ARBITRAL AWARD BASKETBALL ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL (BAT)

Transcription

1 ARBITRAL AWARD by the BASKETBALL ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL (BAT) Mr. Stephan Netzle in the arbitration proceedings between Mr. Kaloyan Ivanov c/o Mr. Miodrag Raznatovic, Strahinjica bana 18, Belgrade, Serbia Mr. Novica Velickovic c/o Mr. Miodrag Raznatovic, Strahinjica bana 18, Belgrade, Serbia - Claimant Claimant 2 - both represented by Mr. Miodrag Raznatovic, attorney at law, Strahinjica bana 18, Belgrade, Serbia vs. Trabzonspor Basketball Kulubu Dernegi Mehmet Ali Yilmaz Tesisleri Ahmet Suat, Özyazici Cad. Havalimani Alti, Trabzon, Turkey - Respondent - represented by Mr. Kayıhan Gedikli, assistant to the General Manager

2 1. The Parties 1.1. The Claimants 1. Mr. Kaloyan Ivanov (hereinafter the Player Ivanov ) is a professional basketball player of Bulgarian nationality. 2. Mr. Novica Velickovic (hereinafter the Player Velickovic ) is a professional basketball player of Serbian nationality. 3. The Claimants are hereinafter also jointly referred to as the Players The Respondent 4. Trabzonspor Basketball Kulubu Dernegi (hereinafter the Club ) is a professional basketball club located in Trabzon, Turkey. 2. The Arbitrator 5. On 20 April 2016, the President of the Basketball Arbitral Tribunal (hereinafter the "BAT"), Prof. Richard H. McLaren, appointed Dr. Stephan Netzle as arbitrator (hereinafter the Arbitrator ) pursuant to Article 8.1 of the Rules of the Basketball Arbitral Tribunal (hereinafter the "BAT Rules"). Neither of the Parties has raised any objections to the appointment of the Arbitrator or to his declaration of independence. 3. Facts and Proceedings 3.1. Summary of the Dispute 6. The dispute concerns open money claims of two Players against the Club. While Player Ivanov claims outstanding bonus payments only, Player Velickovic claims unpaid salaries and bonus payments. Arbitral Award 2/21

3 (a) Player Ivanov 7. On 26 January 2015, Player Ivanov entered into a contract with the Club covering the period from 28 January until 30 June 2015 (hereinafter Player Contract Ivanov ). The Parties agreed on a base salary of EUR 135,000 and on various bonuses payable if the Club s team would reach certain defined goals. 8. In the Request for Arbitration, Player Ivanov requests payment of unpaid bonuses in the total amount of USD 31,000. (b) Player Velickovic 9. On 17 June 2014, Player Velickovic entered into a contract with the Club for the season (hereinafter the Player Contract Velickovic ). The parties agreed on a base salary of USD 640,000 net and on various bonuses payable if the Club s team would reach certain defined goals. 10. On 20 May 2015, Player Velickovic and the Club entered into a new player contract for the following season (hereinafter the Player Contract Velickovic ). For that season, the salary of Player Velickovic was agreed at USD 472,500 net, payable in monthly instalments. Player Velickovic was again entitled to specific bonuses payable if the Club s team would reach certain defined goals. 11. On 22 February 2016, Claimants representative sent an to the Club by which he enquired about outstanding Player Velickovic s salaries and bonuses in the total amount of USD 187,250. There is no response of the Club to this letter on record. 12. On 26 February 2016, Claimants representative sent another to the Club by which he terminated the Player Contract Velickovic and requested from the Club the payment of the outstanding salaries and bonuses and future payments in the total amount of USD 333,750. Arbitral Award 3/21

4 13. On 29 February 2016, Player Velickovic and Partizan Basketball Club Belgrade ( Partizan ) signed a so-called Annex to the contract valid until the end of the season (the Partizan Contract ). The Partizan Contract provides for a total salary of the Player Velickovic of EUR 21,000 net. 14. In the Request for Arbitration, Player Velickovic requests payment of unpaid salaries and bonuses in the total amount of USD 310,000 which takes the alternative salary as agreed in the Partizan Contract into account The Proceedings before the BAT 15. On 18 March 2016, the Claimants filed a joint Request for Arbitration in accordance with the BAT Rules which was received by the BAT on 22 March A nonreimbursable handling fee of EUR 4,000 was received in the BAT bank account on 22 March By Procedural Order of 21 April 2016, the BAT Secretariat confirmed receipt of the Request for Arbitration and informed the Parties about the appointment of the Arbitrator. Furthermore, a time limit was fixed for the Club to file its Answer in accordance with Article 11.2 of the BAT Rules by no later than 18 May The BAT Secretariat also requested that the Parties pay the following amounts as Advance on Costs by no later than 6 May 2016: Claimant 1 (Mr Kaloyan Ivanov) EUR 1, Claimant 2 (Mr Novica Velickovic) EUR 4, Respondent (Trabzonspor) EUR 5, By Procedural Order of 19 May 2016, the BAT Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Claimants shares of the Advance on Costs and informed the Parties about the Respondent s failure to submit the Answer to the Request for Arbitration and to pay its share of the Advance on Costs. The BAT Secretariat also notified the Parties that the arbitration would not proceed until the full amount of the Advance on Costs was received and invited the Claimants to pay the Respondent s share of the costs by no Arbitral Award 4/21

5 later than 30 May On 20 May 2016, the BAT Secretariat received EUR 4,000 paid by Player Velickovic and EUR 1, paid by Player Ivanov. 18. By Procedural Order of 6 June 2016, the BAT Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Club s Answer of 24 May On the same day, the Arbitrator invited the Players to comment on the Club s Answer and to respond to certain questions by no later than 16 June On 1 July 2016, the BAT Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Players submissions in accordance with the Procedural Order of 6 June 2016 and invited the Club to comment on the Players reply by no later than 11 July The Club did not provide any comments. 20. On 4 August 2016 the BAT Secretariat invited the Parties to submit their accounts of costs. The Players representative provided their account of costs on 8 August 2016 while the Club neither submitted an account of costs nor commented on the Players account of costs. 4. The Positions of the Parties 4.1. The Claimants Position (a) Player Ivanov 21. Player Ivanov did not receive the agreed bonuses for reaching the league play-offs (USD 10,000), the league play-offs semi-finals (USD 10,000) and the Euro Challenge final four (USD 10,000). This amounts to a total of USD 30, Article 1 para. 4 of the Player Contract Ivanov corresponds to the Rules of the Turkish Basketball League (TBL) which stipulate that a player who transfers from one Turkish club to another Turkish club has to pay a buyout payment to the previous club (whether or not the contract with the previous club has expired). Claimants representative restricted the original amount of USD 200,000 to USD 10,000. The TBL Rules have Arbitral Award 5/21

6 changed during the season so that it is now possible for a player to move to another club without paying a buyout payment. Therefore, there is no logic behind such a rule and it should not apply in this case. 23. Player Ivanov claims interest at the applicable Swiss statutory rate on USD 30,000 from 1 July (b) Player Velickovic 24. Player Velickovic did not receive the amount of USD 65,000 due under the Player Contract Velickovic This amount corresponds to the bonuses for reaching the league play-offs (USD 25,000), for reaching the league play-offs semi-finals (USD 10,000), for advancing from the group stage of Euro Challenge (USD 10,000), for reaching the Euro Challenge final four (USD 10,000), and for reaching the Euro Challenge final (USD 10,000). 25. Player Velickovic did not receive salaries and a bonus in the amount of USD 122,250 due under to the Player Contract Velickovic , namely a part of the December 2015 salary (USD 10,000), the entire January 2016 salary (USD 61,750), the entire February 2016 salary (USD 40,500) and the bonus for reaching the Turkish Cup final eight (USD 10,000). Because of the Club s payment delay, the Player terminated the Contract Velickovic by of 26 February Despite the termination of the Player Contract Velickovic , the Club remained fully liable for the payment of the contractually agreed salaries for the season Therefore, Player Velickovic is entitled to the remaining salary for the season in the total amount of USD 146,500, consisting of the monthly salaries for March (USD 40,500), April (USD 40,500) and May 2016 (USD 65,500). Player Velickovic signed a new contract with Partizan with an agreed salary of EUR 21,000 (= USD 23,750) for the season It is accepted that this salary has to be deducted from his claim against the Club. Arbitral Award 6/21

7 27. Player Velickovic claims interest at the applicable Swiss statutory rate on USD 65,000 since 1 July 2015 and on USD 245,000 since 1 March The Claimants Request for Relief 28. The Request for Arbitration of 18 March 2016 contains the following Request for Relief: Claimants' requests: a) To award claimant Kaloyan Ivanov with amount of USD and additionally to award claimant's interest on this amount at the applicable Swiss statutory rate, starting from the 1st July of b) To award claimant Novice Velickovic with amount of USD. Additionally to award claimant's interest on USD at the applicable Swiss statutory rate, starting from the 1st July of 2015 and to award claimant's interest on USD at the applicable Swiss statutory rate, starting from the 1st March of 2016 c) To award claimants with the full covered costs of this Arbitration. Having in mind that in case of dispute the agreements set the authority of Basketball Arbitration Tribunal (BAT), therefore, the claimants demand arbitrage of BAT The Club s Position 29. With regard to the merits of the claim, the Club submits the following: a) The Club is not fully convinced that Player Velickovic agreed with Partizan on a salary of USD 23,750 as this compensation is remarkably lower than the salary agreed with the Club for the same period of time. b) The Club accepts that it owes the requested amount to Player Ivanov. Since Player Ivanov plays with BC TOFAS in Turkey in the season, the buyout payment obligation of Article 1 para. 4 of the Player Contract Ivanov applies which means that USD 10,000 must be deducted from the otherwise due amount. Arbitral Award 7/21

8 4.4. The Club s Request for Relief 30. The Club did not formulate a specific request for relief. The Arbitrator understands, however, that the Club basically agrees that the amounts claimed by the Players are due but that in the case of Player Velickovic, a higher alternative salary which the latter must have received from Partizan should be deducted, and that in case of Player Ivanov a buy-out fee of USD 10,000 must be deducted. 5. Jurisdiction 31. Pursuant to Article 2.1 of the BAT Rules, [t]he seat of the BAT and of each arbitral proceeding before the Arbitrator shall be Geneva, Switzerland. Hence, this BAT arbitration is governed by Chapter 12 of the Swiss Act on Private International Law (PILA). 32. The jurisdiction of the BAT presupposes the arbitrability of the dispute and the existence of a valid arbitration agreement between the Parties. 33. The Arbitrator finds that the dispute referred to him is of a financial nature and is thus arbitrable within the meaning of Article 177(1) PILA. 34. The jurisdiction of the BAT over the dispute results from the arbitration clauses contained in Article 7 of the Player Contract Ivanov and Article 7 of the Player Contracts Velickovic and which read as follows: Any dispute arising from or related to the present contract shall be submitted to the Basketball Arbitral Tribunal (BAT) in Geneva, Switzerland and shall be resolved in accordance with the BAT Arbitration Rules by a single arbitrator appointed by the BAT President. The seat of the arbitration shall be Geneva, Switzerland. The arbitration shall be governed by Chapter 12 of the Swiss Act on Private International Law [PIL], irrespective of the parties domicile. The language of the arbitration shall be English. The arbitrator shall decide the dispute ex aequo et bono. Arbitral Award 8/21

9 35. The Player Contracts Ivanov and Velickovic and are in written form and thus the arbitration agreements fulfil the formal requirements of Article 178(1) PILA. 36. The Arbitrator considers that there is no indication in the file which could cast doubt on the validity of the three arbitration agreements under Swiss law (referred to by Article 178(2) PILA). In particular, the wording [a]ny dispute arising from or related to the present contract in Article 7 of the Player Contract Ivanov and in Article 7 of the Player Contracts Velickovic and covers the present dispute. In addition, neither party objected to the jurisdiction of BAT. 37. For the above reasons, the Arbitrator finds that he has jurisdiction to adjudicate the Claimants claims. 6. Applicable Law ex aequo et bono 38. With respect to the law governing the merits of the dispute, Article 187(1) PILA provides that the arbitral tribunal must decide the case according to the rules of law chosen by the Parties or, in the absence of a choice, according to the rules of law with which the case has the closest connection. Article 187(2) PILA adds that the Parties may authorize the Arbitrators to decide en équité instead of choosing the application of rules of law. Article 187(2) PILA is generally translated into English as follows: the Parties may authorize the arbitral tribunal to decide ex aequo et bono. 39. Under the heading "Applicable Law", Article 15.1 of the BAT Rules reads as follows: Unless the Parties have agreed otherwise the Arbitrator shall decide the dispute ex aequo et bono, applying general considerations of justice and fairness without reference to any particular national or international law. 40. In Article 7 of the Player Contract Ivanov and the Player Contracts Velickovic and , the Parties have explicitly directed and empowered the Arbitrator Arbitral Award 9/21

10 to decide this dispute ex aequo et bono without reference to any other law. Consequently, the Arbitrator will decide the issues submitted to him ex aequo et bono. 41. The concept of équité (or ex aequo et bono) used in Article 187(2) PILA originates from Article 31(3) of the Concordat intercantonal sur l arbitrage of (Concordat), 2 under which Swiss courts have held that arbitrage en équité is fundamentally different from arbitrage en droit : When deciding ex aequo et bono, the arbitrators pursue a conception of justice which is not inspired by the rules of law which are in force and which might even be contrary to those rules In substance, it is generally considered that the arbitrator deciding ex aequo et bono receives the mandate to give a decision based exclusively on equity, without regard to legal rules. Instead of applying general and abstract rules, he must stick to the circumstances of the case at hand In light of the foregoing matters, the Arbitrator makes the following findings That is the Swiss statute that governed international and domestic arbitration before the enactment of the PILA (governing international arbitration) and, most recently, the Swiss Code of Civil Procedure (governing domestic). KARRER, in: Basel commentary to the PILA, 3 rd ed., Basel 2013, Art. 187 PILA N 290. JdT (Journal des Tribunaux), III. Droit cantonal, 3/1981, p. 93 (free translation). POUDRET/BESSON, Comparative Law of International Arbitration, London 2007, N 717, pp Arbitral Award 10/21

11 7. Findings 7.1. Player Ivanov Justified bonus under the Player Contract Ivanov 44. Player Ivanov claims unpaid bonuses for the season in the amount of USD 30,000, i.e. bonuses for reaching the league play-offs (USD 10,000), reaching the league play-offs semi-finals (USD 10,000) and reaching the Euro Challenge final four (USD 10,000). 45. Article 3 (d) of the Player Contract Ivanov reads as follows: [ ] the following bonuses will be paid to the player a) if the team reaches Turkish play off amount of USD b) if the team reaches semi final of Turkish play off amount of USD [...] e) if the team reaches final 4 of Euro challenge cup amount of USD [ ] All the bonuses are net and cumulative. 46. As a matter of fact, the Club s team reached the play-offs semi-finals and the Euro Challenge final four in the season Accordingly, the requirements for the payment of the bonuses are undisputedly met which has also been confirmed by the Club. The Arbitrator therefore finds that Player Ivanov is generally entitled to bonuses in the amount of USD 30,000, subject to the following Deduction of a buyout payment of USD 10, The Club argues that since Player Ivanov is playing for BC TOFAS in Turkey in the season, the buyout payment obligation of Article 1 para. 4 of the Player Contract Ivanov shall apply. 48. Article 1 para. 4 of the Player Contract Ivanov reads as follows: Arbitral Award 11/21

12 If the Player signs for any other Turkish club, after the season 2014/15, he should be bound to pay buy out fee to the Club in the amount of ,00 USD, while if he signs for any club outside of Turkey he should not be bound to pay any buy out to the Club. 49. Undisputedly, Player Ivanov moved from the Club to the Turkish basketball club Trabzonspor after the Season Player Ivanov argues that Article 1 para. 4 of his Player Contract derives from the TBL Rules which provide that a player who is transferred from one to another Turkish club has to pay a buyout payment (whether or not his previous contract expired). Furthermore, the representative of the Player Ivanov confirms that he reduced the original buy-out amount from USD 200,000 to USD 10,000 in the Player Contract Ivanov. Finally, he argues that the TBL Rules have been amended recently and the regulatory buyout payment obligation does no longer apply. Thus, also the buyout payment obligation in the Player Contract Ivanov should be disregarded. 51. When it comes to the mutual rights and obligations of the Parties, the Arbitrator relies on the Player Contract Ivanov. There is no reference in the contract that the TBL Rules should prevail. In addition, the reduction of the buyout amount previously provided by the TBL Rules (USD 200,000) and the contractual buyout amount (USD 10,000) indicates that there was no automatic link between the contractual provision and the TBL Rules. The Arbitrator therefore finds that the contractual provision regarding the buyout fee (Article 1 para. 4) must apply, irrespectively of whether a similar provision in the TBL Rules still exists or has been abandoned. 52. Consequently, the Player Ivanov must accept a deduction of USD 10,000 from his otherwise due bonus payments of USD 30,000. The Club is therefore obliged to pay to the Player Ivanov an amount of USD 20,000. Arbitral Award 12/21

13 7.2. Player Velickovic The Player Contract Velickovic Player Velickovic claims unpaid bonuses for the season in the amount of USD 65,000, consisting of the bonuses for reaching the league play-offs (USD 25,000), for reaching the league play-offs semi-finals (USD 10,000), for advancing from the group stage of Euro Challenge (USD 10,000), for reaching the Euro Challenge final four (USD 10,000) and for reaching the Euro Challenge final (USD 10,000). 54. Article 3 (d) of the Player Contract Ivanov reads as follows: [ ] the following bonuses will be paid to the player a) if the team reaches Turkish play off amount of USD b) if the team reaches semi final of Turkish play off amount of USD [...] i) if the team goes out of the group in Euro challenge cup amount of USD j) if the team reaches final 4 of Euro challenge cup amount of USD k) if the team reaches final game of Euro challenge cup amount of USD [ ] All the bonuses are net and cumulative. 55. The Club s team reached the play-offs semi-finals and the Euro Challenge final in the season Accordingly, the requirements for the payment of the claimed bonuses for the season are undisputedly met. The Club does not dispute that the respective bonus payments are actually due. The Arbitrator therefore finds that the Player Velickovic is entitled to bonuses for the season in the total amount of USD 65, The Player Contract Velickovic Justified termination of the Player Contract Velickovic Player Velickovic submits that he terminated his contract for based on Article 5 para. 5 because the Club had failed to pay certain monthly salaries and bonuses for more than 30 days. Arbitral Award 13/21

14 57. The termination right in Article 5 para. 5 of the Player Contract Velickovic reads as follows: In addition, if any scheduled payment is not received by Player s bank within 30 days of the date due, the Player s performance obligations shall cease. Player shall have the right, at Player s option, to terminate this Agreement. 58. By of 22 February 2016, Player Velickovic (through his lawyer) reminded the Club of his unpaid salaries and bonuses in the amount of USD 187,250. By of 26 February 2016, Player Velickovic (again through his lawyer) notified the Club that no payments had been received to date, that he therefore terminated the Player Contract based on Article 5 para. 5 and that he also requested payment of all future salaries due under his Player Contract The Club did not at the time nor does it now deny that it failed to meet its payment obligations and that Player Velickovic was entitled to terminate his Player Contract In fact, on 26 February 2015, the unpaid part of the December 2015 salary (due by 1 December 2015) and the full January 2016 (due by 1 January 2016) salary were due by more than 30 days. The Arbitrator therefore finds that Player Velickovic was entitled to terminate his Player Contract on 26 February The Player Contract Velickovic shall therefore be deemed having ended on 26 February 2016 (the Termination Date ) Consequences of the termination of the Player Contract Velickovic Player Velickovic requests (a) outstanding salaries for the season ; (b) one unpaid bonus for the season ; (c) future salaries for the remaining contractual term Player Velickovic is entitled to all salaries due on the Termination Date. The outstanding salaries for the season consist of the unpaid part of the December 2015 salary of USD 10,000, the entire salary for January 2016 Arbitral Award 14/21

15 (USD 40,500) and the entire salary for February 2016 (USD 61,750), amounting to USD 112, Player Velickovic then claims an unpaid bonus for the season in the amount of USD 10,000. Article 3 (c) (d) of the Player Contract Velickovic provides for a net bonus of USD 10,000 for if the team reaches final 8 of Turkish cup amount of USD. As a matter of fact, the Club s team reached the final 8 in the Turkish cup Accordingly, the requirements for the payment of a bonus for the season are undisputedly met. The Arbitrator therefore finds that Player Velickovic is entitled to the bonus for reaching the final 8 in the Turkish cup in the amount of USD 10, Finally, Player Velickovic claims all future salaries for the remaining term of his Player Contract According to Article 5 para. 5 of the Player Contract Velickovic , upon justified termination of the Player Velickovic Contract , the Player Velickovic shall have the right to accelerate all future payments required under this Agreement. These future salary payments consist of the salaries for March 2016 (USD 40,500), April 2016 (USD 40,500) and May 2016 (USD 65,500), amounting to USD 146, Deduction of alternative income 64. From the claimed amount, any alternative income which Player Velickovic earned, or could reasonably have been expected to earn, during the remaining term of his Player Contract, must be deducted. On 29 February 2016, Player Velickovic signed the Partizan Contract with an agreed salary of EUR 21,000 (=USD 23,750) for the season Player Velickovic acknowledges that this salary must be deducted from his otherwise awarded compensation. 65. The Club argues that the salary agreed in the Partizan Contract is considerably lower than the salary under the Player Contract Velickovic for the same period of time. The difference is indeed remarkable and it is difficult to accept the the explanation by Velickovic s lawyer that this difference was due to the financial difficulties of Partizan Arbitral Award 15/21

16 and the late arrival of the Player Velickovic. Other reasons may have influenced the Player Velickovic s decision to join Partizan and to accept a lower salary for the rest of the salary as well, namely his desire to return to his home club and the prospect to play for Partizan also in the upcoming season 2016/2017. These additional factors must be taken into consideration when determining the amount which the Player Velickovic could reasonably have earned for the rest of the season. The Arbitrator therefore finds ex aequo et bono that a deduction of half of the open salaries from the Club for the (i.e. USD 73,250) is justified Interest Default interest at the Swiss statutory rate 66. Both Claimants are requesting default interest at the applicable Swiss statutory rate on the awarded amounts. The Swiss statutory default interest rate is 5% p.a. 67. The Player Contracts Ivanov and Velickovic and do not stipulate the obligation to pay interest on overdue amounts. According to standing BAT jurisprudence, default interest can be awarded even if the underlying agreement does not explicitly provide for an obligation to pay interest. This is a generally accepted principle which is embodied in most legal systems. However, it is also generally accepted that the obligee has to request payment of interest from the obligor if not agreed in the underlying agreement in advance or where the contract makes it clear that the parties intended that performance take place at or before a precise point in time. Considering the payment schedules in the Players Contracts, the Arbitrator finds that default interest shall be due. To the extent default interest is awarded, the Arbitrator, deciding ex aequo et bono, follows consistent BAT jurisprudence and considers interest at 5% p.a. to be fair and equitable also in the present case Player Ivanov 68. Player Ivanov claims default interest on the awarded amount (which is USD 20,000), due from 1 July Arbitral Award 16/21

17 69. Article 3 para. 2 of the Player Contract Ivanov reads as follows: The bonuses will be paid to the player, within 15 days from the last game of the club in each particular playing season. 70. The last game of Club s team in the season took place on 3 June Therefore, default interest would be due from 19 June However, the Arbitrator cannot grant higher interest than requested (ne eat iudex ultra petita). He therefore finds that default interest of 5% p.a. on the awarded amount of USD 20,000 is due from 1 July 2015 as requested Player Velickovic Player Contract Velickovic Player Velickovic claims default interest on USD 65,000 from 1 July Article 3 para. 2 of the Player Contract Velickovic reads as follows: The bonuses will be paid to the player, within 15 days from the last game of the club in each particular playing season. 73. The last game of Club s team in the season took place on 3 June Therefore, the default interest on the outstanding season bonuses in the amount of USD 65,000 would be due from 19 June However, as the Arbitrator cannot grant higher interest than requested (ne eat iudex ultra petita). The Arbitrator therefore finds that default interest of 5% on the awarded amount of USD 65,000 is due from 1 July 2015, as requested Player Contract Velickovic Player Velickovic claims default interest on USD 245,000 (i.e. for all past and future salaries due under the contract) from 1 March Arbitral Award 17/21

18 75. The Arbitrator is bound by the Player Velickovic s request regarding the starting date, although the Club s obligation to pay default interest on the monthly instalments and the bonus may have started earlier (see Art. 2.2 and 5.6 of the Velickovic Player Agreement). Thus, the Player Velickovic is entitled to default interest of 5 % on the awarded amount of USD 195,500 since 1 March Arbitral Award 18/21

19 7.4. Summary 76. Player Ivanov shall be entitled to an amount of USD 20,000, consisting of the outstanding bonuses for the season in the amount of USD 30,000 from which the buyout payment in the amount of USD 10,000 is deducted, plus interest of 5% p.a. on USD 20,000 since 1 July Player Velickovic shall be entitled to an amount of USD 260,500, consisting of outstanding season bonuses in the amount of USD 65,000, the outstanding bonus from the season in the amount of USD 10,000, the outstanding salaries of the season in the amount of USD 112,250 and the unpaid salaries of the season in the amount of USD 73,250 plus interest of 5% p.a. on USD 65,000 from 1 July 2015, and on USD 195,500 from 1 March Costs 78. Article 17 of the BAT Rules provides that the final amount of the costs of the arbitration shall be determined by the BAT President and that the award shall determine which party shall bear the arbitration costs and in what proportion; and, as a general rule, shall grant the prevailing party a contribution towards its reasonable legal fees and expenses incurred in connection with the proceedings. 79. On 13 September 2016 considering that pursuant to Article 17.2 of the BAT Rules the BAT President shall determine the final amount of the costs of the arbitration which shall include the administrative and other costs of BAT and the fees and costs of the BAT President and the Arbitrator, and that [t]he fees of the Arbitrator shall be calculated on the basis of time spent at a rate to be determined by the BAT President from time to time, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, including the time spent by the Arbitrator, the complexity of the case and the procedural questions raised the BAT President determined the arbitration costs in the present matter to be EUR 7, Arbitral Award 19/21

20 80. Considering the circumstances and the outcome of this arbitration, the Arbitrator finds it fair that 85 % of the fees and costs of the arbitration be borne by the Club and 15 % shall be borne by the Players. 81. Given that the Advance on Costs of EUR 10,000 was paid by the Claimants as set forth in para. 17 supra, in application of Articles 17.3 of the BAT Rules the Arbitrator decides as follows: a) BAT shall reimburse the remainder of the advance of costs, in the amount of EUR 2, to the Claimants; b) Respondent shall pay EUR 6, to the Claimants 82. The Arbitrator finds that the Respondent shall also pay a contribution to the Claimants reasonable legal fees and expenses. Claimants requested EUR 11,000 for legal representation in addition to the handling fee. Considering the circumstances of this case, the Arbitrator decides that Respondent shall pay jointly to Claimants the amount of EUR 7,650 for their legal fees and expenses, including the handling fee. This amount does not exceed the maximum set forth in Article 17.4 of the BAT Rules for disputes of this value. Arbitral Award 20/21

21 9. AWARD For the reasons set forth above, the Arbitrator decides as follows: 1. Trabzonspor Basketball Kulubu Dernegi is ordered to pay to Mr. Kaloyan Ivanov the net amount of USD 20, net, plus interest of 5% p.a. on such amount since 1 July Trabzonspor Basketball Kulubu Dernegi is ordered to pay to Mr. Novica Velickovic the amount of USD 260, net, plus interest of 5% p.a. as follows: a. on the amount of USD 65,000 from 1 July 2015, and b. on USD 195,500 from 1 March Trabzonspor Basketball Kulubu Dernegi is ordered to pay jointly to Mr. Kaloyan Ivanov and Mr. Novica Velickovic the amount of EUR 6, as a reimbursement of the advance on arbitration costs. 4. Trabzonspor Basketball Kulubu Dernegi is ordered to pay jointly to Mr. Kaloyan Ivanov and Mr. Novica Velickovic the amount of EUR 7, as a contribution to their legal fees and expenses. Trabzonspor Basketball Kulubu Dernegi shall bear its own legal fees and expenses. 5. Any other or further-reaching claims for relief are dismissed. Geneva, seat of the arbitration, 23 September 2016 Stephan Netzle (Arbitrator) Arbitral Award 21/21