Moreira Barbosa

Decisionofthe DisputeResolutionChamber passedon11October2023 regardinganemployment-relateddisputeconcerningtheplayerPedroFilipeMoreiraBarbosa BY: PhilippeDIALLO(France) CLAIMANT: PedroFilipeMoreiraBarbosa,Portugal RESPONDENT: RigaFC,Latvia I.Factsofthecase 1.On31July2020,thePortugueseplayer,PedroFilipeMoreiraBarbosa,andtheLatvianclub,RigaFC,concludedanemploymentcontractvalidasfrom1August2020until31July2022. 2.Accordingtoclause4.1and4.2ofthecontract,theplayerwasentitledtoEUR10,000netpermonth,aswellasthefollowing“advancemoney”: -EUR10,000netbefore31.08.2020; -EUR50,000netbefore30.9.2020; -EUR60,000netbefore30.09.2021. 3.On22January2021,thepartiesconcludedamutualterminationagreement. 4.Theterminationagreementstipulatedthefollowing: “1.Thecontractwasterminatedbymutualconsentoftheparties. 2.Thecontractshallbeconsideredterminatedon22January2021. 3.Upon,signingthisterminationagreementtheFootballplayeragreestohavenorightstoraiseanyfinancialorotherclaimstotheClub.” 5.On29March2023,theLatvianTaxAuthorityissuedadecisionwith,interalia,thefollowingcontents: “On4October2021,theHeadoftheDebtPaymentFacilitationDivisionoftheStateRevenueService(hereinafterreferredtoastheSRS),ParastasandOtherPaymentRecoveryDivision,issuedDecisionNo31.4-17.18.2/17.18.2/96149ontherecoveryfromPEDROBARBOSAMOREIRAoftheoverduedebtofEUR7740,06 (…) Consequently,therecoveryoflate-paymentfineshascontinuedevenafterthemainorderof4October2021 (…) Consequently,sincethedecisionof4October2021,PEDROBARBOSAMOREIRAhasaccruedarrearsofEUR1413,34.” 6.On11May2023,19May2023and22May2023,theplayersentdefaultletterstotheclub,requestingthepaymentofEUR1,413.34inaccordancewiththedecisionoftheLatvianTaxAuthority. II.ProceedingsbeforeFIFA 7.On28July2023,theplayerlodgedaclaimbeforetheFIFAFootballTribunalfortaxreimbursement,arguingthat“Latvianauthoritiesareclaiming,thesumofEUR1,413.34fromtheplayer”.Therefore,theplayerrequestedthepaymentofEUR1,413.35asoverduepayables,plus5%interestp.a.asfromtheduedates. 8.Accordingtotheplayer,allthefiscalandtaxaretheresponsibilityoftheclub. 9.Initsreply,theRespondentconsideredthattheClaimantfailedtosubstantiatethattheRespondentshouldberesponsiblefortheclaimedamount,whichisnotatax,butapenaltyforthelatepayment.TheRespondentconsideredthattheClaimantprovidednolegalgroundsexplainingwhy,inhisopinion,shouldtheRespondentberesponsiblefortheClaimant’scarelessnessandlackofdiligence. 10.TheRespondentalsoconsideredthattheplayerfailedtodemonstratethatpaymentoftheclaimed“taxesonincomeandwealth”(whichwasanadditionaltaxpayableupontheendofthefiscalperiodonthebasisofanconsolidatedincomeamountandrespectivetaxdeclarationthathadtobefiledbytheClaimant)wasthedutyoftheRespondentandthattheClaimanthadnootherincomeintheyear2020,whichwassubjecttotaxes. 11.TheClaimantalsoarguedthatthedecisionoftheLatvianTaxAuthority,asprovidedbytheClaimant,isnotcorrectlytranslated. III.ConsiderationsoftheDisputeResolutionChamber a.Competenceandapplicablelegalframework 1.Firstofall,theSingleJudgeoftheDisputeResolutionChamber(hereinafteralsoreferredtoastheJudgeorSingleJudge)analysedwhetheritwascompetenttodealwiththecaseathand.Inthisrespect,ittooknotethatthepresentmatterwaspresentedtoFIFAon15February2023andsubmittedfordecisionon11October2023.Takingintoaccountthewordingofart.34oftheOctober2022editionoftheProceduralRulesGoverningtheFootballTribunal(hereinafter:theProceduralRules),theaforementionededitionoftheProceduralRulesisapplicabletothematterathand. 2.Subsequently,theSingleJudgereferredtoart.2par.1oftheProceduralRulesandobservedthatinaccordancewithart.23par.1incombinationwithart.22lit.b)oftheRegulationsontheStatusandTransferofPlayers(October2022edition),theDisputeResolutionChamberiscompetenttodealwiththematteratstake,whichconcernsanemployment-relateddisputewithaninternationaldimensionbetweenaPortugueseplayerandaLatvianclub. 3.Subsequently,theSingleJudgeanalysedwhichregulationsshouldbeapplicableastothesubstanceofthematter.Inthisrespect,itconfirmedthat,inaccordancewithart.26par.1and2oftheRegulationsontheStatusandTransferofPlayers(May2023edition),andconsideringthatthepresentclaimwaslodgedon28July2023,theMay2023editionofsaidregulations(hereinafter:theRegulations)isapplicabletothematterathandastothesubstance. b.Burdenofproof 4.TheSingleJudgerecalledthebasicprincipleofburdenofproof,asstipulatedinart.13par.5oftheProceduralRules,accordingtowhichapartyclaimingarightonthebasisofanallegedfactshallcarrytherespectiveburdenofproof.Likewise,theSingleJudgestressedthewordingofart.13par.4oftheProceduralRules,pursuanttowhichitmayconsiderevidencenotfiledbytheparties,includingwithoutlimitationtheevidencegeneratedbyorwithintheTransferMatchingSystem(TMS). c.Meritsofthedispute 5.Hiscompetenceandtheapplicableregulationshavingbeenestablished,theSingleJudgeenteredintothemeritsofthedispute.Inthisrespect,theSingleJudgestartedbyacknowledgingalltheabove-mentionedfactsaswellastheargumentsandthe documentationonfile.However,theJudgeemphasisedthatinthefollowingconsiderationsitwillreferonlytothefacts,argumentsand