Boulahia

Decisionofthe DisputeResolutionChamber passedon4October2023 regardinganemployment-relateddisputeconcerningtheplayerMohamedZakaria BY: GonzaloDEMEDINILLA(Spain) CLAIMANT: MohamedZakaria,Algeria RESPONDENT: Emirates,UnitedArabEmirates I.Factsofthecase 1.On15September2021,theplayerMohamedZakariaBoulahiaandEmiratesClubconcludedanemploymentcontractvalidasfromthedateofsignatureuntil31May2023. 2.Subsequently,thepartiesconcludedamutualterminationagreement,accordingtowhichtheclubcommittedtopaytotheplayertheamountofUSD150,000net,asfollows: -USD15,000on1September2022; -USD15,000on1October2022; -USD15,000on1November2022; -USD15,000on1December2022; -USD15,000on5January2023; -USD15,000on1February2023; -USD15,000on1March2023; -USD15,000on1April2023; -USD15,000on1May2023; -USD15,000on1June2023; 3.Art.7oftheterminationagreementstipulatedthefollowing: “7.Thefailuretopayanyoftheinstalmentsagreedinwithinoneweekoftheduedatesentitlestheplayertoclaimalltheremaininginstalmentsandamountsindente,plusinterestsat5%ratesincetheduedatesuntileffectivepayment,plus20%ofthetotalamountsindenteaspenaltyclause.” 4.On8June2023,theplayersentadefaultnoticetotheclub,requestingthepaymentofUSD45,000within10days. 5.On9June2023,theclubpaidAED55,200(approx.USD15,000). 6.On19June2023,theplayersentanotherdefaultnotice,requestingthepaymentofUSD29,944within10days. II.ProceedingsbeforeFIFA 7.On29June2023,theplayerlodgedaclaimbeforetheFIFAFootballTribunalforoutstandingremunerationandrequestedthepaymentofUSD29,944arisingfromthemutualterminationagreement,plus5%interestp.a.asfrom1June2023. 8.TheClaimantarguedthattheclubhadthefollowingdebttowardshim: •15.000USDdueon01/06/2023; •30.000USDasapenaltyclauseof20%ofthetotalamountindebt;Total:USD45,000 9.Initsreply,theclubrejectedtheplayer’sclaim. 10.TheclubexplainedthatitpaidUSD135,000withoutdelay,butacknowledgedthatalastpaymentwasnotpaidontimeduetointernalbankprocedures,butnotduetoalackoffundsorbadfaith. 11.Theclubrejectedthepaymentofanyadditionalpenaltyandarguedthattheclaimantfailedtoprovesubstantialdamagecausedbytheone-daypaymentdelay. 12.Theclubexplainedthatitpaidthelastinstalmenton9June2023(cf.exhibit6ofthereply). 13.Inhisreplica,theClaimantinsistedinthepaymentofUSD29,944plus5%interestp.a.asfrom1June2023. 14.TheClaimantobservedthattheclub“confessesthatthepaymentofthelastinstalmentintheamountof15.000USD,wasonlymadeon9June2023”,which“meansthatconfessesthebreachingoftheTerminationAgreementsignedbetweentheparties”. 15.Initsduplica,theRespondentconfirmeditspreviousposition. III.ConsiderationsoftheDisputeResolutionChamber a.Competenceandapplicablelegalframework 1.Firstofall,theSingleJudgeoftheDisputeResolutionChamber(hereinafteralsoreferredtoasJudge)analysedwhetherhewascompetenttodealwiththecaseathand.Inthisrespect,ittooknotethatthepresentmatterwaspresentedtoFIFAon15February2023andsubmittedfordecisionon27September2023.Takingintoaccountthewordingofart.34oftheOctober2022editionoftheProceduralRulesGoverningtheFootballTribunal(hereinafter:theProceduralRules),theaforementionededitionoftheProceduralRulesisapplicabletothematterathand. 2.Subsequently,theSingleJudgereferredtoart.2par.1oftheProceduralRulesandobservedthatinaccordancewithart.23par.1incombinationwithart.22lit.b)oftheRegulationsontheStatusandTransferofPlayers(May2022edition),theDisputeResolutionChamberiscompetenttodealwiththematteratstake,whichconcernsanemployment-relateddisputewithaninternationaldimensionbetweenanAlgerianplayerandanEmiraticlub. 3.Subsequently,theSingleJudgeanalysedwhichregulationsshouldbeapplicableastothesubstanceofthematter.Inthisrespect,itconfirmedthat,inaccordancewithart.26par.1and2oftheRegulationsontheStatusandTransferofPlayers(May2023edition),andconsideringthatthepresentclaimwaslodgedon28June2023,theMay2023editionofsaidregulations(hereinafter:theRegulations)isapplicabletothematterathandastothesubstance. b.Burdenofproof 4.TheSingleJudgerecalledthebasicprincipleofburdenofproof,asstipulatedinart.13par.5oftheProceduralRules,accordingtowhichapartyclaimingarightonthebasisofanallegedfactshallcarrytherespectiveburdenofproof.Likewise,theSingleJudgestressedthewordingofart.13par.4oftheProceduralRules,pursuanttowhichitmayconsiderevidencenotfiledbytheparties,includingwithoutlimitationtheevidencegeneratedbyorwithintheTransferMatchingSystem(TMS). c.Meritsofthedispute 5.Itscompetenceandtheapplicableregulationshavingbeenestablished,theSingleJudgeenteredintothemeritsofthedispute.Inthisrespect,theJudgestartedbyacknowledgingalltheabove-mentionedfactsaswellastheargumentsandthedocumentationonfile. However,theSingleJudgeemphasisedthatinthefollowingconsiderationsitwillreferonlytothefacts,argumentsanddocumentaryevidence,whichitconsideredpertinentfortheassessmentofthematterathand. i.Mainlegaldiscussionandconsiderations 6.TheJudgefirstnotedthatthematteratstakeconcernsoutstandingremunerationarisingfromasettlementagreementconcludedbetweentheparties. 7.Inparticular,theJudgenotedthattheClaimantrequestedthepaymentofUSD45,000,correspondingtothelastinstalmentofthe