F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2012-2013) – contributo di solidarietà – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2012-2013) – solidarity contribution – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber(DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 18 December 2012, in the following composition: by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the club, Club L, from country N as Claimant against the club, Club O, from country F as Respondent regarding a solidarity contribution dispute related to the transfer of the player J

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2012-2013) - contributo di solidarietà – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2012-2013) - solidarity contribution – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber(DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 18 December 2012, in the following composition: by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the club, Club L, from country N as Claimant against the club, Club O, from country F as Respondent regarding a solidarity contribution dispute related to the transfer of the player J I. Facts of the case 1. The country N Football Federation (hereinafter: country N Football Federation) confirmed, that the country N player, J (hereinafter: the player), born in 1979, was registered with its affiliated Club L (hereinafter: the Claimant) “since before the age of 12” until 9 July 1997. 2. The football season in country N runs from 15 November until 14 November of the following year. 3. The player was registered with Club O (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 13 July 2005. 4. On 1 June 2006, the Claimant contacted FIFA claiming its proportion of the solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player concerned from Club B, from country T, to the Respondent, in the amount of EUR 157,500 plus interest in the amount of EUR 64,575, amounting for a total of EUR 222,075, based on the alleged transfer amount of EUR 7’000’000. 5. In its reply, the Respondent indicated that all previous calculations regarding the solidarity contribution for the transfer of the player Club B to the Respondent were based on an old player passport issued by the country N Football Federation on 2 August 2006. According to a more recent player passport issued by the country N Football Federation on 2 March 2010, the correct amount due to the Claimant, for the period of 1 January 1991 and 30 June 1997, is EUR 140,000. 6. After amending its claim on 12 April 2012, the Claimant requests EUR 140,000 plus interest as from 31 July 2005. 7. In its final position, the Respondent states that it refuses to pay interest on the claimed solidarity contribution as the late payment is not due to the Respondent, but due to the wrong player passport issued by the country N Football Federation. 8. Lastly, the Respondent indicates that, since the transfer was completed in August 2005 and the last correspondences between the parties were exchanged in March 2010, the case might already be prescribed. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First of all, the DRC judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 1 June 2006. Consequently, the 2005 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 18 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. (d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2005) (hereinafter: the Regulations), the DRC judge is competent to decide on the present litigation with an international dimension concerning the distribution of the solidarity contribution claimed by the Claimant in connection with the transfer of the player from Club B to the Respondent. 3. In continuation, the DRC judge analysed which regulations were applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations, and considering that the present claim was lodged on 1 June 2006 and that the player was registered with the Respondent as a professional on 13 July 2005, the 2005 edition of said regulations was applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. In continuation, the DRC judge duly noted that the Respondent was of the opinion that the present claim should be viewed as time-barred, since more than two years had allegedly elapsed. 5. In view of the above, the DRC judge deemed fundamental to underline that in order to determine whether he could hear the present case, he should, first and foremost, establish which is the event giving rise to the dispute, i.e. which is the starting point of the time period of two years set out under art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations. In this respect, the DRC judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 of Annex 5 of the Regulations, which stipulates that “The new club shall pay the solidarity contribution to the training club(s) […] no later than 30 days after the player’s registration or, in case of contingent payments, 30 days after the date of such payments”. 6. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the DRC judge emphasized that the player was registered with the Respondent on 13 July 2005. 7. On account of the foregoing, the DRC judge decided that the event giving rise to the dispute, regarding the payment of solidarity contribution occurred 30 days after the player’s registration with the Respondent. 8. Therefore, the DRC judge came to the firm conclusion that, in casu, and in accordance with art. 2 par. 1 of Annex 5 of the Regulations, the payment of the solidarity contribution fell due on 12 August 2005, i.e. 30 days after the registration of the player at the country N Football Federation, and that this latter date was the starting point of the time period of two years set out under art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations. Equally, the Chamber held that the time period of two years had elapsed, in casu, on 13 August 2007. 9. As a consequence, the DRC judge concluded that less than two years had elapsed between the event giving rise to the dispute, i.e. the due date of payment of the solidarity contribution, which was on 12 August 2005, and the submission of the present claim to FIFA by the Claimant on 1 June 2006, and that therefore, the claim of the Claimant for solidarity contribution can be heard by the DRC judge. 10. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. The DRC judge started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts and the documentation contained in the file. 11. Thereafter, the DRC judge acknowledged that as established in art. 21 in connection with Annex 5 of the Regulations, as a general rule, the new club of the player has to distribute as a solidarity contribution 5% of any compensation paid to the previous club to the club(s) involved in the training and education of the player in proportion to the number of years the player has been registered with the relevant club(s) between the seasons of his 12th and 23rd birthday. 12. In particular, the DRC judge noted that the Claimant had lodged a claim against the Respondent, requesting its share of solidarity contribution related to the transfer of the player from Club B to the Respondent in the amount of EUR 157,500 plus interest in the amount of EUR 64,575, amounting for a total of EUR 222,075. 13. Furthermore, the DRC judge then took note that the parties during the course of the proceedings agreed that the correct registration period for when the player was registered with the Claimant was as of 1 January 1991 until 30 June 1997. 14. In addition to that, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent in its reply deemed that the amount of EUR 140,000 was to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant as solidarity contribution. 15. To that, the Claimant agreed on 12 April 2012 with its correspondence and requests EUR 140,000 plus interest as of 31 July 2005. 16. In view of the above that the parties could not reach an amicable settlement, the DRC judge decided that the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent the undisputed amount of EUR 140,000 as solidarity contribution for the transfer of the player from Club B to the Respondent. 17. In continuation, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent in its final position refuses to pay interest on the claimed solidarity contribution as the late payment is not due to the Respondent, but due to the wrong player passport issued by the county N Football Federation. 18. In this regard, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent held that the delayed payment resulted from the existence of multiple passports for the player, allegedly issued by the country N Football Federation, which is why, according to the Respondent, the ambiguity in player passports could not be held against the Respondent. 19. In view of this, the DRC judge referred to art. 2 par. 1 of Annex 5 of the Regulations, according to which the due amount of solidarity contribution had to be paid within 30 days after the registration of the player with the Respondent. Therefore and taking into account that the player was registered with the Respondent on 13 July 2005, interests on the amount claimed by the Claimant were due as from 13 August 2005, despite the specific circumstances of the non-payment of solidarity contribution by the Respondent. 20. In view of the above, the DRC judge reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and that the Respondent has to pay the amount of EUR 140,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 13 August 2005 until the date of effective payment. 21. The DRC judge concluded its deliberations by stating that all further claims of the Claimant are rejected. III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club L, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant, Club L, is partially accepted. 3. The Respondent, Club O, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 140,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 13 August 2005 until the date of effective payment. 4. If the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Club L, are rejected. 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the DRC judge 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 DRC judge: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Enclosed: CAS directives