Garbellotto Silveira Pedroso

Decisionofthe DisputeResolutionChamber passedon25October2023 regardinganemployment-relateddisputeconcerningtheplayerMarcosGarbellottoSilveiraPedroso BY: RoyVermeer(Netherlands),SingleJudgeoftheDRC CLAIMANT: MarcosGarbellottoSilveiraPedroso,Brazil RepresentedbyYakubKizilkaya RESPONDENT: CSMioveni,Romania RepresentedbyDiaconuSilviuConstantin I.Factsofthecase 1.On1February2023,theBrazilianplayer,MarcosGarbellottoSilveiraPedroso(hereinafter:Claimantorplayer)andtheRomanianclub,CSMioveni(hereinafter:cluborRespondent)concludedanemploymentcontract(hereinafter:contract)validasfrom1February2023until15June2024. 2.Art.XIofthecontract,withthetitle“Applicablelaw”readsasfollows: “ThisAgreementwillbegovernedandinterpretedaccordingtotheLawofphysicaleducationandsportsno.69/2000,totheCivilcode,totheRegulationontheStatusandTransferofFootballPlayers,totheLaw227/2015regardingthefiscalcodeandtotheRegulationsofFRFandFIFA.Theconflictsrelatedtotheexecution,performance,modification,suspensionorterminationofthisAgreementwillbesolvedinthefollowingorderofproceedings: -Amiably; -Aslitigations,consideringthatthecompetencetosolvesuchlitigationsbelongstothearbitrationcourtsofsports,thatisthecompetentcommitteesofFRFand/orLPF,dependingonthecase,andTAS,exceptingthosethatbelongexclusivelytothecompetenceofthecourtsoflaw,underthelaw.(FIFAFootballTribunal,pursuantRSTPofFIFAandAppealtoCAS).” 3.On22May2023,thepartiesconcludedanterminationagreement(hereinafter:terminationagreement),accordingtowhichtheclubundertooktopaytheplayertheamountofEUR17,000,asfollows: -EUR6,400on25May2023; -EUR5,300on25June2023; -EUR5,300on25July2023. 4.Theterminationagreementestablishes:“Incaseofnoncompliancewithdatesandnonpaymentofagreedamounts,theplayermayseektherightsintheFIFAcourtlocatedinSwitzerland,thusfittingthepunishmentsprovidedinFIFAregulations.” II.ProceedingsbeforeFIFA 5.On3August2023,theClaimantfiledtheclaimathandbeforeFIFA.Abriefsummaryofthepositionofthepartiesisdetailedincontinuation. a.PositionoftheClaimant 6.Inhisclaim,theplayerrequestedpaymentofEUR17,000,resultingfromtheterminationagreement,plus5%interestp.a.asoftherespectiveduedates. 7.Inhisclaim,theplayerarguedthattheclubfailedtoremittheamountsdefinedintheterminationagreement. b.PositionoftheRespondent 8.Initsreply,theclubheldthattheclubisundergoinginsolvencyproceedingsinRomaniaandthatthereforethesolecompetentcourtcanbea“RomanianTribunal”. 9.Moreover,theclubarguedthatthepartiesoptedtosubmitdisputesto“domesticjurisdictionalbodiesoftheRomanianFootballFederation”inaccordancewithart.XIofthecontract. 10.Accordingtotheclub,the“NDRCoftheRFF”doesmeettherequirementssetbyFIFAasto “composition,independenceandfairproceedings”. c.ReplicaoftheClaimant 11.Inhisreplica,theClaimantrejectedtheargumentsastojurisdictionoftheRespondent. 12.HepointedoutthathewasnotpartofanyinsolvencyproceedinginRomania. 13.Nevertheless,theplayeracknowledgedreceiptofapartialpaymentintheamountofEUR5,300. d.DuplicaoftheRespondent 14.Initsduplica,theRespondentinsistedthattheRomaniancourtsaresolelycompetent. 15.Theclubsubmittedacourtorderdated31August2023,accordingtowhichallproceedingsinvolvingtheclubare“suspended”. III.ConsiderationsoftheDisputeResolutionChamber a.Competenceandapplicablelegalframework 16.Firstofall,theSingleJudge(hereinafteralsoreferredtoasSingleJudge)analysedwhetherhewascompetenttodealwiththecaseathand.Inthisrespect,hetooknotethatthepresentmatterwaspresentedtoFIFAon3August2023andsubmittedfordecisionon25 October2023.Takingintoaccountthewordingofart.34oftheMarch2023editionoftheProceduralRulesGoverningtheFootballTribunal(hereinafter:theProceduralRules),theaforementionededitionoftheProceduralRulesisapplicabletothematterathand. 17.Subsequently,theSingleJudgereferredtoart.2par.1andart.24par.1lit.a)oftheProceduralRulesandobservedthatinaccordancewithart.23par.1incombinationwithart.22par.1lit.b)oftheRegulationsontheStatusandTransferofPlayers(May2023),heis,inprinciple,competenttodealwiththematteratstake,whichconcernsanemployment-relateddisputewithaninternationaldimensionbetweenaplayerandaclub. 18.However,theSingleJudgenotedthattheRespondentdisputedFIFA’scompetencetodecidethematterathandfortwodifferentreasons: a)Thepresenceofinsolvencyproceedings; b)AnallegedarbitrationclauseinfavouroftheNDRCinRomania. 19.Inthisregard,theSingleJudgenotedthatalthoughinsolvencyproceedingsappeartohavebeenopenedinRomaniaagainsttheRespondent,itappearsthattheclubisstillaffiliatedtotheRomanianFootballFederation.Therefore,theSingleJudgedecidedtorejectsaidargument. 20.Subsequently,theSingleJudgeturnedhisattentiontotheallegedarbitrationclauseandhenotedthattheterminationagreementatthebasisofthedisputedidnotcontainanyarbitrationclausewhatsoeverinfavouroftheNDRCofRomania,butevenreferstoFIFAincaseofadispute. 21.Asaconsequence,theSingleJudgewasoftheopinionthatthefirstpre-requisiteforestablishingthecompetenceofanNDRCwasnotmet,andtherefore,withouttheneedtoentertheanalysisofanyfurtherrequirement,heestablishedthattheRespondent’sobjectiontothecompetenceofFIFAtode