FC Astana v. Laszlo Kleinheisler, NK Osijek

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

5. Below is a summary of the main relevant facts, as established on the basis of the Parties’ submissions and the evidence examined in the course of the present appeal arbitration proceedings. This background information is given for the sole purpose of providing a synopsis of the matter in dispute.

A. The contractual relations between the Parties

6. On 1 July 2017, Astana and the Player concluded an employment contract valid as from the date of its signature until 30 June 2018 (the “Employment Contract”). The Player was entitled to receive a net monthly salary of EUR 40,500 and a one-time “encouragement fee” of EUR 100,000 under the Employment Contract.

7. On 19 March 2018, Astana and the Player signed an addendum for the purpose of extending the Employment Contract until 30 June 2021 (the “Addendum”). The Addendum established that a further “encouragement fee” of EUR 100,000 shall be paid “no later than September 01, 2018” (the “Encouragement Fee”).

8. On 28 November 2018, the Player sent a warning letter to Astana requesting the payment within 8 days from the reception of the letter.

9. On 21 December 2018, the Player sent a legal notice to Astana (the “Legal Notice”) informing that if the payment of the Encouragement Fee was not completed within 15 days from the reception of the Legal Notice, the Player “will terminate [the] Employment Contract with immediate effect”. The last day of the deadline was 9 January 2019.

10. On 10 January 2019, the Player sent a termination notice to Astana informing that the Employment Contract was terminated (the “Termination Notice”).

11. On 11 January 2019, the Player and Osijek concluded an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2022 (the “Osijek Contract”). The Player was entitled to receive a net monthly salary of EUR 10,000.

12. On 14 February 2019, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed a decision granting a provisional registration of the Player with Osijek.

13. Between 12 April 2019 and 22 May 2019, the Parties discussed a settlement offer in order to resolve the dispute amicably. No settlement was reached by the Parties.

B. Proceedings before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber

14. On 17 September 2019, the Player lodged a claim before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (the “FIFA DRC”) requesting to condemn the Appellant to pay him the amount of EUR 915,000.

15. On 25 February 2020, and after Astana provided its response concerning the claim filed by the Player, the FIFA DRC rendered the Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (the “Appealed Decision”), with the following operative part:

“1. The claim of the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent 1, Mr Laszlo Kleinheisler, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent/ Counter-Claimant, Football Club Astana, has to pay to the Claimant/ Counter- Respondent 1 compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 940,500.

3. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant/ Counter-Respondent 1 is rejected.

4. The counter-claim lodged by the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant is rejected.

5. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 is directed to inform the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, immediately and directly […] of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay the amount mentioned under point 2. above.

[…]

7. In the event that the amount due in accordance with point 2. above is not paid by the Respondent/ Counter- Claimant within 45 days as from the notification by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 of the relevant bank details to the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).

8. The ban mentioned in point 7. above will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amount is paid.

9. In the event that the aforementioned sum is still not paid by the end of the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA's Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision”.

16. On 19 May 2020, the grounds of the Appealed Decision were notified to the Parties.

III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CAS

17. On 5 June 2020, the Appellant filed the Statement of Appeal against the First Respondent and the Second Respondent with respect to the Appealed Decision at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (the “CAS”) pursuant to Article R47 and R48 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (2019 edition) (the “CAS Code”).

18. On 15 June 2020, the Appellant filed the Appeal Brief in accordance with Article R51 of the CAS Code, wherein it stated the facts and legal arguments on which the appeal is based, together with the documents and evidences upon which it intended to rely.

19. On 13 August 2020, the CAS notified, on behalf of the Deputy President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division and further to Article R54 of the CAS Code, that the Panel appointed to hear this case was constituted as follows:

President: Mr José María Alonso Puig, Attorney-at-Law, Madrid, Spain

Arbitrators: Mr Michele Bernasconi, Attorney-at-Law, Zurich, Switzerland Mr Gareth Farrelly, Attorney-at-Law, Liverpool, United Kingdom

20. On 18 August 2020, the Second Respondent filed its Answer in accordance with Article R55 of the CAS Code, highlighting the facts and its legal submissions on the matter. It also annexed the documents it intended to rely on in support of its defence.

21. On 19 August 2020, the First Respondent also filed his Answer and the documents he intended to rely on in accordance with Article R55 of the CAS Code, stating the facts and legal arguments on which its defence is based.

22. On the same date, the CAS invited the Parties to inform whether they preferred that a hearing was held. The CAS also noted that the Second Respondent had already advised within its Answer that it considered unnecessary to hold a hearing.

23. On 25 August 2020, the Appellant requested to hold a hearing in this case.

24. On 26 August 2020, the First Respondent informed that he considered unnecessary to hold a hearing. In addition, the First Respondent requested to hold the hearing by videoconference in the event that the Panel finally decided to hold it.

25. On 9 September 2020, the Parties were informed that, pursuant to Article R57 of the CAS Code, the Panel had decided to hold a hearing.

26. On 22 September 2020, the CAS informed the Parties that Mr Luis Bravo Abolafia, Attorneyat-Law in Madrid, Spain, had been appointed as ad hoc Clerk.

27. On 6 November 2020, the Order of Procedure was sent to the Parties, which was duly signed by them. By signing the Order of Procedure, the Parties confirmed their agreement that the hearing was held by videoconference.

28. On 26 November 2020, the hearing was held via videoconference on agreement of all the Parties.

29. At the beginning of the hearing, the Parties informed the Panel that they had reached a preliminary agreement. At the request of the Parties, the Panel adjourned the hearing. On the same day, the Parties confirmed to the Panel that they had reached a full settlement and they requested the Panel to issue a consent award.

30. On 27 November 2020, the Parties sent the settlement agreement duly signed to the Panel.