Blanco Leschuk

Decisionofthe DisputeResolutionChamber passedon26October2023 regardinganemployment-relateddisputeconcerningtheplayerGustavoEzequielBlancoLeschuk BY: CliffordJ.Hendel(USA&France),DeputyChairperson JorgeGutiérrez(CostaRica),Member StellaMarisJuncos(Argentina),Member CLAIMANT: GustavoEzequielBlancoLeschuk,Argentina RepresentedbyAlfredoMartínezNora RESPONDENT: FraportTavAntalyaspor,Türkiye I.Factsofthecase 1.On16August2022,thepartiesterminatedtheircontractualrelationshipbysigninganearlyterminationagreement(hereinafter:theterminationagreement).Pursuanttoclause3oftheterminationagreement,theTurkishclub,AntalyasporSpor(hereinafter:theclubortheRespondent),undertooktopaytheamountofEUR510,000netasterminationfeeinfavoroftheArgentinianplayer,GustavoEzequielBlancoLeschuk(hereinafter:theplayerortheClaimant),asfollows: -EUR10,000neton11August2022; -EUR100,000neton30September2022; -EUR100,000neton1January2023; -EUR100,000neton28January2023; -EUR200,000neton30May2023. 2.Furthermore,clause3oftheterminationagreementforeseesthat-incaseofdefaultinthepaymentofanyoftheinstalmentsdescribedabove-theclubwouldbeobligedtopayadefaultinterestof7%perannumontheamountsdue. 3.Clause14oftheterminationagreementprovidesthat,intheeventofdisputesregardingtheinterpretationandexecutionoftheagreement,FIFAandtheCourtofArbitrationforSport(CAS)shallhavejurisdictionandthatthelanguageofarbitrationshallbeEnglish. 4.BetweenNovember2022andMay2023,theplayerurgestheclubtopaythesecond,thirdandfourthinstalmentsoftheagreement,tonoavail II.ProceedingsbeforeFIFA a.PositionoftheClaimant 5.On21August2023,theClaimantlodgedaclaimagainsttheRespondentbeforeFIFA,requestingthatthelatterbeorderedtopaythesumofEUR535,000net,brokendownbytheClaimantasfollows: -EUR500,000netcorrespondingtothesecond,third,fourthandfifthinstalmentsoftheterminationfee; -EUR35,000netallegedlycorrespondingtointerestof7%ofEUR500,000(itmustbenotedthattheClaimant,insteadofrequestingtobeawardedaninterestof7%perannumontheamountsdue,requestsalumpsumequalto7%oftheprincipalamountdue). 6.Inhisclaim,theplayerclaimsthat,despitethepartieshavingvalidlyenteredintotheterminationagreement,theclubonlypaidthefirstinstalmentamountingtoEUR10,000netandfailedtomakeanyfurtherpaymentdespitehavingbeenputindefaultofpaymentbytheplayer. b.PositionoftheRespondent 7.Initsreply,withregardtotheadmissibilityoftheclaim,theclubarguesthattheClaimanthasviolatedclause14oftheterminationagreementbybringingitsclaiminSpanishandnotinEnglish.Itthereforerequeststhattheclaimbedismissedasinadmissible. 8.Withregardtothemeritsofthecase,theclubheldthattheplayer’sclaimhasnoregulatorybasis,insofarastheplayerdidnotcomplywiththerequirementsofart.12bisoftheRegulationsontheStatusandTransferofPlayersand,therefore,theamountsclaimedcannotbeconsideredas"overduepayables".Inviewoftheabove,theclubrequeststhattheplayer'sclaimberejected. III.ConsiderationsoftheDisputeResolutionChamber a.Competenceandapplicablelegalframework 9.Firstofall,theDisputeResolutionChamber(hereinafteralsoreferredtoasChamberorDRC)analysedwhetheritwascompetenttodealwiththecaseathand.Inthisrespect,ittooknotethatthepresentmatterwaspresentedtoFIFAon21August2023andsubmittedfordecisionon26October2023.Takingintoaccountthewordingofart.34oftheMarch2023editionoftheProceduralRulesGoverningtheFootballTribunal(hereinafter:theProceduralRules),theaforementionededitionoftheProceduralRulesisapplicabletothematterathand. 10.Subsequently,themembersoftheChamberreferredtoart.2par.1oftheProceduralRulesandobservedthatinaccordancewithart.23par.1incombinationwithart.22lit.b)oftheRegulationsontheStatusandTransferofPlayersMay2023edition),theDisputeResolutionChamberis–inprinciple–competenttodealwiththematteratstake,whichconcernsanemployment-relateddisputewithaninternationaldimensionbetweenanArgentinianplayerandaTurkishclub. 11.However,theChamberdulynotedthattheRespondentchallengedtheadmissibilityoftheclaimbroughtforwardbytheplayerwithinthescopeofthepresentproceedings.Inthiscontext,theDRC–afterhavingdulyanalyzedthewordingofclause14oftheterminationagreementandtheargumentsoftheclub–establishedthat,irrespectiveofwhatwasagreedbetweenthepartieswithregardtothelanguageoftheprocedureunderthe terminationagreement,article16oftheRulesofProcedureprevails.Inparticular,paragraphs1and3ofsaidprovisionapply: 1.)"ThelanguagesthatmaybeusedintheproceedingsshallbeEnglish,FrenchorSpanishonly".Byvirtueoftheaboveandirrespectiveofwhathasbeenagreedbetweenthepartiesundertheterminationagreement,theChamberunderscoredthattheClaimantisfreetosubmithispleadingsbeforetheFootballTribunalinEnglish,FrenchorSpanish.Inlightoftheaforementioned,theDRCdeterminedthattheclaimsubmittedbytheClaimantwasdraftedinSpanishandis,therefore,admissible. 2.)"Wherethepleadingsorevidenceinacaseareinseverallanguages,theproceedingsshallbeconductedinEnglishandthedecisionshallbenotifiedinEnglish".Inthepresentcase,asthepartieshavesubmittedtheirpleadingsindifferentofficiallanguagesofFIFA,thesubmissionsanddecisionshavebeenconducted/notifiedinEnglish,infullcompliancewith