Mezőkövesd Zsóry FC v. Matija Katanec & FIFA

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND — A. Introduction

5. The present dispute revolves around two decisions rendered by respective bodies of FIFA. The first one has been issued in case file number FPSD-7151 (the “Decision”) by the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (the “FIFA DRC”) in the merits, on 12 April 2023. The grounds for the Decision were received by the Appellant on 17 August 2023. The second one was issued on 17 August 2023 in case file number FDD-15697 by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee as a follow to an alleged non-compliance with the Decision (the “Registration Ban Decision”).

6. The Decision pertains to a contractual dispute between the Appellant and the First Respondent, and it concerns the termination of the Player’s employment contract and the consequent financial claim for unpaid remuneration and breach of contract compensation. The Ban Decision introduces a ban from registering new players internationally.

7. The pertinent facts and allegations based on the Parties’ written submissions and on the CAS file are summarized below. References to additional facts and allegations found in the Parties’ written and oral submissions and evidence will be made, where relevant, in connection with the legal analysis that follows. While the Panel has considered all the facts, allegations, legal arguments, and evidence submitted by the Parties in the present proceedings, it refers in its award only to those submissions and evidence it deems necessary to explain its reasoning.

B. Background facts

8. On 1 July 2021, the Player and the Club signed an employment contract in effect between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2023 (the “Contract”). According to the Contract, the Club undertook to pay the Player a monthly salary of Hungarian Forint (HUF) 3,000,000.

v. Matija Katanec & FIFA - Page 3

9. Article II para. 10 of the Contract establishes that: "the professional management or the management of the Employer may determine in his/her sole discretion at what team -or in line with the content of sub-point 8.a) -individually, or otherwise shall the Employee perform his/her training work, or in the matches of what team he/she is obliged to participate."

10. Article XI paras. 47 and 49 of the Contract, stipulate as follows:

“47. The Employee acknowledges that if he/she is not included in the first team of the Employer, or based on the decision of the professional management he/she is transferred to the second or further teams of the Employer, his/her base wage will be reduced to the percentage determined in the Personal Conditions of the amount given in point 15 - but to max. its 50 % • from the 15th day of the month following the decision.”

“49. The Parties agree that they shall make efforts to settle their possible dispute in amicable way by negotiations. If these efforts fail - in cases determined by the rules of MLSZ and FIFA - the Parties may turn to the organizational units with MLSZ or FIFA scope of authority, in case of labour dispute to the Administrative and Labour Court having competence and scope of authority, and in all other disputes arising out of their legal relationship the Parties stipulate the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sports Standing Arbitration Court based on the Article 4 7 of the Sports Law. The number of arbitrators is three; the procedure is determined by the Procedural Rules of the Arbitration Court.”

11. Article XII of the Contract, inter alia, stipulates as follows:

“Parties agree that if the employee will not play at least the 50% of the league games (at least 720 minutes in the season) in the season of 2021/2022 the employer has the option to terminate this contract until the 30th of June, 2021. Employer has to notify the employee until the 15th of June, 2021.

The Parties agree that the Employee shall work in time framework and in unequal working time. The Employee acknowledges that the Employer determines his working time in a six months' time frame, based on the 8 hours daily working time. Within the working time framework, the professional management of the Employer has the right to distribute the work.”

12. On 8 March 2022, the Club informed the Player, in a letter, that from then on (i.e. as of 8 March 2022) he would be playing for the Club's second team.

13. On 11 March 2022, the Player replied to the Club informing it that he had been taken from "its first team without any reason and without any prior notice which actions of the Respondent constitute abusive behavior", hence he requested that the Club ceases to breach the Contract and immediately reintegrates him into the first team.

14. On 22 April 2022, the Player sent the Club another letter in which he, inter alia, asked the Club to continue paying his full monthly salary and to immediately reintegrate him into the first team’s training process.

15. On 10 June 2022, the Club notified the Player of the following: “you as a professional soccer player would not be the member of the first soccer team of Mezőkövesd Zsóry FC Kft. and in accordance with the decision of the management of Mezőkövesd Zsóry Futball Club

v. Matija Katanec & FIFA - Page 4

starting on the 10th of June 2022, you would become a member of the Mezőkövesd Zsóry II soccer team. From the aforementioned date you are obligated to train together with the Mezőkövesd Zsóry II soccer team."

16. On 4 July 2022, the Player sent the Club a default notice and reiterated his requests to be reintegrated into the first team, to be allowed to rejoin the first team's training process, and to be paid his May 2022 salary, granting the Club a 15-day deadline to comply, however to no avail.

17. On 12 July 2022, the Player sent the Club a final default notice with a 15-day deadline in which he, inter alia, requested that the Club:

i. [to] stop breaching the Employment contract, and

ii. [to] reintegrate him in the training process of the first team of the Club, and

iii. [to] pay him May 2022 salary of net HUF 3,000,000.00 (three million Hungarian Forint), which matured on 10 June 2022, and

iv. [to] pay him June 2022 salary of net HUF 3,000,000.00 (three million Hungarian Forint), which matured (in the meantime) on 10 July 2022.

18. On 28 July 2022, the Player unilaterally terminated the Contract, due to the Club's failure to answer his default notices and its failure to fully comply with his requests (the Club only paid the May 2022 salary of net HUF 3,000,000.00).

19. On 3 August 2022, the Club sent the Player a letter to the effect that:

“We reject in its entirety the terms of Matija Katanec's termination of his contract sent to us on 28th July 2022, and We do not accept the terms of his termination. Matija Katanec seriously breached the Employment Contract between the parties and the rules of employment law applicable to the employment relationship by unlawfully dismissing the applicant.

Matija Katanec particularly breached the Chapter IX 39 point of Employment Contract because He would have been entitled to terminate his employment contract with immediate effect if the Employer is in min. 1,5 month (45 days) delay with the payment of the Employee's wage, and the Employee called upon the Employer to fulfill the contract within 15 (fifteen) days deadline and this date has expired without success.

As previously informed to Matija Katanec in detail on several occasions that his performance during the fall/spring season He could not included to the first team of the MEZŐKÖVESD ZSÓRY FC. The decision of the professional management of MEZŐKÖKÖVESD ZSÓRY FC according to which Matija Katanec obliged to train with the second team of MEZŐKÖVESD ZSÓRY FC and to play in its matches is a temporary measure, which would have lasted only until Matija Katanec was fit and healthy enough to return to the first team.”

v. Matija Katanec & FIFA - Page 5

20. According to the FIFA Transfer Matching System, the Player signed with the Croatian club, NK Varazdin, for the period between 23 August 2022 and 15 June 2023 at a monthly salary of HRK 33,000. The contract was mutually terminated on 10 January 2023.

21. The Player then signed with the Romanian club, Politehnica Lasi, for the period between 15 January 2023 and 15 June 2023 at a monthly salary of RON 24,630.

C. Proceedings before FIFA

22. On 22 August 2022, the First Respondent lodged a claim against the Appellant before FIFA. The First Respondent claimed just cause for terminating the Contract, citing financial breaches and exclusion from team training by the Appellant. The relief sought included a declaration of just cause termination, payment of net HUF 5,709,677.60 in outstanding amounts, net HUF 33,290,322.40 in compensation, provision of tax certificates, and a 5% per year default interest on the overdue amounts.

23. On 13 September 2022, the Appellant asserted that the Hungarian law governs the employment relationship, contending that it is the Miskolc Labour Court, rather than FIFA, that holds jurisdiction over the case. Moreover, it maintained that the Player's removal from the first team was a temporary measure due to health concerns, and that he had been informed about his transfer to the second team until meeting the required fitness levels. The Appellant argued that it had not breached the Contract, emphasizing that the salary delay was within the acceptable limits upon termination. The Appellant refuted any salary reduction allegations, asserting that it had fulfilled its payment obligations. Finally, the Appellant requested that the proceedings before FIFA be discontinued, urging reliance on the Contract and on the Hungarian labour law, and if the proceedings were to continue, it sought rejecting the Player’s claim in its entirety and reimbursing for the associated costs.

24. On 28 October 2022, the First Respondent emphasized that the Appellant's prayers for relief did not constitute a counterclaim and should be treated as a response to the Player's claim. The First Respondent rejected all of the Club’s allegations as unfounded attempts to avoid payment. After receiving the outstanding remuneration of net HUF 5,709,677.60, the First Respondent revised the relief sought, emphasizing just cause termination, default interest, breach of contract compensation of net HUF 33,290,322.40, tax certificates, and sporting sanctions against the Appellant. The First Respondent requested that the FIFA Football Tribunal reject all prayers for relief sought by the Club.

25. On 14 November 2022, the Appellant contested the Player’s argument that the counterclaim dated 13 September 2022 should not be deemed as such. The Appellant maintained that its counterclaim precisely outlined the factual and legal circumstances, urging the FIFA DRC to reject the Player's unestablished claim based on specific grounds. The Appellant reiterated its request to discontinue the proceedings or reject the Player’s claim, qualifying the dispute as a labour matter governed by the Contract and the Hungarian labour law, and prayed that the First Respondent cover the costs if the FIFA DRC should elect not to terminate or stay the proceedings.

26. On 12 April 2023, the FIFA Tribunal ruled as follows:

v. Matija Katanec & FIFA - Page 6

“1. The Football Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the Claimant, Matija Katanec.

2. The claim of the Claimant, Matija Katanec, is partially accepted.

3. The Respondent, Mezokovesd Zsory FC, must pay to the Claimant the following amount(s):

- only 5% interest p.a. on the late payment of the amount of HUF 3,000,000 as from 11 July 2022 until 19 September 2022;

- only 5% interest p.a. on the late payment of the amount of HUF 2,709,677.60 as from 28 July 2022 until 19 September 2022;

- HUF 25,989,106.58 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause plus 5% interest p.a. as from 28 July 2022 until the date of effective payment.

4. Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.

5. Full payment (including all applicable interest) shall be made to the bank account indicated in the enclosed Bank Account Registration Form.

6. Pursuant to art. 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, if full payment (including all applicable interest) is not made within 45 days of notification of this decision, the following consequences shall apply:

1. The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid. The maximum duration of the ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.

2. The present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee in the event that full payment (including all applicable interest) is still not made by the end of the three entire and consecutive registration periods.

7. The consequences shall only be enforced at the request of the Claimant in accordance with art. 24 par. 7 and 8 and art. 25 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.

8. This decision is rendered without costs.”

27. The Decision, along with its grounds, was communicated to both the Appellant and the First Respondent by way of the notification dated 9 June 2023, but – as transpired later – it was only successfully communicated to the Appellant on 17 August 2023.

28. On 16 August 2023, the Player requested that FIFA impose the sanctions provided for in the Decision pursuant to Article 24 RSTP, as the Club had failed to pay the amounts provided for therein. Given the above, “a ban from registering new players internationally” was imposed on the Appellant as of 17 August 2023 by virtue of the Registration Ban Decision.

v. Matija Katanec & FIFA - Page 7

29. On 24 August 2023, the Appellant decided to appeal both the Decision and the Registration Ban Decision to CAS, alleging, inter alia, that it had only been notified of the FIFA DRC Decision on 17 August 2023.

30. On 11 September 2023, FIFA confirmed that even though the grounds for the FIFA DRC Decision were uploaded to the Legal Portal on 9 June 2023, they only became visible to the Appellant on 17 August 2023. As a consequence, FIFA lifted the Registration Ban Decision on 8 September 2023. In other words, the Registration Ban Decision ceased to have any effect as of that date.

III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF ARBITRATION FOR SPORT

31. On 24 August 2023, the Appellant filed with CAS the Statement of Appeal against the Decision pursuant to Article 57 (1) of the FIFA Statutes and to Article R47 and Article R48 (1) of the Code of Sports-Related Arbitration (the “CAS Code”) and requested that the appeal be submitted to a sole arbitrator.

32. On 29 August 2023, the CAS Court Office acknowledged receipt of the Statement of Appeal and provided the other Parties with a copy. The Respondents were also invited to inform the CAS Court Office, within five days following receipt of the letter, whether they agree to the appointment of a sole arbitrator.

33. On 30 August 2023, the Second Respondent informed that it agrees to submitting the matter to a sole arbitrator, appointed by the President of the CAS Appeals Division if he/she is selected from the football list, as provided for in Article R54 of the CAS Code. That letter was acknowledged by the CAS Court Office on the same day.

34. On 31 August 2023, the Appellant filed its Appeal Brief pursuant to Article R51 of the CAS Code.

35. On 1 September 2023, the CAS Court Office acknowledged receipt of the Appeal Brief and informed the Respondents that the document is available. Pursuant to Article R55 of the CAS Code, the Respondents were given 20 days to submit their answers.

36. On 1 September 2023, the First Respondent requested to have the deadline to file his position extended until 15 September 2023 and informed that he agrees to submitting the case to a sole arbitrator. On 4 September 2023, the CAS Court Office granted the extension as requested (i.e., until 15 September 2023).

37. On 4 September 2023, the CAS Court Office also informed that the Second Respondent requested, on 1 September 2023, that the deadline to file its answer be set once the Appellant has paid its share of the costs advance. Pursuant to Article R55 (3) of the CAS Code, the deadline for the Second Respondent to file its answer was set aside and a new deadline was to be fixed upon the Appellant’s payment of its share of the costs advance.

38. On 5 September 2023, the CAS Court Office informed that the First Respondent requested, on 4 September 2023, that the deadline to file his answer be set once the Appellant has paid its share of the costs advance. Pursuant to Article R55 (3) of the CAS Code, the deadline for

v. Matija Katanec & FIFA - Page 8

the Second Respondent to file its answer was set aside and a new deadline was to be fixed upon the Appellant’s payment of its share of the costs advance.

39. On 11 September 2023, the CAS Court Office acknowledged receipt of the First Respondent’s letter of 8 September 2023 in which the First Respondent requests that his matter be submitted to a three-member panel and nominates Mr. Manfred Nan as an arbitrator. Therefore, the CAS Court Office invited the Parties to state their positions on the three-member panel, the costs and the nomination proposal by 14 September 2023.

40. On 12 September 2023, the CAS Court Office acknowledged receipt of the Second Respondent’s letter of 11 September 2023 and noted that the Registration Ban Decision was lifted on 8 September 2023 and the Appellant is requested, by 15 September 2023, to state whether it withdraws its challenge against the FIFA letter which implemented the Registration Ban Decision and whether it maintains its appeal against the Decision.

41. On 14 September 2023, the CAS Court Office noted that the Appellant – in its letter of 12 September 2023 – objects to the First Respondent’s request to submit the present proceedings to a three-member panel. It was also noted that the Appellant withdraws its challenge against the FIFA letter which implemented the Registration Ban Decision but maintains its appeal against the Decision. The Respondents were invited to ignore the deadline set in the CAS letter of 29 August 2023 and the following deadline extension.

42. That same day, the First Respondent confirmed that he will cover his share of the costs advance in this matter if it should be referred to a three-member panel, and the CAS Court Office communicated the First Respondent’s letter on that to the other Parties.

43. Also that same day, the Second Respondent informed that FIFA does not object to the First Respondent’s request to submit this matter to a three-member panel and to the nomination of Mr. Manfred Nan as an arbitrator, which was noted by the CAS Court Office on 15 September 2023.

44. On 19 September 2023, the CAS Court Office informed that pursuant to Article R50 (1) of the CAS Code, the Deputy Division President decided to submit this matter to a threemember panel, provided that the First Respondent pays his share of the costs advance. Therefore, the Appellant was invited to nominate an arbitrator by 25 September 2023.

45. On 26 September 2023, the CAS Court Office noted that the Appellant, in its letter of 25 September 2023, nominates Mr. Michele A.R. Bernasconi as an arbitrator in this matter.

46. On 6 October 2023, the CAS Court Office provided the Parties with the copies of both “Arbitrators’ Acceptance and Statement of Independence” forms completed by the nominated arbitrators and informed that the Parties may challenge the arbitrator nomination pursuant to Article R34 of the CAS Code.

47. On 24 October 2023, the CAS Court Office informed that the Appellant and the First Respondent have both paid their shares of the costs advance and, therefore, set a 20-day deadline for the Respondents to submit their answers in this matter.

48. On 1 November 2023, the CAS Court Office noted that no challenges have been filed against the nominations of Mr. Michele A.R, Bernasconi and Mr. Manfred Nan.

v. Matija Katanec & FIFA - Page 9

49. On 8 November 2023, the Second Respondent requested a 20-day extension of the deadline to file its Answer, which was noted by the CAS Court Office. Therefore, the Appellant was invited to comment on that request no later than by 9 November 2023, while its silence will be deemed acceptance.

50. On 9 November 2023, the CAS Court Office acknowledged receipt of the First Respondent’s letter of 8 November 2023, in which he requested a 10-day extension of the deadline to file his Answer. Pursuant to Article R32 (2) of the CAS Code, the request was granted.

51. On 10 November 2023, the CAS Court Office noted that the Appellant does not oppose to the Second Respondent’s deadline extension request and, therefore, it was granted, i.e. the Second Respondent was invited to submit its answer by 4 December 2023.

52. On 4 December 2023, the CAS Court Office acknowledged receipt of the Second Respondent’s correspondence regarding the request for an extension of the deadline to submit the Answer by 14 December 2023, which was granted.

53. On 13 December 2023, the CAS Court Office acknowledged receipt of the Respondents’ Answers. The Parties were invited to inform the CAS Court Office, by 20 December 2023, whether they prefer a hearing to be held in this matter and whether they request a case management conference with the Panel. Pursuant to Article R54 of the CAS Code, the Parties were informed that the Panel appointed to decide the case is constituted as follows: President – Prof. Dr. Eligiusz Krześniak, Arbitrators – Mr. Michele A.R. Bernasconi and Mr. Manfred Nan.

54. On 18 December 2023, the CAS Court Office noted that the Appellant – in its letter of 15 December 2023 – did not request holding a hearing in this matter and that the Panel may issue an award based on the Parties’ written submissions.

55. On 21 December 2023, the CAS Court Office acknowledged receipt of the Respondents’ letters of 20 December 2023. The Second Respondent considered that a hearing is not necessary, while the First Respondent preferred for a hearing to be held.

56. On 27 December 2023, the CAS Court Office invited the Parties to indicate their preferences for a hearing in this matter to be held in person or by videoconference.

57. On 28 December 2023, the CAS Court Office noted that the Second Respondent – in its letter of 27 December 2023 – preferred to hold a hearing by videoconference.

58. On 4 January 2024, the CAS Court Office noted that the Appellant – in its letter of 2 January 2024 – preferred to hold a hearing by videoconference.

59. On 8 January 2024, the CAS Court Office noted that the First Respondent – in his letter of 8 January 2024 – preferred to hold a hearing by videoconference.

60. On 12 January 2024, the CAS Court Office notified the Parties that the hearing had been scheduled for 11 March 2024.

61. On 30 January, the CAS Court Office sent the Parties the Order of Procedure, which was returned duly signed by the Parties within the prescribed deadline.

v. Matija Katanec & FIFA - Page 10

62. On 11 March 2024, the scheduled hearing was held by videoconference before the Panel. Apart from the Panel and Mr. Fabien Cagneux, Managing Counsel, the hearing was attended by:

For the Appellant:

- Dr. Ádám Gyökér, Counsel

- Dr. Hajnalka Ritter, Counsel

For the First Respondent:

- Mr. Matija Katanec, Respondent

- Mr. Tomislav Kasalo, Counsel

- Mr. Ivan Ostojić, Counsel

For the Second Respondent

- Mr. Roberto Nájera Reyes, Senior Legal Counsel

63. At the outset of the hearing, the Parties confirmed that they had no objections in respect to the Panel and that the Panel had jurisdiction over the present dispute. In their opening statements, the Parties reiterated the arguments already put forward in their respective written submissions.

64. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Parties expressly stated that they had no objections in respect of the Panel’s formation, nor of their right to be heard and to be treated equally in the arbitration proceedings.

IV. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

65. This section of the Award does not exhaustively list the Parties’ contentions, its aim being to summarize the substance of the Parties’ main arguments. In considering and deciding upon the Parties’ claims in this Award, the Panel has accounted for and carefully considered all of the submissions made and evidence adduced by the Parties, including the allegations and arguments not mentioned in this section of the Award or in the discussion of the claims below.

A. The Appellant’s Position

66. The Appellant’s submissions may, in essence, be summarized as follows:

i. The Club has been denied its right to appeal due to the circumstances of delivering the Decision, the detailed notification of the grounds for the Decision and the Registration Ban Decision.

ii. Emphasizing the international labour law principles and the Contract, the Club argues for Hungarian law's governance due to the work being conducted in Mezőkövesd,

v. Matija Katanec & FIFA - Page 11

Hungary. It asserts clarity of the Contract's jurisdiction clause, exclusively designating the Hungarian Administrative and Labour Court for labour disputes and highlights its mandatory nature for Hungarian football teams. The Club contends that any deviation from the Contract's provisions is invalid, citing CAS jurisprudence (CAS 2022/A/8571) to challenge the FIFA DRC's competence in deciding the employment-related dispute. Summarizing, the Club insists that the Decision violates the exclusive jurisdiction of the Hungarian Administrative and Labour Court. The Appellant is disputing the FIFA DRC's competence in this employment matter.

iii. The Club contends that temporarily transferring the Player to the second team aligns with the terms of the Contract, emphasizing that the Club provided detailed reasons for the decision. The Club argues that the transfer was a lawful and justified measure, citing the compulsory nature of the Contract terms established by the Hungarian Football Federation. The measure was explicitly temporary, of which the Player had been well aware, as the Appellant had been continuously assuring him about the first team's reliance on his contributions. The Club maintains that it would consistently acknowledge the Player’s value and communicate the temporary nature of the transfer, aiming at his return to the first team.

iv. The Club asserts that the immediate termination initiated by the Player was unlawful, as the Club was not in default of any payment, a prerequisite for such termination according to the Contract and the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (“FIFA RSTP”). The Appellant asserts that when the Contract was terminated, the payment was only 18 days late, concluding that the First Respondent had no legitimate reason to terminate the Contract so abruptly. Despite ongoing verbal communications, the Player opted for exchanging notice letters instead of cooperating with his employer.

v. The Appellant contends that the Player breached the Contract in that he did not make every effort to improve his physical condition and perform at his best, as he scored well below the team average in the physical and health assessment.

vi. Additionally, the Club opposes the Player’s compensation claim, requesting information on his contract with NK Varazdin to determine the appropriate deductions. The Appellant questions the realism of the Player’s claim in that regard and notes the absence of any contractual provisions having been referenced.

vii. The Club contends that it upheld all of its contractual obligations, adhering to FIFA and Hungarian Football Federation regulations and legal provisions, and it did not obstruct the Player’s ability to continue his employment.

67. In its Appeal Brief, the Appellant submitted the following requests for relief [verbatim transcription]:

“The Appellant kindly requests the CAS:

1., annuls and set aside in its entirety the Decision issued by the Council of the FIFA DRC (Ref. Nr. FPSD-7151) received on 17th August 2023 having regard Matija Katanec had his employment terminated unlawfully and in the labour law dispute the Hungarian national

v. Matija Katanec & FIFA - Page 12

labor court has jurisdiction according to the Employment Contract between the Parties and the stipulated law

2., determine that the decision of the FIFA DRC FPSD 7151 was not communicated to MEZŐKÖVESD ZSÓRY FC within the time-limit set by FIFA and FIFA therefore infringed the to MEZŐKÖVESD ZSÓRY FC's right to apply for judicial review and unlawfully imposed sanctions as a legal consequence

3., annuls and set aside in its entirety the Decision issued by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee (Ref. no. FDD-15697) on 17th August 2023 having regard to the fact that our appeal against the decision under case number FPSD 7151 has not yet been considered in the present proceedings, and that therefore no sanction or decision can be imposed as a result.

4., grants the relief sought by Appellant,

5., release the Appellant from the financial obligation to pay laid down in the Decision issued by the Council of the FIFA DRC (Ref.Nr. FPSD-7151),

6., suspend the execution issued by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee (Ref. no. FDD-15697) on 17th August 2023 given that the notification of the grounds of the decision under case number FPSD 7151 has not been sent to the MEZŐKÖVESD ZSÓRY FC before as of 17th August 2023 neither by e-mail nor by FIFA Legal Portal, therefore, the contested decision cannot be final and binding, since the Appellant did not have the opportunity to exercise right of appeal earlier than 17th August 2023

7., to charge all costs of these proceedings to Matija Katanec, FIFA.”

B. The First Respondent’s Position

68. The First Respondent’s submissions may be summarized as follows:

i. The Player does not contest CAS’ jurisdiction in this matter according to the applicable CAS Code and FIFA Statutes, and in his opinion, the FIFA Regulations shall be primarily applicable to the substance of this matter, as it was rightfully sustained in the Decision, along with the subsidiarily applicable Swiss law.

ii. The First Respondent argues that FIFA has jurisdiction over international employment disputes, unless the parties opt for a national arbitration tribunal. The Player challenges the Club's interpretation of the Arbitration Clause, asserting it provides alternative forums, including FIFA. He emphasizes that filing the claim before FIFA was a binding choice. The Player questions the Club's lack of evidence for bringing the matter before an unspecified court and cites CAS jurisprudence supporting FIFA's jurisdiction. He contends that any contractual ambiguity should be interpreted against the Club. Ultimately, the Player asserts that FIFA was competent due to the international nature of the dispute and his choice of forum.

iii. As to the salary payment and the Contract termination, the Player challenges the Club's assertion that a 45-day salary payment delay was necessary for unilateral termination. He cites specific clauses from the Contract and the FIFA Regulations, emphasizing that

v. Matija Katanec & FIFA - Page 13

the Club's failure to fully comply with his financial requests, as outlined in the default letter, constituted just cause for termination under the FIFA Regulations.

iv. Concerning his exclusion from the first team, the Player disputes the Club's argument that such exclusion was a temporary measure, presenting evidence that it lasted for almost five months. He argues that the Club's statements about his alleged poor physical performance were unfounded, especially considering he was fit and not injured during the exclusion period.

v. The Player cites relevant provisions from the Contract, FIFA RSTP, and CAS jurisprudence to support his position. He underscores the mandatory nature of certain FIFA RSTP provisions, such as the requirement for clubs to fully remedy any salary payment default within 15 days to avoid players unilaterally terminating their contracts.

vi. The Player argues that the Club's conduct, including persistent exclusion and failure to comply with financial obligations, amounted to a breach of contract. He asserts that such behaviour not only violated FIFA RSTP, but also his personal right to train and play with the first team, constituting a "per se" just cause for contract termination.

vii. Concluding, the Player contends that the Club's actions, both in terms of financial obligations and exclusion from the first team, provided him with legitimate grounds to terminate the Contract with just cause, as per FIFA Regulations and established CAS jurisprudence. Consequently, the Player contends that the Club is now obligated to make the payments determined in the Decision.

69. In the Answer to the Appeal Brief, the First Respondent submitted the following requests for relief [verbatim transcription]:

“In view of the foregoing, the First Respondent respectfully requests the honorable CAS Panel:

- to deem the Appeal as inadmissible,

- to order the Appellant to pay all the costs of the proceedings before CAS, and

- to order the Appellant to pay a significant contribution towards the legal fees and other expenses incurred by the First Respondent in connection with these proceedings of at least CHF 10,000.00.

or, in the event that the Appeal shall not be deemed as inadmissible:

- to reject all reliefs sought by the Appellant in its Requests for Relief from the Appeal Brief, and

- to order the Appellant to pay all the costs of the proceedings before CAS, and

- to order the Appellant to pay a significant contribution towards the legal fees and other expenses incurred by the First Respondent in connection with these proceedings of at least CHF 10,000.00.”

v. Matija Katanec & FIFA - Page 14

C. The Second Respondent’s Position

70. The Second Respondent’s submissions may be summarized as follows:

i. The jurisdiction of the CAS over the Appellant's appeal, as per Article 57 (1) of the FIFA Statutes and Article R47 of the CAS Code, is undisputed, with the Second Respondent not contesting the admissibility of the appeal against the Decision, which became available to the Club on 17 August 2023. Nevertheless, FIFA considers the appeal against the Registration Ban Decision moot, since the ban was lifted on 8 September 2023, rendering the decision ineffective as of that date.

ii. FIFA rebuts the Club’s allegations, asserting the Contract's non-exclusive jurisdiction, dismissing lis pendens, and demonstrating the Player's just cause due to the Club's abusive conduct.

iii. Due to FIFA confirming that the Decision was not accessible for the Appellant until 17 August 2023, and the subsequent lifting of the Registration Ban Decision, rendering it moot, the Second Respondent asserts that the Appellant's requests for relief numbers 2, 3, 4, and 6 are moot.

iv. FIFA asserts its jurisdiction in the dispute between the Appellant and the Club, highlighting Article 22 FIFA RSTP, which establishes FIFA's authority in international disputes. The jurisdiction clause in the Contract is considered unclear and nonexclusive, as it allows filing claims with five different forums, failing to exclude FIFA's competence. FIFA contends that the Parties’ behaviour and communications demonstrate their intention to leave open the possibility of filing claims with FIFA, supporting the Decision to retain jurisdiction. Additionally, FIFA disagrees with conclusions from the award CAS 2022/A/8571, emphasizing the need to consider party intent, reliance, and the principle of interpreting ambiguous clauses against the drafter.

v. The Second Respondent rejects the Appellant's lis pendens claim, asserting that the Appellant has not provided convincing evidence to meet the "triple-identity" criteria, which requires the same parties, object, and facts in other proceedings. Moreover, FIFA emphasizes that even if there was another legal dispute, the Appellant failed to prove the serious reasons required for a stay, highlighting the absence of any serious inconvenience.

vi. FIFA asserts that the dispute falls under its jurisdiction, with its regulations, especially the FIFA Statutes and FIFA RSTP, serving as the applicable law. The Appellant's claim for the Hungarian law to govern the employment relationship is rejected, as FIFA highlights the voluntary submission to FIFA's jurisdiction, implying acceptance of FIFA's regulations and jurisprudence. FIFA emphasizes the consistent global application of its regulations to ensure equal treatment and maintain predictable justice administration in football disputes.

vii. The Second Respondent argues that the Player had just cause to terminate the Contract based on Article 14 of FIFA RSTP, emphasizing the provision allowing termination in case of abusive conduct by a party aiming to force the counterparty to terminate or alter the contract terms. FIFA cites instances of the Club’s abusive behaviour, such as

v. Matija Katanec & FIFA - Page 15

unilaterally demoting the Player to the second team without justifiable reasons and failing to communicate the alleged temporary nature of the demotion. Referring to a similar CAS decision, FIFA contends that the Player's exclusion from the first team, coupled with delayed salary payments, constituted a breach of trust, providing just cause for contract termination. The Club's recurrent pattern of such behaviour only strengthens the Player's case. Consequently, FIFA asserts that the Player had valid grounds to terminate the Contract due to the Club's abusive, bad-faith, and unjustifiable conduct.

viii. The Second Respondent asserts that its involvement in the proceedings is a result of the Appellant's attempt to challenge FIFA’s jurisdiction and discredit its authority. Having established jurisdiction and confirmed the Club's abusive behaviour, FIFA deems the dispute 'horizontal' and expresses disinterest in debating its financial aspects, directing the Panel to uphold the Decision.

ix. Summarizing, FIFA contends that the appeal should be rejected in its entirety.

71. In the Answer to the Appeal Brief, the Second Respondent submitted the following requests for relief [verbatim transcription]:

“Based on the foregoing, FIFA respectfully requests CAS to issue an award on the merits:

(a) rejecting the reliefs sought by the Appellant and dismissing the appeal in full;

(b) confirming the Appealed Decision;

(c) ordering the Appellant to bear the full costs of these arbitration proceedings”.