 and was addressed to
     “The Board of Administrators”.

10. In this regards, the player claimed that the club paid USD 2,000 to his bank account, whereas
    “the greater part (ten thousand dollars) was always delivered in cash without any receipt or
    proper documentation”.

11. Furthermore, the player deemed that the “club’s worst actions came when the athlete was
    injured during the match on November 5, 2017. In a ball dispute, Patrick took a strong kick in
    his testicles.”

12. In this respect, the player stressed that due to this injury he had to be operated and “had half
    a testicle removed”.

13. Moreover, the player highlighted that he “was totally abandoned by the Club to his own fate”
    and that the club stated that “the Player’s testicle injury should be probably related to excessive
    sexual intercourse”.

14. In addition, the player claimed that on 20 November 2017 he “was called to the club’s
    administration room. Upon arrival they said that either he signed the contractual termination
    or would only receive his salary in late December 2017”.

15. Continuously, the player deemed that he “felt compelled to sign an early termination
    agreement (presented in English and Vietnamese, which he never even received a copy),
    otherwise he would simply not receive his last salary”.

16. Consequently, the player emphasized that he “was forced by the Club to give away 9 days of
    his November salary”.

17. In spite of having been invited to do so, the club did not reply to the claim.

II. Cons iderations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge

1.   First, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge (hereinafter: DRC judge) analysed whether
     he was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, he took note that the
     present matter was submitted to FIFA on 21 March 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 DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and
     confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b of

Player Patrick dos Santos Cruz, Brazil / Club Sai Gon Football Club, Vietnam                        3/6
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (January 2020 edition) he is competent
     to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
     international dimension between a Brazilian player and a Vietnamese club.

3.   Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
     substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and
     par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (January 2020 edition), and
     considering that the present claim was lodged on 21 March 2019, the June 2018 edition of said
     regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
     substance.

4.   The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the
     DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC judge started by
     acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the documentation
     contained in the file.

5.   In this respect, the DRC judge acknowledged that the parties to the dispute had signed a valid
     employment contract on 30 December 2016, in accordance with which the Respondent would
     pay the Claimant a monthly salary in the amount of USD 2,000.

6.   In continuation, the DRC judge acknowledged that on 21 March 2019, the Claimant lodged a
     claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, alleging that, on that date, the following
     amounts remained outstanding:

       - USD 1,000 as “reimbursement of medical expenses”;
       - USD 4,800 “for the 12 working days withdrawn from the original contract by the Club after
         the player’s arrival in Vietnam”;
       - USD 3,600 “for the 9 days of work withdrawn from the contract by the Club on termination
         of contract without just cause”;
       - USD 32,400, as “the salaries corresponding to the 81 days in which the athlete could not
         work as a result of the surgery”.

7.   In this context, the DRC judge referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations, according to which
     the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall not hear any case subject to the Regulations if more than
     two years have elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute. Considering that the claim of
     the Claimant was lodged on 21 March 2019 only, the DRC judge found that he could not enter
     into any claim for salaries that fell due prior to 21 March 2017.

8.   Taking into account the previous considerations, the DRC judge preliminarily concluded that
     the Claimant’s request for salaries accrued before the date of 21 March 2017 was barred by the
     statute of limitations in accordance with art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations.

9.   Subsequently, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent failed to present its response to the
     claim of the Claimant, in spite of having been invited to do so. By not presenting its position
     to the claim, the DRC judge was of the opinion that the Respondent renounced its right of
     defence and thus, in principle, accepted the allegations of the Claimant.

Player Patrick dos Santos Cruz, Brazil / Club Sai Gon Football Club, Vietnam                       4/6
10. Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the DRC judge concurred
    that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the DRC judge shall take a decision
    upon the basis of the documentation already on file; in other words, upon the statements and
    documents presented by the Claimant.

11. In this respect, the DRC judge acknowledged that the Claimant signed a document containing
    a declaration in accordance with which the player admitted having received all his dues and
    entitlements from the club (cf. point I. 4).

12. In continuation, the DRC judge noted that the Claimant alleged that said document was signed
    by him as he felt “compelled” to sign it, otherwise he would “not receive his last salary”.

13. After duly analysing the contents of the aforementioned document and the argument of the
    Claimant, the DRC judge came to the conclusion that, indeed, the player waived any of his
    potential rights arisen from any agreement concluded before the date of the signature of said
    document. Moreover, the DRC judge understood that, on the basis of the documentation and
    information on file, it appears that the player was sufficiently aware of the consequences of
    signing the aforementioned document.

14. In addition, the DRC judge wished to emphasise that he did not consider the document dated
    28 December 2016, to be a valid employment contract, as it was addressed to the “Board of
    Administrators” and was not signed by the player.

15. On account of the above, the DRC judge decided to reject the claim of the Claimant.

Player Patrick dos Santos Cruz, Brazil / Club Sai Gon Football Club, Vietnam                       5/6
III. Decision of the DRC judge

    1.    The claim of the Claimant, Patrick dos Santos Cruz, is rejected insofar it is admissible.

                                                                *****

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 relating to the m otiv ated decision (legal remedy):

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

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

                                           Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
                                                 Avenue de Beaumont 2
                                                   CH-1012 Lausanne
                                                      Switzerland
                                                  Tel: +41 21 613 50 00
                                                  Fax: +41 21 613 50 01
                                                 e-mail: info@tas-cas.org
                                                    www.tas-cas.org

For the DRC judge:

Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer

Player Patrick dos Santos Cruz, Brazil / Club Sai Gon Football Club, Vietnam                          6/6
You can also read