Pachu Lira

Decisionofthe DisputeResolutionChamber passedon9November2023 regardinganemployment-relateddisputeconcerningtheplayerLuizHenriquePachuLira BY: FransDEWEGER(TheNetherlands),ChairpersonMarioFLORESCHEMOR(Mexico),memberTomislavKASALO(Croatia),member CLAIMANT: LuizHenriquePachuLira,Brazil RESPONDENT: ClubeDesportivoTrofense,Portugal I.Factsofthecase 1.On5July2021,theplayerandtheclubconcludedanemploymentcontractvalidasfrom6July2021until30June2023. 2.On30June2023,thepartiesconcludedaterminationagreement. 3.Accordingly,thepartiesagreeduponthefollowing: “1.ClubeDesportivoTrofenseFutebol-SADundertakestopaythesalariesforthemonthofApril2023,May2023andJune2023inthetotalamountof6,498.00euros(…). 2.Asaglobalpecuniarycompensation,ClubeDesportivoTrofenseFutebol-SADundertakestopaytheplayertheamountofEUR24,500(…). 3.Theamountsprovidedforintheprecedingparagraphs(1and2)willbesettledin6monthlyinstalments,equalandsuccessiveintheamountof5.166.33(…)each,thefirstinstalmenttobepaidbyJuly30,2023,thesecondinstalmenttobepaidbyAugust30,2023,thethirdinstalmentbySeptember30,2023,thefourthinstalmentbyOctober30,2023,thefifthinstalmentbyNovember30,2023andthesixthinstalmentbyDecember30,2023.” 4.Theterminationagreementincludedthefollowingaccelerationclause: ““3.1IntheeventthatClubeDesportivoTrofenseFutebol-SADfailstopaythePLAYERanyoftheagreedinstalmentsonthedatesdeterminedinclause3above,thetotalamountduemaybeimmediatelycollectedandClubeDesportivoTrofenseFutebol-SADmustimmediatelycomplywiththefullpaymentoftheremunerationdueatthetime.Inthiscase,afineof15%,plusinterestof12%perannumwillbeleviedonthetotalamountdue,countedfromtheduedateuntilthedateofpayment.” II.ProceedingsbeforeFIFA 2.On12August2023,theplayerlodgedaclaimbeforetheFIFAFootballTribunalforoutstandingremunerationandrequestedthepaymentofthefollowingamounts: -EUR30,997plus12%interestp.a.asfrom1August2023; -EUR4,649.70plus12%interestp.a.asfrom1August2023. 3.Accordingtotheplayer,theclubfailedtopaythefirstinstalmentintheterminationagreement,meaningthattheentireamountfelldue. 4.Initsreply,theRespondentarguedthatitisundergoingaSpecialRevitalizationProcessduetoseverefinancialdifficulties,andprovidedseveraldocumentsinthisregard(inPortugueseonly). 5.Morespecifically,theRespondentprovidedadocumentissuedby“ninsolvencies”namedas“ListaProvisóriadeCréditos–Art.17DCIRE”,listingtheplayerasfollows: “69.LuisHenriquePachuLiraNIF306488817RuaAméricoCampos,n.º1284785-283TrofaCréditoconstantedacontabilidadedaDevedora-CréditolaboralPrivilegiadoNota1Montante30998,00Capital30998,00(…)Créditoreconhecido30998,00” 6.TheRespondentarguesthattheClaimant'sclaimsareirrelevantandthattheTerminationAgreementspecifiestheoutstandingamounts. 7.TheRespondentrequestedtheclosureorsuspensionoftheproceedingsuntiltheclub'sinsolvencyprocessconcludesandreferredtoart.55b)oftheFIFADisciplinaryCode. 8.Theclubexplainedthatthereorganizationinsolvencyproceedingsaremeanttohelpthedebtoravertstraightbankruptcybymeansoftherestructuringalldebtsthroughapaymentplan(ordinarilywithquotasandamandatorywaitingperiodofseveralyears).Ifthedebtpaymentplanisapprovedbytheinsolvencyjudgeandthecreditors,thereorganizationinsolvencyproceedingsshallfinalizeonceallincludeddebtshavebeenpaid. 9.TheRespondentacknowledgedthesignatureoftheterminationagreement. 10.Inhisreplica,theClaimantunderlinedthattheevidenceprovidedbytheclubisinPortugueseonly,andthereforedoesnotcomplywiththerequirementsofart.13par.3oftheProceduralRulesGoverningtheFootballTribunal. 11.Nevertheless,theplayerconsideredthattheinformationprovidedbytheclubiscrypticandconfusingsince,ontheonehand,itaffirmsthattherevitalizationprocesscommencedbut,ontheotherhand,apparently,thereisnoreferenceregardingthedatewheniteffectivelyoccurred. 12.TheClaimantfurtherarguedthatunderFIFADRCwell-establishedjurisprudence,thefactthataclubisunderinsolvencyproceedingsdoesnotautomaticallymeanthatitshouldnotcomplywithitscontractualobligations. 13.AccordingtotheClaimant,inaccordancewithPortugueselaw,sincethedebtarosefromaworkingrelationshipbetweenthePlayerandtheClub,theClubcannotevadefromitscontractualobligationsundertheTerminationAgreement. 14.TheClaimantfurtherexplainedthatd,theClubdidnotexplaininitswrittensubmissionsinwhatconsistedthePER,exceptingenericterms.Moreover,theClaimantarguedthattheclubonlystatedthatthePERwereinitiatedbytheClub,whichsupposedlyimpliedthefreezingofcreditsandtheappointmentofajudicialadministrator,butwithoutevensayingwhenorifithadalreadyoccurred. 15.TheplayerarguedthattheClubabsolutelydidnotexplainwhatwastheroleofasocalled“administrator”northescopeoftherevitalizationprocess,sincetheClubjustmadegeneralstatementsregardingthepurposeofthisprocessinPortugaland,subsequentlysustainedthatthepresentproceedingsshouldbeimmediatelyclosedorsuspended. 16.TheClaimantinsistedintheinitiallyclaimedamounts. 17.TheRespondentfailedtoprovideitsduplica. III.ConsiderationsoftheDisputeResolutionChamber a.Competenceandapplicablelegalframework 1.Firstofall,theDisputeResolutionChamber(hereinafteralsoreferredtoasChamberor