Main menu

Pages

After the decision of the Sports Court .. Zamalek clarifies the legal position in the Al-Naqaz case


The Zamalek club management announced that the Sports Court “Cas” had accepted the first request in the Zamalek appeal against the player Hamdi Al-Naqaz, which is estimated at one million and 300 thousand dollars, and rejected the counter-complaint that the club obtained one million and 900 thousand dollars in compensation from the player.


For his part, Nasr Azzam, Zamalek’s legal advisor for FIFA affairs, confirmed through the club’s official website, that the Sports Court held a hearing on January 14, 2020, in which it listened to the pleas and requests of the Zamalek club.


He added that the settlement that was made with the player before the issuance of the ruling and his waiver of the full value of the fine, was a guarantor for the club that the player would not receive any amounts, in the event of a final ruling supporting or reducing the fine, which was already achieved by accepting the appeal of Zamalek in part against the decision FIFA issued in favor of the player.


In the same context, “The Seventh Day” obtained a photocopy of the reasons explained by the International Sports Court in its ruling to cancel the fining ruling of Zamalek in the case of the Tunisian Hamdi Al-Naqaz, the right-back of the team, after accepting the appeal submitted by Zamalek about a year ago. The case was brought by the Egyptian lawyer Ahmed Abdel-Fattah, then the Italian lawyer Salvatore followed up the case, and the reasons were as follows:


97. With regard to this last point, the Panel notes that the declaration does not indicate specific due dates for payments. The only reference to the payment plan is: "The remaining amount is divided equally over 10 months." However, this wording is ambiguous as to whether the ten-month period is understood to run from August through May of each season, and not from September through June, an equally plausible scenario. It also remains unclear whether payments are set on the first or last day of each month. In this sense, the terms of the declaration are very vague and open-ended as to the supposed due dates and months of payments. Thus, it cannot be understood as aiming to create concrete and binding payment obligations on the club in a way that supersedes the employment contract.



98. In conclusion, the Panel found no evidence or any other strong indication to support the suggestion that the declaration was signed after the employment contract with the intent of canceling, amending or completing the terms of payment modalities in a final and binding manner. and due dates of salary payments to the player. Hence, the club's obligations to the player will only be determined by reference to the employment contract of January 27, 2018, which, in the Committee's understanding, is the only effective and binding contractual document in their dispute. On this basis, the next salary payment due to the player was imminent on January 15, 2020.


99 - In light of all of the above, the player cannot rely on the announcement as a contractual basis for his alleged entitlement to four monthly salary payments from August to November 2019. His claim for four overdue salaries is therefore invalid and does not lead to a legitimate reason for termination of the employment contract. Therefore, the $109,676 payment request must be denied and the appealed decision must be modified accordingly.


100. On a related matter, the Tribunal considers paragraph 14 bis. 2 of FIFA RSTP is not related to this dispute. Firstly, there are no late payments, and secondly, the player has already received half of his annual wage at the beginning of the season.


101 - Based on the results mentioned in paragraphs 89 and 99 above, the Committee considers that the player did not have a just reason to terminate the employment contract on December 1, 2019 in accordance with Article 14 bis of the FIFA RSTP. Therefore, he is not entitled to any compensation amounts, related.


As a result, the Sports Court decided to amend the decision of Zamalek, which is the appellant, according to those reasons.

reactions

Comments