Montell Sno

Decisionofthe DisputeResolutionChamber passedon10November2023 regardinganemployment-relateddisputeconcerningtheplayerShaquillMontellSno BY: AlexandraGomezBruinewoud,Uruguay&theNetherlands CLAIMANT: ShaquillMontellSno,theNetherlands RepresentedbyNanjaScholten-Braam RESPONDENT: CSMioveni,Romania RepresentedbyDiaconuSilviuConstantin I.Factsofthecase 1.On17January2023,theDutchplayer,ShaquillMontellSno(hereinafter:theplayerortheClaimant),andtheRomanianclub,CSMioveni(hereinafter:theclubortheRespondent),concludedanemploymentcontractvalidasfromthedateofsignatureuntil17June2023(hereinafter:theContract). 2.Underclause4oftheContract,theclubundertooktopaytotheplayerinteraliaEUR4,500netasmonthlysalary. 3.IthastobenotedthattheContract(asprovidedbytheplayer)doesnotbearaclause11. 4.On13September2023,theplayerputtheclubindefaultofpaymentofEUR11,250net,correspondingtothesalariesfromApriltoJune2023undertheContract.Theplayergrantedthecluba15days’deadlineinordertoremedythebreach. 5.On14June2023,theclubsubmittedarequesttoopeninsolvencyproceedings(“preventiveconcordat”)beforethenationalcourtsinRomania. 6.On22June2023,theRomaniannationalcourtsadmittedtheclub’srequestforopeningofinsolvencyproceedingsandinteraliaappointedtheauthorizedadministrator(hereinafter:theAdministrator). 7.On7August2023,theAdministratorsubmittedarestructuringplanfortheclubandinteralia listedtheplayerascreditorofRON22,500. II.ProceedingsbeforeFIFA 8.On6October2023,theplayerfiledtheclaimathandbeforeFIFA.Abriefsummaryofthepositionofthepartiesisdetailedincontinuation. a.Positionoftheplayer 9.Inhisclaim,theplayerexplainedthattheclubfailedtocomplywithitsfinancialdutiespertheContract.Consequently,herequestedtobeawardedthetotalamountofEUR11,250net,brokendownasfollows: EUR4,500netasthesalaryofApril2023; EUR4,500netasthesalaryofMay2023;and EUR2,250netastheproratasalaryofJune2023. 10.Theplayeralsorequestedtobeawardedinterestof5%p.a.asfromtheduedates. b.Positionoftheclub 11.On31October2023,theclubfileditsreplytotheclaim. 12.Initsreply,theclubchallengedFIFA’sjurisdictionbasedonthefollowingreasons: Theclubisundergoingaspecificalprocedureofinsolvency(“preventiveconcordat”)underthenationallaw.Assuch,anyandallclaimsshouldbesuspendedandhandledexclusivelybytheRomaniancourts.Likewise,thecreditoftheplayerhadalreadybeenconsideredinrestructuringplanissuedbytheAdministrator,thereforepreventingthejurisdictionofFIFA;and ThepartiesincludedajurisdictionclausereferringtotheNationalDisputeResolutionChamberoftheRomanianFootballFederation(FRF)/ProfessionalFootballLeague(PFL)(hereinafter:theRomanianNDRC)andsuchbodycomplieswithFIFA’srequirementsoncomposition,independence,andfairproceedings. 13.Theclubfiledthefollowingrelief: “31.Aftertheexaminationofalltheevidenceandargumentsoftheparties,werespectfullyrequestthehonourableChamber: I.TheinadmissibilityoftheCoach’sclaim(sic),basedonart.22let.c)oftheRegulationsontheStatusandTransferofPlayers,forlackofjurisdictionoftheFIFAjurisdictionalbodiestosettlethisdisputeonthemerits. II.Insubsidiary,ifFIFAtribunalconsiderthatiscompetenttosettlethisdispute,pursuanttoarticle26oftheProceduralRulesGoverningtheFootballTribunal,wewouldliketorequestthemediationprocedurewhichisdeemedappropriateinthematterandtheClaimantisgoingtoreceivethefullamount,butwithin25monthsofinstalmentsaccordingtothereorganizationplanandthesettlementproposalsenttohimbythespecialadministratoroftheinsolvencyprocedure”. III.ConsiderationsoftheDisputeResolutionChamber a.Competenceandapplicablelegalframework 14.Firstofall,theSingleJudgeoftheDisputeResolutionChamber(hereinafteralsoreferredtoasSingleJudge)analysedwhethershewascompetenttodealwiththecaseathand.Inthisrespect,shetooknotethatthepresentmatterwaspresentedtoFIFAon5October2023andsubmittedfordecisionon10November2023.Takingintoaccountthewordingofart.34oftheMay2023editionoftheProceduralRulesGoverningtheFootballTribunal(hereinafter:theProceduralRules),theaforementionededitionoftheProceduralRulesisapplicabletothematterathand. 15.Subsequently,theSingleJudgereferredtoart.2par.1oftheProceduralRulesandobservedthatinaccordancewithart.23par.1incombinationwithart.22par.1lit.b)oftheFIFARSTP(May2023edition),theDisputeResolutionChamber(DRC)is–inprinciple–competenttodealwiththematteratstake,whichconcernsanemployment-relateddisputewithaninternationaldimensionbetweenaFrenchplayerandaRomanianclub. 16.Notwithstandingtheabove,theSingleJudgeacknowledgedthattheclubchallengedthejurisdictionoftheFootballTribunaltodealwiththematterathandasfollows: a)Duetotheongoingprocedureofinsolvency(“preventiveconcordat”),theexclusivecompetenceoverthisdisputelieswithnationalcourtsofRomania;and b)Alternatively,pursuanttoclause11oftheContract,inthattheRomanianNDRCisexclusivelycompetenttohearthedispute. 17.Onthisnote,theSingleJudgefirstlynotedthattheclubisstillaffiliatedandparticipatingincompetitionswithintheauspicesoftheFRF.Assuch,sheestablished,inlinewiththelong-standingjurisprudenceoftheFootballTribunal,thattheinsolvencyproceedingspersedonotpreventthejurisdi