Ngallot Mboumbouni

Decisionofthe DisputeResolutionChamber passedon25October2023 regardinganemployment-relateddisputeconcerningtheplayerDylanTeddyNgallotMboumbouni BY: RoyVermeer(Netherlands),SingleJudgeoftheDRC CLAIMANT: DylanTeddyNgallotMboumbouni,France RepresentedbyYakubKizilkaya RESPONDENT: CSMioveni,Romania RepresentedbyDiaconuSilviuConstantin I.Factsofthecase 1.On15January2023,theFrenchplayer,DylanTeddyNgallotMboumbouni(hereinafter:Claimantorplayer)andtheRomanianclub,CSMioveni(hereinafter:cluborRespondent)concludedanemploymentcontract(hereinafter:contract)validasfrom15January2023until30June2023. 2.Accordingtothecontract,theRespondent,interalia,undertooktopaytheClaimantamonthlysalaryofEUR5,000. 3.Art.XIofthecontract,withthetitle“Applicablelaw”readsasfollows: “ThisagreementwillbegovernedandinterpretedaccordingRegulationsofFIFA. Theconflictrelatedtotheexecution,performance,modification,suspensionorterminationofthisAgreementwillbesolvedinthefollowingorderofproceedings: -Amicably -FIFAFootballTribunal” II.ProceedingsbeforeFIFA 4.On15August2023,theClaimantfiledtheclaimathandbeforeFIFA.Abriefsummaryofthepositionofthepartiesisdetailedincontinuation. a.PositionoftheClaimant 5.Inhisclaim,theClaimantrequestedpaymentofEUR20,000,correspondingtohissalariesbetweenMarchandJune2023,plus5%interestp.a.asoftheduedates. 6.Inhisclaim,theplayerarguedthattheclubfailedtoremithissalariesasofMarch2023. b.PositionoftheRespondent 7.Initsreply,theclubheldthattheclubisundergoinginsolvencyproceedingsinRomaniaandthatthereforethesolecompetentcourtcanbea“RomanianTribunal”. 8.Moreover,theclubarguedthatthepartiesoptedtosubmitdisputesto“domesticjurisdictionalbodiesoftheRomanianFootballFederation”inaccordancewithart.XIofthecontract. 9.Inthiscontext,theclubclaimedthattheRomaniancontractpartwasnotproperlytranslatedandthattheEnglishversionofart.XIiswrongandshouldreadasfollows: “ThisAgreementwillbegovernedandinterpretedaccordingtotheLawofphysicaleducationandsportsno.69/2000,totheCivilcode,totheRegulationontheStatusandTransferofFootballPlayers,totheLaw227/2015regardingthefiscalcodeandtotheRegulationsofFRFandFIFA. Theconflictsrelatedtotheexecution,performance,modification,suspensionorterminationofthisAgreementwillbesolvedinthefollowingorderofproceedings: -Amiably; -Aslitigations,consideringthatthecompetencetosolvesuchlitigationsbelongstothearbitrationcourtsofsports,thatisthecompetentcommitteesofFRFand/orLPF,dependingonthecase,andTAS,exceptingthosethatbelongexclusivelytothecompetenceofthecourtsoflaw,underthelaw.(FIFAFootballTribunal,pursuantRSTPofFIFAandAppealtoCAS).” 10.Accordingtotheclub,the“NDRCoftheRFF”doesmeettherequirementssetbyFIFAasto “composition,independenceandfairproceedings”. c.ReplicaoftheClaimant 11.Inhisreplica,theClaimantrejectedtheargumentsastojurisdictionoftheRespondent. 12.HepointedoutthathewasnotpartofanyinsolvencyproceedinginRomania. 13.Theplayerreiteratedhisrequests. d.DuplicaoftheRespondent 14.Initsduplica,theRespondentinsistedthattheRomaniancourtsaresolelycompetent. 15.Theclubsubmittedacourtorderdated31August2023,accordingtowhichallproceedingsinvolvingtheclubare“suspended”. III.ConsiderationsoftheDisputeResolutionChamber a.Competenceandapplicablelegalframework 16.Firstofall,theSingleJudge(hereinafteralsoreferredtoasSingleJudge)analysedwhetherhewascompetenttodealwiththecaseathand.Inthisrespect,hetooknotethatthepresentmatterwaspresentedtoFIFAon15August2023andsubmittedfordecisionon25October2023.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)AnarbitrationclauseinfavouroftheNDRCinRomania. 19.Inthisregard,theSingleJudgenotedthatalthoughinsolvencyproceedingsappeartohavebeenopenedinRomaniaagainsttheRespondent,itappearsthattheclubisstillaffiliatedtotheRomanianFootballFederation.Therefore,theSingleJudgedecidedtorejectsaidargument. 20.Subsequently,theSingleJudgereferredtoArt.XIoftheemploymentcontract.AccordingtotheRespondentthetranslationsubmittedbytheClaimantwasinaccurateandthewordingtotakeintoaccountis: “ThisAgreementwillbegovernedandinterpretedaccordingtotheLawofphysicaleducationandsportsno.69/2000,totheCivilcode,totheRegulationontheStatusandTransferofFootballPlayers,totheLaw227/2015regardingthefiscalcodeandtotheRegulationsofFRFandFIFA.Theconflictsrelatedtotheexecution,performance,modification,suspensionorterminationofthisAgreementwillbesolvedinthefollo