Horvat

Decisionofthe PlayersStatusChamber passedon21November2023 regardingacontractualdisputeconcerningthematchagentMarjanHorvat BY: JulieJORGENSEN(Denmark),SingleJudge CLAIMANT: FCKoper,Slovenia RepresentedbyMrJanezPejovnik FIRSTRESPONDENT: FKPartizan,Serbia SECONDRESPONDENT: MarjanHorvat,Slovenia I.Factsofthecase 1.On31May2022,FCKoper(hereinafter:theClaimant)andFKPartizan(hereinafter:theFirstRespondent)concludedaMatchAgreement(hereinafter:theContract)forafriendlymatchtobeplayedbetweenthemon20June2022inKidričevo,Slovenia(hereinafter:theMatch). 2.TheContractspecifiedthattheorganiseroftheMatchis“TEAMSPORTSCAMP–MARJAN HORVAT(FIFAMatchAgent)”,i.e.MarjanHorvat(hereinafter:theSecondRespondent). 3.WithintheContract,boththeClaimantandtheFirstRespondentagreedto“confirmtheabovementionedgame”,i.e.theMatch. 4.TheContractincludesthefollowingclauses: (i)“IncaseofdefaultoneoftheTEAMtotakepartintheMATCHtheTeammaybeheldresponsibleforlossescausedbysuchact.”;and (ii)“Eitherpartymayterminatethiscontractwithimmediateeffectuponnoticetotheotherpartyifthereisaneventofforcemajeure(fire,explosion,earthquake,epidemicetc.)thatpreventsthestagingofthematch.Inthiscasethepartiesofthecontractarerelievedfromtheresponsibilityunderobligations.” 5.On19June2022,i.e.onedaybeforetheMatch,theFirstRespondentwithdrewfromtheMatchbynotifyingtheClaimantbye-mail(hereinafter:theCancellation). 6.On21June2022,theSecondRespondentorganisedasubstitutefriendlymatchbetweentheClaimantandFKRadničkiNišinSlovenskeKonjice,Slovenia(hereinafter:theSubstituteMatch)onthebasisofanewcontractconcludedbetweentheClaimantandtheSecondRespondent(hereinafter:theSubstituteMatchContract)fromthesamedate. II.ProceedingsbeforeFIFA 7.On7November2022,theClaimantfiledtheclaimathandbeforeFIFA.Abriefsummaryofthepositionofthepartiesisdetailedincontinuation. a.PositionoftheClaimant 8.AccordingtotheClaimant,duetotheCancellationandtheMatchnottakingplace,theFirstRespondentandSecondRespondentareinbreachoftheContractwithoutjustcause,i.e.therewasnoforcemajeureevent. 9.Further,theClaimantarguedthatitsteamhadto“(…)stayonemoreday[nearthelocationoftheMatch](…)”toparticipateintheSubstituteMatchresultinginthefollowingdamages(hereinafter:theDamages): (i)accommodationcostson20June2022:EUR2,916(hereinafter:theAccommodationCosts); (ii)accommodationcostson30June2022:EUR1,500(hereinafter:theAdditionalAccommodationCosts); (iii)transportationcostsbetween18and20June2022:EUR600(hereinafter:theTransportationCosts); (iv)SecondRespondent’sfee:EUR1,000(hereinafter:theMatchAgentCosts);and (v)SubstituteMatchcosts:EUR500(hereinafter:theSubstituteMatchCosts). 10.AccordingtotheClaimant,despite“manywrittenandoralwarnings”,theFirstRespondentandSecondRespondentfailedtocompensatetheClaimantfortheDamagesresultingfromtheCancellation,i.e.breachoftheContract. 11.Finally,theClaimantarguedthattheFirstRespondenthadcommittedanunlawfulbreachoftheContractandismutuallyresponsiblewiththeSecondRespondenttocompensateitfortheDamages. 12.TherequestsforreliefoftheClaimant,werethefollowing: (i)EUR6,516asfortheDamages;and (ii)EUR2,000ascontributiontoitslegalcostsinrelationtotheclaimathandbeforeFIFA. b.PositionoftheFirstRespondent 13.Initssubmission,theFirstRespondentarguedthattheCancellationoccurredduetoforcemajeuresinceitsteamhadseveralinjuredplayerswhichwascommunicatedinaphoneconversationbetweenthesportsdirectorsoftheFirstRespondentandtheClaimant(hereinafter:theVerbalAgreement). 14.First,theFirstRespondentnotedthattheSecondRespondentorganisedtheSubstituteMatchfortheClaimantthereforenotinterferingwithitssportingplanstoplayfriendlymatches. 15.Second,theFirstRespondentquestionedtheClaimant’sentitlementtotheDamagesasithadenteredintheSubstituteMatchContractwiththeSecondRespondentfollowingtheCancellationanddisputedtheClaimant’srequestfortheDamagesasfollows: (i)AccommodationCostsandAdditionalAccommodationCosts:accordingtotheFirstRespondent,therearenoadditionalcostsclearlystatedintheinvoiceprovidedbytheClaimant,i.e.theaccommodationperiodisbetween18and20June2022,i.e.beforetheCancellationon19June2022; (ii)TransportationCosts:accordingtotheFirstRespondenttherearenotransportationcostsfortheMatchastheprovidedservicesarefortheperiodbetween18and20June2022whichisnotrelevantasboththeClaimantandtheFirstRespondentdidnottraveltotheMatchlocationbefore20June2022; (iii)MatchAgentCosts:theFirstRespondentrejectedtheClaimant’srequestandprovidedevidencethattheSecondRespondenthadissuedaninvoicetotheClaimanton19June2022withoutanyMatchAgentCostsforthecancelledMatch;and (iv)SubstituteMatchCosts:theFirstRespondentarguedthattheClaimant’sclaims arenotbackedbyanyevidencenor“proofofthepaymentoftheseallegedcosts”. 16.Finally,theFirstRespondentarguedthatnolossesoccurredfortheClaimantfromtheCancellationhencenoDamagescanbeclaimedonthebasisoftheContract.AccordingtotheFirstRespondent,itwastheClaimant’sdecisiontoplaytheSubstituteMatchandstayforanadditionalperiodattherelevantlocation. 17.TherequestforreliefoftheFirstRespondentwasthattheClaimant’sclaimisrejectedinitsentirety