FIFA - Decisión disputa John 19052023

REF. FPSD-9744

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed on 19 May 2023 regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Oto John John BY: Iñigo Riestra, Mexico

CLAIMANT: Oto John John, Nigeria Represented by Wouter van Zetten

RESPONDENT:

FK Prishtina, Kosovo pg. 2

REF. FPSD-9744

I. Facts of the case

1. On 28 January 2020, the Nigerian player, Oto John John (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant), and the Kosovar club, FK Prishtina (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent), concluded an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2020, with an extension option until 30 June 2022 (hereinafter: the Contract).

2. According to the Contract, the club undertook to pay the player inter alia the

abovementioned amounts: a. EUR 3,000 net as salary from 28 January 2020 until 30 June 2020; b. EUR 4,000 net as salary from 1 July 2020 until 30 June 2022; and c. EUR 150 as accommodation allowance.

3. Article 10 of the Contract reads as follows: “For possible disputes, the competent court is the

Municipal Court of Prishtina”.

4. On 30 January 2023, the player put the club in default and requested payment of his salaries and accommodation allowances from January until April 2022, plus the relevant interest. The player granted the club a 10 days’ deadline to remedy the breach.

II. Proceedings before FIFA

5. On 26 March 2023, the player lodged the claim at hand before FIFA. He requested to be

awarded EUR 16,600 net, broken down as follows: a. EUR 4,000 net as the salary of January 2022 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1

February 2022; b. EUR 4,000 net as the salary of February 2022 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 March 2022; c. EUR 4,000 net as the salary of March 2022 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2022; d. EUR 4,000 net as the salary of April 2022 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2022; e. EUR 150 as accommodation allowance of January 2022 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 February 2022; f. EUR 150 as accommodation allowance of February 2022 plus 5% interest p.a. as pg. 3 REF. FPSD-9744 from 1 March 2022; g. EUR 150 as accommodation allowance of March 2022 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 April 2022; and h. EUR 150 as accommodation allowance of April 2022 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 May 2022.

6. On 27 April 2023, the club filed its reply to the claim of the player. In doing so, it referred to article 10 of the Contract and objected to the jurisdiction of the Football Tribunal to adjudicate on the matter. In particular, the club argued that such provision is a clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the ordinary courts, hence the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber does not have competence to enter into the merits of the dispute at hand.

III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

a. Competence and applicable legal framework

7. First of all, the Single Judge of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 26 March 2023

and submitted for decision on 19 May 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.

8. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP) (March 2022 edition), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is – in principle – competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Nigerian player and a Kosovar club.

9. At this point, the Single Judge acknowledged however that the club challenged FIFA’s competence to hear the dispute based on the content of art. 10 of the Contract.

10. With the above in mind, the Single Judge went on carefully analysing the wording of such clause, which reads as follows in verbis: “For possible disputes, the competent court is the Municipal Court of Prishtina”. pg. 4

REF. FPSD-9744

11. In doing so, the Single Judge outlined that the parties have unambiguously and exclusively decided that any dispute that would arise from the Contract would be submitted to the courts of Prishtina, Kosovo.

12. The Single Judge recalled that parties may freely agree to give jurisdiction to a civil court, and that such choice shall prevail. In fact, the Single Judge, recalling the jurisprudence of the Football Tribunal and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in this regard, highlighted that even if the choice of law does not specify which courts are competent (e.g., a generic reference is made to a region/city), FIFA is not competent when the parties have exclusively

agreed upon the jurisdiction of a civil court. In addition, the Single Judge emphasized that art. 22 caput of the FIFA RSTP provides a clear hierarchy in favour of contractual autonomy.

13. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain the matter at hand.

14. Lastly, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “Procedures are free of charge where at least one of the parties is a player, coach, football agent, or match agent”. Accordingly, he decided that no procedural costs were to be imposed on the parties.

15. Likewise, and for the sake of completeness, the Single Judge recalled the contents of art. 25 par. 8 of the Procedural Rules, and decided that no procedural compensation shall be awarded in these proceedings. pg. 5

REF. FPSD-9744

IV. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The Football Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant, Oto John

John.

2. This decision is rendered without costs.

For the Football Tribunal: Emilio García Silvero Chief Legal & Compliance Officer pg. 6

REF. FPSD-9744

NOTE RELATED TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURE: According to article 57 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) within 21 days of receipt of the notification of this decision.

NOTE RELATED TO THE PUBLICATION: FIFA may publish this decision. For reasons of confidentiality, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 17 of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football

Tribunal).

CONTACT INFORMATION

Fédération Internationale de Football Association FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O. Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland www.fifa.com | legal.fifa.com | psdfifa@fifa.org | T: +41 (0)43 222 7777 pg. 7