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 21 January 2013, by Mr Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club C, from country B as “Claimant” against the club Club P, from country S as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties and relating to the player E.

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 21 January 2013, by Mr Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club C, from country B as “Claimant” against the club Club P, from country S as “Respondent” regarding a contractual dispute between the parties and relating to the player E. I. Facts of the case 1. On 22 June 2011, Club C, from country B (hereinafter: “the Claimant”) and the Club P, from country S (hereinafter: “the Respondent”) signed a transfer agreement (hereinafter: “the agreement”), for the transfer of the country B player E (hereinafter: “the player”) from the Claimant to the Respondent. 2. According to Clause 2 of the agreement, the transfer fee amounted to EUR 1,100,000 and had to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant in two instalments (cf. Clause 2.3 of the agreement) as follows: a) EUR 500,000 by 1 July 2011 “as a condition for the issuance of the ITC “and; b) EUR 600,000 to be paid by no later than 21 August 2011. 3. According to Clause 2.4 of the agreement “If Club P fails to make the payments more than seven (7) days in relation to the agreed payment date, a fine of 10% (ten per cent) plus interest will accrue on the full amount outstanding at the rate of 15% annual rate from the due date until the date of payment. Partial payments are applied first against interest accrued to the date of payment and any balance against the amount outstanding”. 4. On 12 July 2011, the Claimant and the Respondent signed an amendment to the agreement (hereinafter: “the amendment”) by means of which the parties recognised that the first instalment of EUR 500,000 had duly been paid and that the second instalment of EUR 600,000, payable by no later than 21 August 2011, should be paid into another bank account indicated by the Claimant. Furthermore, according to point 2 of the amendment “All the other clauses of the Transfer Agreement shall remain unaltered”. 5. On 19 March 2012, and again on 17 May 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim with FIFA against the Respondent for breach of the agreement. In this respect, the Claimant stated that the Respondent had only paid the first instalment of EUR 500,000, and therefore, had failed to pay the second and final instalment due by 21 August 2011 for an amount of EUR 600,000. 6. In particular, the Claimant stated that on 26 August 2011 it had sent a first reminder to the Respondent, and claimed to have received from the latter the information that due to financial problems it was not able to fulfil the outstanding payment on time and requested to delay it until 31 October 2011. The Claimant accepted an extension of the deadline but only until 30 September 2011. However, the Respondent failed to make the relevant payment as agreed. 7. Moreover, the Claimant alleged that on 1 December 2011 both clubs had agreed to sign a “letter of intention” in which the Claimant accepted to receive the outstanding amount of EUR 600,000 in 5 instalments as follows: (1) EUR 200,000 on 15 January 2012; (2) EUR 100,000 on 15 February 2012; (3) EUR 100,000 on 15 March 2012; (4) EUR 100,000 on 15 April 2012; (5) EUR 100,000 on 15 May 2012. 8. Furthermore, the Claimant stated that the Respondent had promised to sign a second amendment to the agreement which would have contained the new payment schedule established in the cited “letter of intention”. A draft of this proposed second amendment was apparently sent by the Claimant to the Respondent by email but was allegedly never signed by the latter. 9. In light of the above, the Claimant requested FIFA to condemn the Respondent to pay the amount of EUR 600,000, plus 10% “due as compensation and over the amount above for having failed to fulfil with its obligations” and “15 % p.a. interest rate over the outstanding amounts supra (i.e. transfer fee and compensation)” as well as procedural costs. 10. On 10 October 2012, The Claimant informed FIFA that the Respondent had still not paid the amount of EUR 600,000. 11. In spite of having been asked to do so, the Respondent did not provide its response to the Claimant’s claim, although it was informed that, in absence of a reply, the Players’ Status Committee would take a decision on the basis of the information and evidence at disposal. 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, the Single Judge confirmed that, on the basis of art. 3 par. 1 of the 2012 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber in connection with art. 23 par. 1 and 3 as well as art. 22 f) of the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, he was competent to deal with the present matter since it concerned a dispute between two clubs affiliated to different associations. 2. Furthermore, the Single Judge analysed which Procedural Rules are applicable to the matter at hand. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 par. 1 and 3 of the 2012 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Consequently, and since the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 19 March 2012, 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. 3. Subsequently, 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 2012 and 2010 edition 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 19 March 2012. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2010 edition of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: “the Regulations”) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance. 4. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so and first of all, the Single Judge observed that the Respondent had never submitted its position to the claim lodged against it by the Claimant, despite having been asked to do so by FIFA. Therefore the Single Judge concluded that, in this way, the Respondent had renounced to its right of defence and, thus, it had to be assumed that it had accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 5. In this respect, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant and the Respondent concluded an agreement on 22 June 2011 in order to transfer the player from the Claimant to the Respondent, for an amount of EUR 1,100,000. 6. Furthermore, the Single Judge acknowledged that according to Clause 2.3 of the agreement the cited transfer amount (EUR 1,100,000) would be paid in two instalments, i.e. the first instalment for an amount of EUR 500,000 had to be paid by 1st July 2011 and the second instalment for an amount of EUR 600,000 had to be paid by no later than 21 August 2011. 7. In continuation, the Single Judge pointed out that previous to the start of the present proceedings, the parties had tried to solve the matter at stake amicably and the Claimant had accepted to extend the deadline for the payment of the relevant outstanding amount. 8. Moreover, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant and the Respondent had signed the amendment by means of which the latter acknowledged to owe the Claimant the second instalment for an amount of EUR 600,000. 9. In this context, the Single Judge deemed appropriate to reiterate that, during the investigation of the matter at stake, the Respondent did not contest any of the allegations or documentary evidence provided by the Claimant. 10. In view of the above, the Single Judge concluded that the amount of EUR 600,000 remains outstanding in favour of the Claimant under the light of the agreement and the amendment. 11. Furthermore, the Single Judge focussed his attention on the Claimant´s request for a compensation of 10% over the outstanding amount. Moreover, the Single Judge took note that the Claimant also requested a default interest of 15% per annum over the outstanding amounts (EUR 600,000 plus the aforementioned compensation of 10%) based on Clause 2.4 of the agreement. 12. In this respect, the Single Judge was keen to emphasise that according to the long standing and well-established jurisprudence of the Players´ Status Committee in similar cases, a compensation or penalty for late payment cannot be requested together with default interest as both requests aim at compensating the creditor for late payment. Having said this, the Single Judge added that in order to decide which of the two should apply, i.e. the compensation or the default interest, the will of the parties needs to be taken into account. 13. In this context, the Single Judge pointed out that during the course of the investigation, the Claimant had alleged that on 1 December 2011 both parties had agreed to sign the “letter of intention” by means of which the parties would reschedule the payment of EUR 600,000 in five instalments, the first one being due on 15 January 2012 and the last one on 15 May 2012. 14. At this stage, the Single Judge deemed appropriate to recall once again that, during the investigation of the matter at stake, the Respondent did not contest any of the allegations or documentary evidence provided by the Claimant. 15. While stating that a compensation for late payment has to remain proportionate, the Single Judge held that, based on the latest will of the parties expressed in their “letter of intention”, the Respondent should be requested to pay an interest of 15% per annum and therefore the additional compensation of 10% requested by the Claimant cannot be granted. 16. In view of all the above, the Single Judge decided that the claim of the Claimant has to be partially accepted and held that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 600,000 as outstanding amount as well as an interest of 15% per annum over the partial payments as from the respective due dates in accordance with the terms established in the “letter of intention”. 17. Finally, 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, including its 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. 18. In this regard, the Single Judge reiterated that the Claimant’s request is partially accepted. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant and the Respondent have to bear the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 19. 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. The amount in dispute to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is of EUR 600,000. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 25,000. 20. Considering that, in the case at hand, the responsibility of the failure to comply with the contractual obligations can entirely be attributed to the Respondent and taking into account the particular circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 25,000 and held that such costs have to be borne by both parties. 21. In conclusion, the Single Judge decided that the amount of currency of country H 5,000 has to be paid by the Claimant and the amount of currency of country H 20,000 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, Club C, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club P, has to pay to the Claimant, Club S, the amount of EUR 600,000, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. Within the same time limit, the Respondent, Club P, has to pay to the Claimant, Club C, default interest at a rate of 15% p.a. on the following partial amounts as follows: - on EUR 200,000, from 16 January 2012 until the date of effective payment; - on EUR 100,000, from 16 February 2012 until the date of effective payment; - on EUR 100,000, from 16 March 2012 until the date of effective payment; - on EUR 100,000, from 16 April 2012 until the date of effective payment; - on EUR 100,000, from 16 May 2012 until the date of effective payment. 4. If the aforementioned sum, plus interest as established above, is 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. 5. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Club C, are rejected. 6. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 25,000 are to be paid by both parties, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, as follows: 6.1 The amount of currency of country H 5,000 has to be paid by the Claimant, Club C. Considering that the latter already paid an advance of costs in the amount of currency of country H 5,000 at the start of the present proceedings, the Claimant, Club C, is exempted from paying the above-mentioned costs of the proceedings. 6.2 The amount of currency of country H 20,000 has to be paid by the Respondent, Club P, to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: 7. The Claimant, Club C, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club P, directly and immediately of the account number to which the remittance under points 2 and 3 above is 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