The dispute before the Labour Court of Nuremberg between André Mijatovic and Greuther Fürth:
The effectiveness of a unilateral renewal option and the adoption of einereinstweiligen available
The message in the press: Large parts of the Club still mourn Defender André Mijatovic, meanwhile, is driving the non-rise of court.
The reason: The sought-after of Cologne and Bielefeld 27-year-old would now be away and complains, however, that the franc by unilateral option extended his expiring contract until 2008. This would contradict existing law but according to Frank Rybak, the lawyer of the Croats. The Nuremberg Labor Court is busy on the 31st of May. If the Croat by Horst Kletke against the win represented SpVgg, this would be a precedent-setting case in football. Because there are customary unilateral options. Yet. (Kicker.de by the 18.5.2007)
The background: The case has significance far beyond the case also. It marks the fact that football player are subject to the same legal principles as regular workers. Many game round mistaking this with few exceptions their consultants, but also directors of clubs taking part in the soccer Federal League game operation. Often hope the actors but also making sure that exactly this knowledge is missing its contractual partner. Legally, the subject is known, decided and implemented by the DFB and the German Soccer League. Unilateral renewal options are ineffective. According to § 622 para 6 of the civil code (BGB), which governs the termination of an employment relationship, a longer period may be agreed for the termination of employment by the employee, as for the termination by the employer. As early as 1971 has the Federal Labor Court (BAG) developed from the general principle, that it is inadmissible, “a unequal termination location to the detriment of a Contracting Party, in particular of the employee to create” and 1989 found that a violation of the standard was already dannanzunehmen, “If the termination of the employee against the employer makes it difficult”. The same is true of course, in a temporary employment contract entered into without exception in professional football. Legally and in fact makes no difference, if it has the employer alone in the hand, the contract to terminate or whether he has the possibility to extend the fixed-term contract unilaterally. That was interested in football until the Bosman from the 15.12.1995 little, because economically employment initially did not at the time of the Beendigungeines defined by the labour law. First after the ECJ the Association-legal way to extend the contract unilaterally and the system of transfer payments, which was more complicated than it has to the public today in memory, declared after the end of the contract term to be incompatible with the EU freedom of movement rules, was the question of the timing of the end of the contract and option to extend the contract through contractual option, important in football. Since then, there are however some employment decisions and legal literature have explained just the unilateral renewal option by clubs over players for ineffective. This has led even the DFB / the DFL has the license right player and the standard work contract underlying most contracts to change. According to §, allowed only a mutual option in favor of the Club and the player is 6 III LO/player. Many believe that a unilateral option at the same time is a violation of the licensing order of DFL – which cannot be hid the DFL because all player contracts there are to be submitted to the registry. However, have a variety of clubs resumed the unilateral option through additional clauses in the contracts, sometimes while in the knowledge of the illegality, but essentially even in bad faith. Just in the interest of testing, Einjahresverträge are often first closed more years with an option for three or four. Which South American or African Player, due to the spatial distance don’t have a longer time rum can be observed or where no safe Prognosemöglich is, whether he is just points to the changed environmental conditions as under the sugar loaf, would probably get the chance in Europe, if the Club would need to commit to him from the outset for at least four years? Him to commit, so that the player or his Adviser in the Bewehrungsfall forget his gratitude and its earned value from this or another Club expensive pay, is not useful only for a year. This is sometimes the reason why players and advisors in the unspoken knowledge of the invalidity of the clause to engage, even knowing that they far have opened up a backdoor so that, because:
The Labour Court Dortmund has pointed out already first also for football in a decision by the 19.5.1998 relating to the violation of the right to freedom of movement with an option to extend it, that the protection of these rights through the Act is subject to the disposition of the parties is undunverzichtbar. That means nothing else than that players willing to Exchange also could rely on the invalidity of the option, if even their knowledge of the invalidity of the clause already can be shown to you at contract signing. Thus, clubs are open to blackmail.However, a trump card in the hand has the right system for the clubs: usually the option can be up to 30.4 be exercised a year. The transfer period ends at the 15.8. During this time, not a German labor court is a final judgment. The system of effective legal protection in the labour law is incomplete for the football industry due to actual conditions. The gap is to be closed due to the possibility of interim relief available for inclusion in the transfer list, which is a prerequisite for a change of the association according to the orders of national football associations and FIFA. An injunction but includes a number of procedural problems involving a number of players have failed. Not without reason have themselves in the past clubs that allowed to leave, that players are in the right, but within the available time not to win their rights. So how common the problem is: money. After the player is, known first as “for sale” the parties initially mutually by the public unnoticed opinion of university professors to be search impression, the player changes at the end against a transfer fee, the issuing association complained that it “can’t keep players willing to Exchange at the end”. Dedicated lawyers recognize such disputes on a series of characters, not least because that with a certain time delay an essay in the press with the note appears “This post is based on a request from the practice”. Even if one reads that the contract of a player a certain time have to extend after the …ten Einsatzum, the same problem is behind it because it of course only the Club and not the player in your hand has to influence the extension of the contract by a changing. And if a player is initially loaned out by a club with a later option to buy, it’s the same vulnerable construct.As a result, one must conclude that a variety of employment contracts in the League are at risk. The often reported planning is thus directly compromised.