F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2013-2014) – controversie allenatori – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2013-2014) – coach disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 28 August 2013, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the coach Coach P, from country G as “Claimant” against the Football Federation of country K as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties.

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2013-2014) – controversie allenatori – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2013-2014) – coach disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 28 August 2013, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the coach Coach P, from country G as “Claimant” against the Football Federation of country K as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 28 January 2011, Coach P, from country G (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the Football Federation of country K (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid from the date of its signature until 27 January 2013, by means of which the Claimant was hired as head coach and football instructor for the Men’s U17 National Team of the Respondent (hereinafter: the national team). 2. According to the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent a monthly salary of EUR 8,000 for the first contractual year to be paid by the 5th day of the following month. The contract also provided for the Claimant to receive a salary of monthly EUR 10,000 as of 1 January 2012 in case the national team entered the “UEFA U17 tournament elite round in 2011”. Otherwise, the Claimant’s salary for the second year would have to be negotiated in December 2011. Besides, the Respondent had to pay for a suitable accommodation for the Claimant and to cover the costs “for up to thirteen Air Astana economy class round trips” country K-country G, i.e. five tickets for the Claimant, five tickets for his spouse and three tickets for his son, during the first contractual year and 15 for the second year, i.e. five for him, five for his wife and five for his son. Equally, the Respondent had to organise “all required (..) visas” for the Claimant and his family. 3. According to art. 5.1. of the contract, the Claimant had to insure himself and his family “against illness during the period of their staying in country K” whereas the Respondent had to reimburse him the premiums paid. In this context, the contract specified that the Claimant had to notify “the executive board of the Football Federation of country K [i.e. the Respondent] each time an inability to work is at hand and to submit a medical certificate within three days” (cf. art. 5.2.). Furthermore, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant’s salary during 6 months in case his inability to work was due to an accident, illness or death (cf. art. 5.3.). 4. As per art. 2.2. of the contract, both parties could terminate their contractual relationship “for a good reason if the other party commits a serious breach of contractual or legal obligations.” In particular, the Respondent was entitled to terminate the contract in case the Claimant: lost his license or in case the latter was “prohibited or denied the exercising of his profession (..)”; did not act “appropriately in the legitimate interests of the Football Federation of country K and/or the National Team in public and/or in the press”; behaved in an unprofessional way, including in case the coach “is absent without an excuse at scheduled coaching or mentoring sessions (..)”; “otherwise counteracts the promotion and playing performance of the National Team”. 5. In continuation, art. 4.1. of the agreement provided that in case the Respondent terminated the contract for any reason other than the ones specified in art. 2.2. (cf. par. 4 above), the Claimant was entitled to receive from the latter his salary until 27 January 2013 as compensation. On the other hand, in case the contract was terminated by the Respondent in accordance with art. 2.2., no compensation was payable to the coach. 6. Finally, the laws of country K were applicable to the contract (cf. art. 7.7.). 7. By means of a correspondence dated 6 October 2011 (hereinafter: the termination letter), the Respondent terminated the contract citing ”Paragraph “3”, Article “62” of the Labor Code of the Republic of country K [hereinafter: the labour code]” dated 28 January 2011. The Respondent also provided the Claimant with the following documents which were provided to FIFA in their original version as well as in their respective translation into English: - “Order No 72 Termination of labor contract”, dated 4 October 2011, in which the Respondent inter alia ordered the cancellation of the contract on the basis of “Article 54, paragraph “1”, subparagraph “17” of Labor Code (..) (absence from work more than two months in a row as a result of temporary disability)” and requested its “accounting department to pay all amounts due for hours worked (from 28 January to 4 October, 15 days)”; - “Findings of commission for consideration the case of absence from work of Coach P (..)” dated 30 September 2011 (hereinafter: the findings), by means of which said commission allowed the Respondent to terminate the contract due to the Claimant’s absence from work during more than two months “as a result of temporary disability” in accordance with art. 54 par. 1 subpar. 17 of the labour code. In the findings it is inter alia elucidated that, during his absence, the Claimant had failed to provide a certificate indicating the medical reason behind his absence, whereas the “diagnosis of “Somatoform disorder” was mentioned only in an email dated 8 September 2011. It is further alleged that, on the basis of the documentation provided, it was not possible to examine neither the authenticity of the medical certificates nor the competence of the person issuing them. In continuation, it is stated that the Somatoform disorder was not included in the list “of diseases approved by the Decree of the Government of Republic of country K “About approval of list of diseases for which more than two months period of temporary disability can be applied” no. 1171 dated by 4 December 2011” (hereinafter: the list of diseases). Furthermore, it was specified that the continuous absence of an employee during more than two months “as a result of temporary disability excluding maternity leave and if disease is in the list of diseases with more prolonged period of disability” justified the termination of an employment contract in accordance with art. 54 par. 1 subpar. 17 of the labour code. Finally, the findings stated that the Claimant should receive “compensation for unused days of annual paid leave based on actual hours worked.” 8. On 15 December 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent arguing that the latter’s termination of the contract was invalid and requesting the following payments: - EUR 33,066.67, corresponding to his salary between 1 June and 4 October 2011; - EUR 126,933.32, corresponding to his salary between 5 October 2011 and January 2013; - EUR 3,410.72, corresponding to the costs of his health insurance between1 June and 4 October 2011; - EUR 851.92 for travel, visa and accommodation costs. 9. In this respect, the Claimant explained having left country K on 3 June 2011 due to the imminent expiry of his visa on 4 June 2011 as well as because of some health issues. The Claimant also mentioned that the Respondent had failed to provide him with a visa valid for the entire duration of the contract. 10. In continuation, the Claimant alleged that, once in country G, he had visited a doctor who had issued him a medical certificate indicating his inability to work between 3 and 19 June 2011, which he had then immediately forwarded to the Respondent by email on 3 June 2011. Furthermore and since his medical condition was apparently not improving, the Claimant had allegedly provided the Respondent with further certificates and had sent an email dated 7 September 2011 to the latter in which he explained that he was suffering from the somatoform disorder. 11. The Claimant enclosed to his claim several medical certificates allegedly sent to the Respondent with the following dates: 3 June 2011, valid from 3 until 19 June 2011; 16 June 2011, valid until 3 July 2011; 5 July 2011, valid for four weeks; 5 August 2011, valid for four weeks; 7 September 2011, valid from 5 until 26 September 2011; 29 September 2011, valid as of 26 September 2011 for three weeks. 12. In addition, the Claimant explained having obtained a new visa for country K on 25 August 2011, valid until 10 August 2012, in order to go back to work as soon as his health would allow it. 13. In continuation, the Claimant alleged that although he was preparing to return to country K and had duly provided the Respondent with all certificates in order to explain his absence, the latter had indicated its intention to terminate the contract already on 11 July 2011 and finally terminated their contractual relationship at the beginning of October 2011. As to that, the Claimant maintained having received a letter dated 11 July 2011 from the Respondent by means of which the latter had inter alia complained that it had not been informed about the latter’s diagnosis and that it had only received medical certificates issued by country G clinics which “cannot be accepted in our country”. 14. According to the Claimant, he had promptly contested the termination of the contract whereas the Respondent had insisted on having had just cause to terminate their contractual relationship and refused to pay him any compensation. 15. In view of all the above and considering that he had been absent from work due to his illness, the Claimant was of the opinion that the Respondent had no just cause to terminate their contractual relationship. 16. In continuation and as to the amounts requested, the Claimant first of all stressed that, in accordance with art. 5.3. of the contract, the Respondent had undertaken to pay his salary during 6 months in case he would fall ill. Furthermore, the Claimant pointed out that no reference to a list of illnesses was made in the contract. Consequently, in the Claimant’s opinion, the Respondent had to pay his salary between 1 June and 4 October 2011, i.e., according to the Claimant, the total amount of EUR 33,066.67. As to that, the Claimant calculated the relevant amount on the basis of a daily salary of EUR 266,67, i.e. EUR 8,000 / 30. 17. In addition, the Claimant maintained that the amount of EUR 9,902, apparently corresponding to the cost of the health insurance for himself, his wife and child during one year had to be reimbursed by the Respondent in accordance with the contract. Furthermore, the Claimant argued that the Respondent had to reimburse the costs of the flight ticket he had used on 3 June 2011 to go back home as well as the sum paid for the visa, i.e. EUR 170 (cf. point 12 above) and the amount of EUR 150, apparently corresponding to currency of country K 30,000, for the costs of a hotel stay between 2 and 4 May 2011. 18. In continuation and considering that the Respondent had terminated their contractual relationship without just cause, the Claimant considered being entitled to receive from the latter, in accordance with art. 4.1. of the agreement, his salary between 5 October and 27 January 2013, i.e. the total amount of EUR 126,933.32, being EUR 8,000 per month during 16 months minus EUR 1,066.67 for the period between 1 and 4 October 2011. 19. In its response dated 20 March 2012, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim arguing that it had had just cause to terminate the contract. 20. In this respect and first of all, the Respondent stressed that country K law was applicable to the contract. Furthermore, the Respondent explained that after having unsuccessfully tried to find an amicable settlement with the coach, it had referred the matter to the “Commission in order to consider the facts of his absence during his duties”. As to that and with regard to the decision of the relevant commission, the Respondent stressed that it did not contain any contradictions and added that “the date of approval of the list of diseases, which allows two-month temporary disability, is 4 December 2007, not 2001”. 21. In addition, the Respondent alleged having tried to examine the authenticity of the medical certificates provided by the Claimant as well as to “find out the reason of not mentioning the diagnosis in them, also to check competence of the medical clinics and staff (...). However, it occurred impossible to find it out due to their silent disregard.” As a consequence, the Respondent “still have doubts regarding Coach P’s disease.” 22. In continuation, the Respondent stressed that, in accordance with country K law, it had had just cause to terminate the contract due to the Claimant’s absence from work. Furthermore, the Respondent referred to the contract and stressed that in case of termination with just cause it did not provide for the coach to receive any compensation. In this regard, the Respondent pointed out once again that the Claimant, instead of providing “the appropriate medical documents”, had only sent “doubtful scanned copies without indication of all the necessary characteristics.” 23. Asked about his labour situation during the period between October 2011 and January 2013, the Claimant informed FIFA on 4 July 2013 that he had been unemployed and still was. In this context, the Claimant provided FIFA with an unsigned statement apparently issued by the country G pension fund dated 3 July 2013 confirming that the latter had had no income since 1 October 2011. II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter also referred to as: the Single Judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (editions 2008 and 2012). Consequently, and since the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 15 December 2011, the Single Judge concluded that the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand. 2. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 in combination with art. 22 lit. c) of the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, he is competent to deal with the matter at sake which concerns an employment-related dispute of an international dimension between a country G coach and the Football Federation of country K. 3. Furthermore, the Single Judge analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the 2010 and 2012 editions of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, and on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged with FIFA on 15 December 2011. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2010 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance (cf. art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations). 4. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Single Judge started his analysis by acknowledging the facts of the case and the arguments of the parties as well as the documents contained in the file. 5. In doing so and to begin with, the Single Judge noted that, on 28 January 2011, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) which was originally valid from the date of its signature until 27 January 2013. 6. Equally, the Single Judge acknowledged that, by means of a correspondence dated 6 October 2011 (hereinafter: the termination letter), the Respondent had terminated its contractual relationship with the Claimant, arguing that the latter had been absent from work during more than two months without a valid excuse. 7. In continuation, the Single Judge remarked that in his claim to FIFA, the Claimant had contested the Respondent’s entitlement to prematurely terminate the contract explaining that he had been on sick leave since the beginning of June 2011 and adding that, during his entire absence, the latter had been provided with the necessary medical certificates. Likewise, the Single Judge noticed that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Claimant considered being entitled to receive from the Respondent his remuneration according to the contract until 27 January 2013. In the same context, the Single Judge additionally observed that, for its part, the Respondent had insisted on having had just cause to terminate its contractual relationship with the Claimant, in accordance with country K law, due to the latter’s failure to justify his absence from work in a proper way and had therefore rejected all requests of the Claimant. 8. In light of the above, the Single Judge deemed that the first question to be addressed in the present matter was whether the contract had been terminated by the Respondent with or without just cause. 9. To that end, the Single Judge first of all recalled that it was undisputed that during his absence from work, the Claimant had constantly provided the Respondent with various medical certificates indicating his inability to work between 6 June 2011 and the middle of October 2011. In addition and in the same context, the Single Judge emphasized that all relevant medical certificates provided by the Claimant to the Respondent bore the signature of doctors and had been drafted on the letterhead of their respective medical office. Finally, the Single Judge pointed out that on 25 August 2011, the Claimant had obtained a new visa for country K valid for one year. 10. Considering the aforementioned and particularly bearing in mind the content of the medical certificates in question, the Single Judge was eager to emphasise that, from his point of view and without any concrete evidence or indication to the contrary, the Respondent had had no reason to question the authenticity of the relevant documents and even less to challenge the competence of the doctors who had issued them. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent could not base the Claimant’s dismissal on the allegation that he had not been in a position to examine the medical certificates provided nor on the fact that he could not verify the competence of the doctors who had issued them. 11. In continuation and taking into account that the Claimant’s inability to work had been medically established, the Single Judge considered it irrelevant to enquire whether the reason behind his sick leave was included in a list of official diseases approved by the Government of country K or not. In addition and for the sake of good order, the Single Judge added that the list in question had not been mentioned in the contract and therefore, the Claimant was not contractually bound by it. 12. Having said the aforementioned, the Single Judge recalled that, as a general rule, an injury or health condition of an employee cannot be considered reason to cease the payment of the latter’s remuneration and even less so to terminate an employment contract. In this regard, the Single Judge further highlighted that it is always the employer’s responsibility to secure the continuation of payment of remuneration in such cases, possibly by means of adequate insurance. 13. In view of all the above and, in particular, considering that the Claimant’s absence between June and October 2011 was due to a proven medical condition that prevented him from working as well as taking into account that the latter had regularly provided the Respondent with the corresponding medical certificates, thus fulfilling his contractual obligations, and also bearing in mind that the Claimant had obtained a new visa for country K after having left the country indicating his intention to continue to work for the Respondent after his recovery, the Single Judge resolved that the Respondent had had no just cause to terminate its contractual relationship with the Claimant on 6 October 2011. 14. Having established the above-mentioned, the Single Judge went on to assess the potential financial consequences of the breach of the contractual relationship by the Respondent. 15. In this respect and to begin with, the Single Judge analysed the first part of the Claimant’s claim, i.e. his request for payment of outstanding remuneration between June and September 2011, corresponding to EUR 32,000. 16. In this context, the Single Judge recalled that, according to the agreement, the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent a monthly salary of EUR 8,000. Furthermore, the Single Judge stressed that it was undisputed that the Claimant had not received his salary for the months June, July, August and September 2011. 17. In view of the above, and taking into account the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, which in essence means that agreements must be respected by the parties in good faith, as well as bearing in mind that the Respondent had not contested the allegation made by the Claimant that the aforementioned salaries had not been paid, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant is entitled to receive from Respondent outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 32,000. 18. After having established the aforementioned, the Single Judge went on to deal with the second part of the Claimant’s claim, i.e. his request for the reimbursement of EUR 3,410.72, corresponding to the cost of his health insurance between 1 June and 4 October 2011. 19. To that end, the Single Judge stressed that in accordance with art. 5.1. of the contract, the Respondent had undertaken to reimburse to the Claimant the premiums paid for his and his family’s health insurance. Furthermore, the Single Judge recalled that as per the documentary evidence provided by the Claimant, which had not been contested by the Respondent, the latter had paid EUR 9,902 for his and his family’s health insurance for the period June 2011 - May 2012. 20. Hence, referring once again to the principle of pacta sunt servanda as well as taking into account that the Respondent had not contested not having provided for the Claimant’s and his family’s health care between June 2011 and May 2012, the Single judge concluded that the Respondent should reimburse the Claimant EUR 3,300, corresponding to the costs of the relevant insurance in June, July, August and September 2011. 21. In addition and as to the Claimant’s request related to the reimbursement of EUR 170, corresponding to the price of a visa for country K purchased in August 2011, as well as EUR 541.23, corresponding to the price of his flight ticket home in June 2011 with the company Air Astana, the Single Judge referred to the contract and pointed out that it provided for the Respondent to cover the costs of 13 Air Astana round trips country K-country G for the Claimant as well as to organize his visa. 22. In view of the aforementioned and in accordance with the principle of pacta sunt servanda, bearing in mind that the Respondent had not contested not having paid for the costs of the claimed flight ticket nor for the costs of his visa, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent has to reimburse the Claimant accordingly. Therefore, the Single Judge ruled that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant EUR 711, corresponding to the price of the latter’s flight ticket of June 2011 and the costs his visa for country K of August 2011. 23. In continuation, the Single Judge reverted to the Claimant’s request concerning the payment of currency of country K 30,000, corresponding to the price of his hotel stay between 2 and 5 May 2011 and pointed out that no provision was included in the contract with regard to hotel accommodation. As a result, the Single Judge decided that this part of the Claimant’s claim had to be rejected because it lacked legal basis. 24. Having decided on the aforementioned, the Single Judge turned his attention to the last request of the Claimant, i.e. his claim related to the payment of his entire remuneration between October 2011 and January 2013. 25. In doing so, the Single Judge observed that the employment contract contained a clause related to compensation for breach of contract according to which “if present Agreement is to be terminated by Football Federation of country K by the reasons not indicated in §2 (article 2.2.), the Coach will continue to receive his salary till January 27, 2013 as compensation for extraordinary termination” (cf. art. 4.1. of the contract). In this regard, the Single Judge emphasised that said clause was not reciprocal and, therefore, concluded that the clause 4.1. of the contract could not be applied in the present matter and the amount of compensation payable to the Claimant had to be assessed in accordance with other criteria. 26. In view of the above, the Single Judge first of all noted that, according to the information provided by the Claimant, he had been unemployed during the period between October 2011 and the end of January 2013. 27. On account of the above, bearing in mind his constant practice and considering that as a consequence of the breach of contract committed by the Respondent, the Claimant had found himself without any employment between October 2011 and the end of January 2013, the Single Judge concluded that the financial loss which the Claimant had suffered had lasted at least during the mentioned period of time. Hence, the Single Judge decided that in casu the amount of EUR 128,000, corresponding to the Claimant’s salary between October 2011 and the end of January 2013 (i.e. EUR 8,000 x 16 months), constituted a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract. As a result, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent had to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 128,000 as compensation. 28. In view of the all the above, the Single Judge decided that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 36,011 (i.e. EUR 32,000 + EUR 3,300 + EUR 711), as well as EUR 128,000 as compensation for breach of contract. 29. Lastly, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in combination with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which in the proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee and the Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of currency of country H 25,000 are levied. The costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and are normally to be paid by the unsuccessful party. 30. In this respect, the Single Judge reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and that the Respondent is the party at fault. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent has to bear the entire costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 31. Furthermore and according to Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. Consequently and taking into account that the total amount at dispute in the present matter is above currency of country H 200,001, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 25,000. 32. In conclusion and considering that in casu a number of factual complexities had to be addressed but taking into account that the present decision was taken by the Single Judge and not by the Players’ Status in corpore, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 20,000. 33. Consequently, the amount of currency of country H 20,000 has to be paid by the Respondent to cover the costs of the present proceedings. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Coach P, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Football Federation of country K, has to pay to the Claimant, Coach P, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 36,011 as well as compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 128,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Coach P, are rejected. 4. If the aforementioned sums are not paid within the aforementioned deadline, an interest rate of 5% per year will apply as of the expiry of the fixed time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 20,000 are to be paid by the Respondent, Football Federation of country K, within 30 days as from the notification of the present decision as follows: 5.1. The amount of currency of country H 15,000 has to be paid to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XX-XXXXX: 5.2. The amount of currency of country H 5,000 has to be paid to the Claimant, Coach P. 6. The Claimant, Coach P, is directed to inform the Respondent, Football Federation of country K , immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 2. and 5.2. above are to be made and to notify the Players’ Status Committee of every payment received. Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 67 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS, a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives). The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following: Court of Arbitration for Sport Avenue de Beaumont 2 1012 Lausanne Switzerland Tel: +41 21 613 50 00 Fax: +41 21 613 50 01 e-mail: info@tas-cas.org www.tas-cas.org For the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives