Revocation ineffective - El Ghazi appears before the Labor Court against Mainz 05
FSV Mainz 05 lost the first instance proceedings for the termination of football professional Anwar El Ghazi without notice. The Labor Court Mainz declared the extraordinary termination due to El Ghazi's instagram posts as invalid. The presiding judge Bettina Chaudhry justified this by stating that no breach of duty had occurred that would necessitate the termination of the employment relationship.
The decision concerned a social media post by El Ghazi on November 1, where he stated that he stood by his original posting and would not retract it. The general public's understanding of freedom of speech protected this, it was stated.
This was not a violation of loyalty that would necessitate a termination without notice. El Ghazi would therefore receive approximately 1.7 million Euro in open wages and bonuses plus arrears. He was also to be re-engaged as a licensed player. For Mainz 05, he is unlikely to appear as a player again. The club had previously complained about a large reputation damage due to the case.
First post not evaluated
After the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on October 7, El Ghazi wrote in a then deleted Instagram post: "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." This means that Palestine should extend from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. The statement can be interpreted as denying Israel's existence.
This post was not evaluated for the validity of the termination without notice, as there is a 14-day period for such cases after the reason for termination becomes known. Only a post in which El Ghazi stated: "I do not distance myself from what I said, and I stand by it until the last day I breathe, for humanity and on the side of the oppressed."
What happens next?
FSV Mainz 05 announced that they would review the decision. Johan-Michel Menke, lawyer for the first division team, said after the judgment that it was unlikely that El Ghazi would play for the Rhinelanders again. A financial settlement was also not feasible from the club's perspective. It is likely that the player is looking for a new club. The board of the club will decide on a possible appeal against the judgment, according to Menke.
El Ghazi himself reacted with relief to the court's decision. "The first words from Anwar were: He puts on his football shoes and is happy to play football again," said his lawyer Alexander Bergweiler.
El Ghazi had sued Mainz 05 over the termination without notice. His contract with the Rhinelanders originally ran until June 30 of this year, but was extended due to the team's class maintenance for another year. Before the judgment, the court had presented both parties with a compromise offer. According to El Ghazi's lawyer, the player would have received approximately 1.7 million Euro in annual salary plus a 800,000 Euro severance pay. The player's side had agreed to the offer, but the club had rejected it.
- Despite the court's decision, it's unlikely that Anwar El Ghazi will return to 1. FSV Mainz 05 as a player due to the club's complaints about reputation damage.
- The Labor Court in Mainz invalidated the termination without notice of football professional Anwar El Ghazi, citing a lack of breach of duty in his Instagram posts.
- El Ghazi's Instagram post on November 1, expressing his commitment to his original statement, was protected under the general public's understanding of freedom of speech.
- The first Instagram post by El Ghazi, expressing support for Palestine, was not evaluated in the context of the termination without notice due to a 14-day period for such cases.
- The Bundesliga club FSV Mainz 05 announced their intention to review the decision, with lawyer Johan-Michel Menke stating that a financial settlement or El Ghazi's return as a player is unlikely from their perspective.
- The ruling in favor of El Ghazi allows him to continue his career in soccer, with his lawyer stating that he is happy to play football again.
- El Ghazi, who had sued Mainz 05 over the termination without notice, initially agreed to a compromise offer presented by the court, which included annual salary and severance pay, but the club refused this offer.
