F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2012-2013) – controversie tra società – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2012-2013) – club vs. club disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 14 November 2012, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club G, from country D as Claimant against the club Club C, from country I as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player R

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2012-2013) – controversie tra società – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2012-2013) – club vs. club disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 14 November 2012, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club G, from country D as Claimant against the club Club C, from country I as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties relating to the player R I. Facts of the case 1. On 4 August 2010, Club G, from country D (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the Club C, from country I (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded a transfer agreement for the transfer of the player, Player R (hereinafter: the player) from the Claimant to the Respondent. 2. The aforementioned transfer agreement stipulated, inter alia, the following: “2. TRANSFER COMPENSATION 2.1 Club C is obliged to pay Club G an overall compensation in the amount of net EUR 7,000,000 (seven million Euros) in relation to the Transfer (“Transfer Fee”), payable as follows: (a) EUR 1,250,000 at the latest on 18 August 2010; (b) EUR 1,250,000 at the latest on 15 February 2011; (c) EUR 1,250,000 at the latest on 1 September 2011; (d) EUR 1,250,000 at the latest on 15 February 2012; (e) EUR 1,000,000 at the latest on 1 September 2012; (f) EUR 1,000,000 at the latest on 15 February 2013.” 3. Furthermore, on 31 March 2011, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded an amendment agreement regarding an extension granted to the Respondent in respect of the payment of the second instalment. The aforesaid amendment agreement stipulated, inter alia, the following: “1. PREAMBLE (…) To date Club C has paid an amount of EUR 1,500,000 of the Transfer Fee to Club G as follows: (i) EUR 1,250,000 according to clause 2.1(a) of the Transfer Agreement and (ii) a partial amount of EUR 250,000 of the instalment according to clause 2.1(b) of the Transfer Agreement, which was due on 15 February 2011 (“Second Instalment”). Consequently and as of today, Club C has to pay the remainder of the Second Instalment in the amount of EUR 1,000,000.00 to Club G (“Remainder”). Having said this, the Parties agree as follows: 2. DEFERRED PAYMENT OF THE REMAINDER 2.1.1 The Parties herewith agree on the deferred payment of the Remainder as follows: (a) Club C shall pay an amount of EUR 300,000.00 to Club G within two business days after the date of signing of this Amendment Agreement. (b) Immediately after signing this Amendment Agreement but no later than 10 April 2011, Club C shall issue two cheques payable to Club G 04 as follows: (i) EUR 350,000.00 on 31 May 2011; (ii)EUR 350,000.00 on 30 June 2011. (…) 2.4 Irrespective of the above, future instalments of the Transfer Fee, stated in clause 2.1(c) to 2.1(f) of the Transfer Agreement, must also be paid by Club C and they shall become due as stated in said clauses. 3. RIGHT TO WITHDRAW, DEFAULT INTEREST 3.1 Club G has the right to withdraw from this Amendment Agreement and to assert further claims and damages, in case Club C is in breach of any of its obligations described in clause 2.1(a) or 2.1(b) of this Amendment Agreement or as stated in clause 2.1(c) to 2.1(f) of the Transfer Agreement for not or undue payment. 3.2 In case Club G exercises its right to withdraw from this Amendment Agreement according to clause 3.1 (a) all outstanding instalments of this Amendment Agreement and of the Transfer Fee to be paid to Club G according to clause 2.1 of the Transfer Agreement shall become due with immediate effect and (b) Club C has to pay Club G default interest of 15 per cent per annum on all outstanding instalments of this Amendment Agreement and of the Transfer Fee according to clause 2.1 of the Transfer Agreement. 3.3 If Club G decides to withdraw from this Amendment Agreement according to clause 3.1, Club G has to send a respective written declaration to Club C within six weeks after acknowledging the respective breach by Club G, but not earlier than six weeks after a cheque of Club C has been redebited.” 4. On 19 October 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent for the non-compliance of the latter’s financial obligations arising out of the above-mentioned agreements, indicating that the Respondent had only paid the first instalment as agreed upon in the transfer agreement, and part (EUR 250,000) of the second instalment. The Claimant further indicated that, in connection with the occurred financial hardship of the Respondent, on 31 March 2011, the parties entered into the aforementioned amendment agreement, pursuant to which the Respondent had to pay the EUR 1,000,000, remaining of the second instalment, in further instalments. The Claimant indicated that, on 7 April 2011, the Respondent issued six cheques, instead of two, as guarantee for the payment stipulated in art. 2.1(b) of the amendment agreement. According to the Claimant, the Respondent paid EUR 300,000 on 1 April 2011, EUR 200,000 on 8 June 2011, EUR 150,000 on 14 June 2011, EUR 150,000 on 21 July 2011 and EUR 200,000 on 28 July 2011. Each time the Respondent made a payment onto the bank account of the Claimant, the latter returned the cheque in question to the Respondent. 5. Subsequently, the Claimant indicated that the Respondent did not pay the third instalment of the transfer agreement in the amount of EUR 1,250,000 which matured on 1 September 2011. As a consequence, on 5 September 2011 the Claimant informed the Respondent in writing of its withdrawal from the amendment agreement and requested the immediate payment of EUR 4,500,000. The Claimant further indicated that, on 26 September 2011, the Respondent paid to the Claimant the amount of EUR 1,250,000 corresponding to the third instalment, however, without paying the remainder of the transfer agreement plus accrued interests. 6. In view of the foregoing, the Claimant requested the payment of the amounts of EUR 3,250,000 and EUR 5,116.43 as interest for the payments made late, plus 15% default interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 3,250,000 as from 26 September 2011 until the date of effective payment, and 15% default interest p.a. on the amounts of EUR 4,500,000 and EUR 5,116.43 as from 2 September 2011 until 25 September 2011, as well as procedural compensation. 7. On 2 December 2011, the Respondent replied to the claim lodged against it and stated that the entire remaining amount due as second instalment was fully paid to the Claimant, although with a slight delay. The Respondent argued that the Claimant did not raise the issue of the Respondent’s failure to pay the second instalment in its claim before FIFA, but, on the contrary, the Claimant stated and confirmed that the second instalment was paid in full, albeit with a slight delay for which the Claimant requested payment of default interest. The Respondent further stated that, in its reply to the Claimant’s letter dated 5 September 2011, it had pointed out to the Claimant that the amendment agreement only provided for a further schedule for the payment of the remainder of the second instalment, which was fully paid by the Respondent, whereas all remaining instalments should be paid according to the schedule provided for in the transfer agreement. In the same reply, the Respondent committed itself to pay the third instalment due on 1 September 2011 by no later than 21 September 2011. Subsequently, the Respondent stated that it remitted the payment of the third instalment to the Claimant on 22 September 2011. 8. According to the Respondent, the amendment agreement was exclusively aimed at establishing a new schedule for the payment of the second instalment, as declared in the preamble of the agreement, but also suggested by clause 2.4 of the amendment agreement, whereby all future instalments provided for under clause 2.1 of the transfer agreement would be due according to the payment plan established therein. As a consequence, the Respondent stated that the right to withdraw pursuant to clause 3 of the amendment agreement may have its effect exclusively in case of noncompliance with the only obligation that constitutes the scope of the amendment agreement, i.e. the payment of the second instalment. 9. In continuation, the Respondent indicated that had the parties intended to regulate the consequences of non-compliance by the Respondent with the transfer agreement, they would have extended the scope of the amendment agreement to all remaining instalments, which they did not do. The Respondent stated that this is proven by the fact that the parties chose as a consequence of the possible non-compliance with the terms of the amendment agreement, the withdrawal from that very amendment agreement and not from the terms of the transfer agreement. According to the Respondent, it complied entirely with the payment of the second instalment and, therefore, the objective of the amendment agreement was reached and the amendment agreement can no longer have any legal effect. Consequently, according to the Respondent, the Claimant’s withdrawal, as notified on 5 September 2011, is void of any legal consequence, both because it cannot apply to an obligation that was already complied with and because it cannot extend its scope to some future, undue payments, which are regulated by the transfer agreement. At no point did the Claimant express its intention to withdraw from the transfer agreement, either to the Respondent or in its claim before FIFA. 10. Furthermore, the Respondent objected to the Claimant’s interpretation of clause 3.1 of the transfer agreement that belated payment of any of the instalments would entitle the Claimant to withdraw from the amendment agreement. According to the Respondent, even the most superficial analysis of the expression “not or undue payment” reveals that the notion of delayed compliance is not contemplated in that phrase, as “not (payment)” indicates a payment that has not been done, whereas “undue (payment)” designates an unwarranted payment, a payment that is not justified by the circumstances. The Respondent stated that “undue payment” can by no means be interpreted as delayed payment. Therefore, the Respondent argued that neither circumstance contained in the sentence “not or undue payment” applies to the third instalment provided for under the transfer agreement, which was paid by the Respondent, albeit with a minor delay, and was certainly due. 11. The Respondent further stated that the Claimant gave notice in writing to the Respondent within six weeks of acknowledging the alleged breach, i.e. failure to pay the third instalment of EUR 1,250,000 by 1 September 2011, therewith complying with the first condition in art. 3.3 of the amendment agreement. However, the Respondent argued that no cheque issued by the Respondent was ever “redebited”, taking for granted that this expression means that the relevant cheque was not cleared by the Claimant’s bank. As a consequence, the Respondent argued that the conditions for the Claimant’s withdrawal from the amendment agreement were never met. 12. Moreover, the Respondent stated that the Claimant’s withdrawal from the amendment agreement without adopting the minimum tolerance period for an international bank transfer to be completed contravenes the most basic principles of good faith. In this regard, the Respondent indicated that the Claimant alleged in the notice of 5 September 2011 that the Respondent did not pay the second instalment in a timely manner, whereas in its correspondence of 12 September 2011 it stated that the reason for withdrawing from the amendment agreement was the fact that the Respondent did not pay the third instalment according to the transfer agreement. In view of all the above, the Respondent requested that the Claimant’s claim is rejected and that only the statutory interest rate is established in order to compensate the Claimant for the delay of payment of the third instalment with 21 days since, according to the Respondent, the 15% default interest requested by the Claimant is unreasonably high. 13. On 9 January 2012, the Claimant submitted its response to the Respondent’s reply and stated that the primary objective of the amendment agreement was to reschedule the payment of the second instalment of the transfer agreement, as well as to adjust certain other provisions accordingly. The Claimant further stated that, according to clause 4.8 of the transfer agreement it could “not be altered, modified, or amended except by written instrument signed by the parties thereto.”, and the amendment agreement represented such written instrument signed by the parties. The Claimant argued that the amendment agreement has modified not only the timing for the payment of the second instalment, but also established the amount of default interest on all the outstanding payments, modified the payment mechanism for the second instalment (i.e. provided for the issuance of cheques), and set out the guarantee mechanism in order to avoid the future delays in the payments due under the transfer agreement and the amendment agreement. According to the Claimant, the legal essence of the introduced amendments reflected the consent of the Claimant to extend the payment of the second instalment of the transfer fee under the condition that the Respondent shall not afterwards retreat of its contractual obligations regarding the payment of the transfer fee. In this regard, the Claimant stated that the amendment agreement provided for the specific wording in clause 3.1 entitling the Claimant to withdraw if any of the Respondent’s payment obligations described in said agreement or in the transfer agreement were not fulfilled. The Claimant stated that its entitlement to withdraw and to claim for all outstanding instalments was explicitly provided for in the amendment agreement. 14. Finally, with regard to the term “undue”, the Claimant stated that it is clear that such term means “improper” or “inappropriate” in the present case. According to the Claimant, it is evident that both parties contemplated under the wording “undue payment” the payment made inappropriately in the sense of timing, amount or the means of payment transfer. Furthermore, according to the Claimant, in the transfer agreement the term “undue” is used specifically in combination with the word “delay” and this expression never caused any controversies between the parties. Therefore, the Claimant stated, in the amendment agreement the parties undoubtedly comprehended the delayed payment under the term “undue payment”. In conclusion, the Claimant reiterated its request for the payment of EUR 3,250,000 and EUR 5,116.43 plus 15% default interest accruing from the violation of the amendment agreement committed by the Respondent. 15. On 23 January 2012, the Respondent submitted its response to the latest position of the Claimant reiterating its argument regarding the conditions for the Claimant’s withdrawal from the amendment agreement which were, according to the Respondent, never met. The Respondent stated that the requirement for the notice of withdrawal to be notified did not occur: no cheque issued by the Respondent was ever “redebited”. The Respondent further stated that if the parties’ intention when concluding the amendment agreement was to regulate the future payments due to the Claimant under the amendment agreement, this would contradict clause 2.4 of the amendment agreement which stipulates that all future instalments of the transfer agreement will be due according to the payment plan established in said clause. The Respondent reiterated that clause 3.2 of the amendment agreement conclusively indicates that all foreseen consequences may only originate from a possible violation of the amendment agreement, i.e. from the non-compliance with the payment of the second instalment, which was paid in full. Finally, with regard to the term “undue payment”, the Respondent emphasised that the use of the wording “undue delay” is accurate, meaning a delay that is excessive or unjustified. However, according to the Respondent, to give the phrase “undue payment” the meaning “delayed payment” must be rejected. 16. On account of the above, the Respondent stated once more that it is in principle prepared to compensate the Claimant with the statutory amount of default interest for the delay of 21 days in paying the third instalment to the Claimant. The Respondent further requested that the remaining part of the Claimant’s claim is rejected. II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter: the Single Judge) analysed which Procedural Rules were applicable to 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 (edition 2008; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) as well as to the fact that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 19 October 2011, thus after 1 July 2008. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the 2008 edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand. 2. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players is 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 claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 19 October 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. 3. Furthermore, the Single Judge indicated that, on the basis of art. 3 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Procedural Rules in connection with art. 23 par. 1 and par. 3 as well as art. 22 lit. f) of the Regulations, he is competent to hear disputes between clubs belonging to different associations. 4. The competence of the Single Judge and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Single Judge started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. 5. First of all, the Single Judge acknowledged that it was undisputed between the parties that, on 4 August 2010, a transfer agreement was concluded concerning the transfer of the player from the Claimant to the Respondent and that, on 31 March 2011, an amendment agreement with regard to said transfer was concluded between the parties. 6. Equally, the Single Judge acknowledged that it was undisputed between the parties that the Respondent had paid the remainder of the second instalment, amounting to EUR 1,000,000. 7. Furthermore, the Single Judge took due note that, according to art. 3.1 of the amendment agreement, the Claimant had a right to withdraw from said amendment agreement in the event that certain prerequisites had been met. Furthermore, the Single Judge took due note that art. 3.2 of the amendment agreement stipulated the consequences of a possible withdrawal by the Claimant. 8. Having established the above, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent stating that the Respondent had failed to pay the third instalment of the transfer agreement, which was to be paid by no later than 1 September 2011, in a timely manner. The Single Judge noted the Claimant’s statement that, as a consequence, on 5 September 2011, it informed the Respondent of its withdrawal of the amendment agreement and requested the immediate payment of the remaining part of the transfer compensation of EUR 4,500,000 from the Respondent. The Single Judge observed the Claimant’s statement that, on 26 September 2011, it had received the amount of EUR 1,250,000 from the Respondent corresponding to the third instalment. However, the Claimant stated that the Respondent had failed to pay the other outstanding instalments and the accrued interests. The Single Judge noted that, consequently, the Claimant requested the payment of the amounts of EUR 3,250,000 and EUR 5,116.43 plus default interest and procedural compensation. 9. The Single Judge went on to consider the Respondent’s submissions in this respect. By doing so, he took due note that the Respondent interpreted the amendment agreement as being exclusively aimed at stipulating a new payment schedule for the remainder of the second instalment. Equally, the Single Judge took note of the Respondent’s statement that the right to withdraw from the amendment agreement, stipulated in art. 3.1 of said agreement, may only be exercised by the Claimant in the event of non- compliance by the Respondent with the payment schedule regarding the second instalment as stipulated in the amendment agreement. 10. Moreover, the Single Judge took note of the Respondent’s statement that the parties would have extended the scope of the amendment agreement to all remaining instalments, including the instalments stipulated in the transfer agreement, if they had intended to regulate the consequences of noncompliance of the Respondent with said transfer agreement. The Single Judge observed that, according to the Respondent, the Claimant’s withdrawal is void because it cannot extend its scope to future instalments stipulated in another agreement, i.e. the transfer agreement. The Single Judge noted that, therefore, the Respondent requested that the claim is rejected and that only the statutory interest is payable for the delay of the payment of the third instalment since, according to the Respondent, an interest rate of 15% as requested by the Claimant is unreasonably high. 11. Furthermore, the Single Judge took due note of the Claimant’s comments on the Respondent’s answer, in which it stated that the main objective of the amendment agreement was to establish a new payment schedule for the second instalment of the transfer agreement. However, the Claimant stated that the amendment agreement also stipulated, inter alia, a guarantee mechanism, i.e. a right to withdraw, in order to avoid the future delay of payments under the transfer agreement and the amendment agreement. 12. Likewise, the Single Judge took note of the Respondent’s final comments on the Claimant’s latest position, in which it reiterated that art. 3.2 of the amendment agreement indicates that the exercise of the right to withdraw from the amendment agreement may only be caused by a possible violation of the amendment agreement, i.e. the payment of the second instalment. 13. After having carefully examined the parties’ positions, taking into consideration all the aforementioned arguments, the Single Judge observed that the parties, in particular, disputed whether the right to withdraw as stipulated in art. 3.1 of the amendment agreement could be exercised by the Claimant only in case of non-compliance by the Respondent with the payment schedule as set out in the amendment agreement or also in the event of noncompliance with the payment schedule established in the transfer agreement and, subsequently, whether the Claimant was indeed entitled to exercise its right to withdraw from the amendment agreement and what the consequences of such withdrawal would be. 14. Having said that, the Single Judge started by analysing the wording of the amendment agreement, in particular, art. 3.1 of said agreement. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled that art. 3.1 of the amendment agreement stipulated that “[the Claimant] has the right to withdraw from this Amendment Agreement and to assert further claims and damages, in case [the Respondent] is in breach of any of its obligations described in clause 2.1(a) or 2.1(b) of this Amendment Agreement or as stated in clause 2.1(c) to 2.1(f) of the Transfer Agreement for not or undue payment”. 15. In this respect, the Single Judge held that art. 3.1 of the amendment agreement refers to payments due both under the transfer agreement and under the amendment agreement. Therefore, the Single Judge was comfortably satisfied in his conclusion that the non-payment by the Respondent of instalments due pursuant to both the transfer agreement and the amendment agreement would result in the entitlement of the Claimant to exercise its right to withdraw from the amendment agreement as stipulated in art. 3.1 of said agreement. 16. Having established the abovementioned, the Single Judge went on to analyse whether the Claimant was indeed entitled to exercise its right to withdraw from the amendment agreement. In this respect, the Single Judge observed the wording of art. 2.1(c) of the transfer agreement, which stipulated that the Respondent had to pay to the Claimant “EUR 1,250,000 at the latest on 1 September 2011”. The Single Judge continued to recall the Claimant’s submission that the Respondent did not pay the third instalment of the transfer agreement in the amount of EUR 1,250,000, which matured on 1 September 2011. Furthermore, the Single Judge recalled the Respondent’s submission that it remitted the payment of the third instalment to the Claimant on 22 September 2011. In this respect, the Single Judge considered that the phrase “not or undue payment” clearly referred to a payment not paid on time or not paid at all and pointed out that art. 3.1 of the amendment agreement even specified “in case [the Respondent] is in breach of any of its obligations (…)” (emphasis added). Consequently, the Single Judge held that the Respondent had not paid the third instalment in a timely manner and that, taking into consideration that the non-payment by the Respondent of instalments due pursuant to both the transfer agreement and the amendment agreement would result in the entitlement of the Claimant to exercise its right to withdraw from the amendment agreement as stipulated in art. 3.1 of said agreement, the Claimant was therefore entitled to withdraw from the amendment agreement, which it did by notifying the Respondent in writing on 5 September 2011. 17. Having established that the Claimant was indeed entitled to withdraw from the amendment agreement, the Single Judge continued to analyse what the consequences of such withdrawal should be. In this respect, the Single Judge recalled the wording of art. 3.2 of the amendment agreement, which stipulated that “In case [the Claimant] exercises its right to withdraw from this Amendment Agreement according to clause 3.1 (a) all outstanding instalments of this Amendment Agreement and of the Transfer Fee to be paid to [the Claimant] according to clause 2.1 of the Transfer Agreement shall become due with immediate effect and (b) [the Respondent] has to pay [the Claimant] default interest of 15 per cent per annum on all outstanding instalments of this Amendment Agreement and of the Transfer Fee according to clause 2.1 of the Transfer Agreement.” 18. In light of the wording of art. 3.2 of the amendment agreement, the Single Judge considered that, upon withdrawal of the amendment agreement by the Claimant, all outstanding amounts pursuant to both the amendment agreement and the transfer agreement became due as per 6 September 2011, the day after the Claimant’s withdrawal. Therefore, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 3,250,000 and the amount of EUR 5,166.43 as interest for the delayed payment of the second installment. Equally, the Respondent has to pay default interest of 15% on the amount of EUR 4,500,000 as of 6 September 2011 until 25 September 2011 and on the amount of EUR 3,250,000 as of 26 September 2011 until the date of effective payment. With regard to the interest rate of 15%, the Single Judge held that such percentage was explicitly agreed upon between the parties in the amendment agreement and that such percentage is not disproportionate or abusive. 19. Moreover, the Single Judge decided that the Claimant’s request for interest on the amount of 5,166.43 should be rejected as said amount was, by itself, already granted as compensation for delayed payment. 20. In addition, as regards the request for procedural compensation, the Single Judge referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and decided to reject this part of the Claimant’s claim. 21. 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 proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee including its Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of currency of country H 25’000 are levied. The relevant provision further states that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings (cf. art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules). 22. In this respect, the Single Judge reiterated that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that both the Respondent and the Claimant have to bear part of the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 23. 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. On that basis, the Single Judge held that the amounts to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings are EUR 3,250,000 and EUR 5,116.43. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 25,000. 24. In conclusion, and considering the complexity of the case, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 22,000. Furthermore, and in line with his aforementioned considerations and taking into account the degree of success, the Single Judge decided that the amount of currency of country H 20,000 has to be paid by the Respondent and, equally, the amount of currency of country H 2,000 has to be paid by the Claimant. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club G, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amounts of EUR 3,250,000 and EUR 5,116.43. 3. Within the same time-limit, the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant 15% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 4,500,000 as of 6 September 2011 until 25 September 2011. 4. Furthermore, the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant 15% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 3,250,000 as of 26 September 2011 until the date of effective payment. 5. If the aforementioned sums plus interest are not paid within the aforementioned deadline, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 6. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 7. The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 22,000 are to be paid within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows: 7.1. The amount of currency of country H 17,000 by the Respondent to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XX-XXXXX: 7.2. The amount of currency of country H 3,000 by the Respondent to the Claimant. 7.3. The amount of currency of country H 2,000 by the Claimant to FIFA. Given that the Claimant has already paid the amount of currency of country H 5,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, no additional amount has to be paid by the Claimant. 8. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under point 2. and 7.2. above are to be made and to notify the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee of every payment received. Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to article 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