Cabinet Bertrand is happy to have been able to assist the Sports and Cultural Association of Garges Djibson Futsal in obtaining the recognition by the Administrative Judge of the quality of training club for Futsal clubs, of a futsal player turned player. professional football.
Review of the facts and the procedure
On the quality of training club for futsal clubs and the pre-training allowance recognized by the Olympic Committee (CNOSF)
At the beginning of 2011, the Futsal Club requested the FFF to recognize the status of training club for this player in order to be able to benefit from the pre-training allowance.
The Federation never responded to the initial application after nearly two years, and the club claims the payment of the training compensation directly to the professional club, then to the Federation again.
Following the failure of FFF to respond, the BERTRAND lawfirm, representing the Futsal Club in September 2016, gives notice to the Federation in order for the club to be recognized as the training club and be granted with the training compensation. As FFF never responded, the club takes legal action before the Conference of Conciliators of the CNOSF (French National Olympic Committee) to challenge the implied rejection of its request.
On the time limit for contesting an implicit decision: need for an acknowledgment of receipt
"By way of derogation from Article L. 231-1, the silence kept by the administration for two months constitutes a decision of rejection: ... 2 ° When the request does not fall within a procedure provided for by a legislative text or regulatory or has the nature of a complaint or administrative appeal; ... ".
Thus the silence of the FFF following the next two months of the claimant's requests in 2011, 2013 and 2016 has created three decisions of rejection.
The conciliator then recalled that the administrative courts indicated "several times a decision can be confirmatory only if the original decision becomes final. However, it should also be remembered that a decision may have become final only if the review procedures and time limits for appeal have been validly opposed to the recipient. The said "confirmatory" decision can itself not become final without being granted with an acknowledgment of receipt of the request".
However, under Code of the Relations between the public and the administration, "deadlines for appeals are not applicable to an applicant when the acknowledgment of receipt has not been forwarded to it or does not include the information required by the regulations".
Thus, contrary to the assertions of FFF, "the conciliator does not perceive the inability to issue an acknowledgment of receipt in response to all inquiries, which bodes no response that would be made, either express or implied".
In this case, an acknowledgment of receipt has never been issued to the claimant by the FFF, the conciliator considers "it is necessary to consider that the deadlines of the remedies available to challenge these implied rejection decisions were not enforceable against it and that the two first implicit decisions of refusal have therefore become final".
The challenge to the implicit 2016 rejection decision is therefore admissible.
On the CNOSF's conciliation proposal
According to the FFF regulations, it is up to it "to seek payment of training compensation from professional clubs when they are due and, consequently, to determine what are the eligible clubs for a training compensation".
Yet, "the conciliator notes that these provisions do not operate no distinction between the practice of "free" football and futsal Because those clubs are only defined as amateur clubs which the player belonged for four seasons, at most, before his departure for the professional club".
Also, in view of the federal regulations, the futsal Club "is entitled to request the recognition of its status as club trainer". Shortcomings in regulations do not allow, according to the conciliator "to consider, as stated by the FFF, that the training compensation could only be paid to clubs in which the player had a "free" football license »".
Finally, the conciliator states that the fact that the player had a dual license in two different clubs during the three seasons he was affiliated to the claimant Club "has no impact on the recognition of his status as training club , Only the allocation of the training compensation between different training clubs could be affected".
The conciliator proposes "the FFF to grant the request of the club requesting that it is recognized the training club status of the player X, and FFF be responsible for drawing all the consequences".
According to the French Sports Code, the FFF has a period of 15 days to oppose the conciliation proposal issued by the French National Olympic Committee.
By a conciliation proposal dated February 9th, the Conference of conciliators of the French National Olympic Committee offers to the French Football Federation to grant the request of a futsal club trying to get the status of the training club of a player who have turned professional. The futsal club may therefore seek training compensation.
Article 56 of the General Regulations of the FFF in the wording in force for the 2009/2010 season, provides:
"1. When a player under 23 from an amateur club signs a first professional, elite or trainee contract, a pre-training allowance must be paid.
This compensation is broken down between the amateur training club (s) and the District (s) to which the training clubs belong. In the absence of a District, the League is beneficiary.
The training club (s) are the amateur clubs to which the player belonged during the four seasons, at most, preceding his departure for the professional club, excluding however the categories of licensees U6 to U11, of the player concerned. [...]
3. Compensation is paid, under the control of the LFP and the FFF, by the professional clubs to the amateur training clubs and to the Districts through the FFF.
In the event of non-performance on December 31, compensation is debited directly by the FFF from the account of professional clubs. "
No distinction was therefore made between the Football and Futsal concerning the qualification of "training club".
Cabinet Bertrand is satisfied to have been able to support the club Garges Djibson Futsal as part of this procedure
On the judgment of February 14, 2019 of the Administrative Tribunal of Paris
"It follows from the combination of the provisions cited in points 4 and 5 that the French Football Federation could not, without committing an error of law, consider that the quality of" training club "allowing to benefit from the training allowance provided for Article 56 of the general regulations of the French Football Federation could not be applied to futsal clubs whose players concerned have been dismissed, without the applicant association being able to oppose the regulations of the International Federation of Association Football ( FIFA) ".
This decision is fundamental in that it recognizes, it seems to us for the first time, the quality of club training to the clubs of Futsal.
This principle in principle opens the door, in terms of internal transfer, to the benefit of training allowances in accordance with the provisions of the FFF.
For international transfers, the same solution should be applicable to training allowances and solidarity contributions, in accordance with the FIFA Regulations and in particular the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (20 article).
From now on, subject to a reform of this judgment on appeal, ASC Garges Djibson Futsal is finally entitled to be qualified as "trainer club"and therefore, to receive the training allowances that would be due to him.
