F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2014-2015) – controversie tra società – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2014-2015) – 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 20 November 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club, Club T, from country F as Claimant/Counter-Respondent against the club, Club C, from country I as Respondent/Counter-Claimant regarding a contractual dispute between the parties and relating to the transfer of the player R

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2014-2015) – controversie tra società – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2014-2015) – 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 20 November 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club, Club T, from country F as Claimant/Counter-Respondent against the club, Club C, from country I as Respondent/Counter-Claimant regarding a contractual dispute between the parties and relating to the transfer of the player R I. Facts of the case Claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1. On 27 January 2011, Club T, from country F (hereinafter: the Claimant/Counter-Respondent) and Club C, from country I (hereinafter: the Respondent/Counter-Claimant), concluded a transfer agreement (hereinafter: the agreement) for the transfer of the player R (hereinafter: the player), from the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 2. The agreement stipulated a transfer fee of EUR 450,000, payable as follows: “(…) 4. Transfer fee 4.1 As a compensation for the transfer and the assignment of the transfer rights of the [player], the [Respondent/Counter-Claimant] agrees to pay to [Claimant/Counter-Respondent] the following payments: A. Basic fee: 450.000 (four hundred fiftythousand) euros in total paid as follows, 1. 105.000 euros, at ITC receivement; 2. 120.000 euros, on July 20th, 2011; 3. 120.000 euros, on February 20th, 2012; 4. 105.000 euros, on July 20th, 2012. (…) 4.2 (…) If the payments mentioned in chapters 4.1 or 4.2 are paid to [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] after the due date, [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] shall pay default interest on that sum from but excluding the due date to and including the date of actual payment calculated on a daily basis. The default interest shall be the rate of EURIBOR (90 days) plus 15 %. In addition to that as a fine, if the payments are made later than 14 days after the due date, [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] is entitled to invoice an extra 20.000 euros per every payment, which is paid late. All such extra 20.000 euros payments are due on 28th day after the original due date, having the same default interest as mentioned in the paragraph above. In addition, if the payments stipulated in 4.1.a, are made later than 30 days after the due date, [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] is obliged to release the ITC of the [player] back to [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent], if [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] will send a written request for the ITC. This will not influence [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant]’s obligation to pay the fees to [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent]. The ITC will stay in [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] as long as the due payments, interests and fines are paid to [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent].” 3. According to the information at disposal in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player was registered on a permanent basis with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on 31 January 2011. The player was then registered with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent on a loan basis as from 5 September 2012 and on a permanent basis as from 31 July 2013. 4. On 31 December 2012, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent lodged a claim at FIFA requesting the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to be ordered: “(…) 1.1 to immediately pay the unpaid transfer fees ( in total 225.000 euros). 1.2 to return the ITC of the [player] immediately to [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] (the ITC will stay at [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] until all of the obligations of [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] are fulfilled towards [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent]) 1.3 to pay the default interests EURIBOR (90 days) plus 15% for each late payments as agreed in the agreement between the clubs (…) (NB: amount of EUR 28,777.47) 1.4 to pay all of the additional costs of [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] in the proceedings of this case, including the prepaid amount of 5.000 currency of country H. 2. In addition we ask the Players’ Status Committee to order [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] to pay to [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] the amount of 60.000 euros (20.000 euros x 3) as fines of late payments as defined in the article 4.2 of the agreement) (…)” 5. In support of its claim and with regard to the amount of EUR 60,000 pertaining to the penalty clause as provided for in art. 4 par. 2 of the agreement, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent explained that said clause was based on the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s incapability to provide a bank guarantee for the payment of the transfer compensation. Therefore, the abovementioned fines were allegedly included to give the Claimant/Counter-Respondent a financial security in replacement of such bank guarantee. 6. In its reply, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant acknowledged that the third and the fourth instalments were still outstanding due to its alleged financial difficulties. 7. However, regarding the further requests of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant argued that art. 4 par. 2 of the agreement is unlawful and maintained that the requests of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the fact that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent insisted on extending the loan period of the player in application of art. 4 par. 2 of the agreement was illegitimate and contrary to bona fide. Particularly, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant stated that due to said provision, the player “seems to be hostage of the country F club” and stressed that because of said provision, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant could not transfer the player to a third club in order to receive transfer compensation, which could then be used to pay the Claimant/Counter-Respondent for the outstanding debt. Moreover, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant indicated that since the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was not interested in retaining the player, its behaviour endangers the player’s right to play. 8. In its replica, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent stated that it used the services of the player during the pre-season for the 2012/2013 season and during league games which indicates that it was in fact interested in the services of the player and respected the player’s right to play. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent also emphasized that obtaining the full payment for the transfer of the player to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was its primary goal. 9. In its duplica, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant reiterated its previous arguments. 10. On 3 May 2013, the parties signed a settlement agreement providing for the transfer of the player back to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and settling the debt in relation to the transfer contract concerning the player. In particular, the parties agreed that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant would pay the amount of EUR 200,000, thereof the amount of EUR 70,000 payable on 31 May 2013, the amount of EUR 130,000 payable in 26 monthly instalments of EUR 5,000 each, starting on 30 June 2013 and ending on 31 July 2015. Moreover, the settlement agreement stipulated that, in case of a default in payment, the total amount of EUR 315,000 based on the original transfer agreement minus the amount already received would immediately have to be paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. The amount of EUR 315,000 is composed of EUR 225,000 as per the 3rd and 4th instalments stipulated in the agreement and EUR 90,000 as “sanctions and interest”. The settlement agreement also stipulated that “if the obligations (…) are not fulfilled, for example, if one of the payments is not paid in time, the total amount of remaining debt (315,000 euros deducted with the payments made after the signing of this Agreement) is to be paid to [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] at once according to the terms of the original agreement. Thus, in case [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] fails to meet with the obligations of the Agreement, [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] is obliged to fulfil the payment terms of the original agreement.” 11. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent subsequently provided a submission stating that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not respect the settlement agreement and the amount of EUR 283,268 was outstanding. Counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant 12. On 11 September 2014, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant lodged a counterclaim against the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and requested from the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the payment of the amount of EUR 80,000. 13. In support of its counterclaim, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant argued that the player’s registration was in fact never successfully transferred from the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant as stipulated in the transfer agreement. In this regard, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant pointed to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS) in connection with the transfer of the player to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, from which it can be seen that the counter-club in the relevant TMS instruction is the Club A (hereinafter: Club A). Moreover, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant pointed to the content of the transfer agreement which, in art. 3.1 stipulates that “[the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] warrants to the [Respondent/Counter-Claimant] that [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] is the sole owner of all federative rights of the player and is able to dispose freely of these rights.” In this regard, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant emphasized that in contradiction to said clause, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was not the sole owner of the rights pertaining to the player, as the player was registered with Club A as it can be seen from the relevant documentation in TMS. Therefore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant stressed that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent breached the transfer agreement and hence never had the right to claim any compensation, since the payment of transfer compensation in connection with the transfer of the player to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was subject to the transfer of the player from the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, but said transfer never occurred. 14. Consequently, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant stressed that every payment made so far by it to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in connection with the transfer agreement and the settlement agreement was made erroneously. In this context, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant indicated that after the signature of the settlement agreement on 3 May 2013 and following the loan of the player to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent from 3 May 2013 until 6 August 2013 and the subsequent permanent transfer of the player to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent on 6 August 2013, it already paid the amounts of EUR 70,000, EUR 5,000 and EUR 5,000 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, in application of the settlement agreement. Given that said amounts were paid by mistake, based on the erroneous assumption that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent could in fact transfer the player’s registration to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the latter club emphasized that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent should be obliged to reimburse said amounts. 15. Alternatively, in the event that FIFA was to conclude that the transfer agreement was not breached by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant requested that no further amount should be payable by it to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent since it would be disproportionate and excessive. In this regard, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant referred to the basic principles of contract law, according to which, when a party breaches the contract the other party can either claim restitution or, in the alternative, be provided with a specific performance such as penalties, interest or compensation. However, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant emphasized that both alternatives can never be applied cumulatively as this would lead to a situation where a party would receive a double compensation. In this context, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant stated that if the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim would be accepted, the latter club would receive “the whole transfer compensation, excessive and unreasonable penalties, interest of 15% and the player’s registration, which would be completely unjust, unfair and disproportionate.” 16. With regard to the specific penalties claimed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant held that an interest rate of 15% p.a. and an additional penalty in the amount of EUR 20,000 for each late payment has to be considered excessive. In this context, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant referred to art. 163 par. 2 and 3. of the Swiss Code of Obligations where it is stipulated that “the penalty may not be claimed where its purpose is to reinforce an unlawful or immoral undertaking or, unless otherwise agreed, where performance has been prevented by circumstances beyond the debtor’s control.” Moreover, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant stressed that it had already remedied the alleged breach of the transfer agreement by having paid the amount of EUR 225,000 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent which is why “any further obligation to pay outstanding amount is disproportionate, excessive and would lead to double compensation of [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent].” 17. In its reply to the counterclaim, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent indicated that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was aware of the fact that Club A would transfer the player to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on behalf of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. In this regard, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent provided a witness statement of its employee and TMS manager, who states that when the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant started to upload the relevant information into TMS in order to perform the transfer of the player to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, it was found out that Abo was currently holding the “representation rights” of the player. Therefore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Club A and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant agreed that Club A should perform the relevant transfer in TMS on behalf of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, whereas the Claimant/Counter-Respondent as the sole holder of the federative rights of the player should be named as the beneficiary of the transfer, which is why the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s bank details were also entered into TMS. Moreover, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent provided a written statement of Club A and the country F Football Association, where it is confirmed that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent always was the sole holder of the player’s federative rights and that the player was always under contract with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. In this context, Club A in its statement confirms that the player was transferred by it to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on behalf of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. Besides, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent pointed to several e-mails which were exchanged between it and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and from which it can be seen that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was made aware of the fact that despite the transfer being officially performed between the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and Club A in TMS, the relevant transfer was actually taking place between the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. Consequently, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent states that it was not in breach of the transfer agreement concluded with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant as it successfully transferred the rights pertaining to the player to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and is hence entitled to claim the relevant transfer compensation as stipulated in the agreement. 18. As to the fact that the player was registered with Club A before being transferred to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent indicated that it had a so-called “reserve team arrangement” with Abo for many years. Based on this agreement, the player was transferred on loan from the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to the Club C, from country F. Since this was the only way to complete such loan due to the restrictions of the Finish transfer window, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent transferred the “representation rights” of the player to Club A, who then loaned the player to Club V as instructed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 19. As to the amount claimed and in particular as to the remedies claimed by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent emphasized that the original transfer agreement is not binding on the Respondent/Counter-Claimant anymore since it was replaced by the settlement agreement, in which the Respondent/Counter-Claimant acknowledged its debt. Therefore, the original penalties and interest which were stipulated in the transfer agreement cannot be disputed by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant any more. Consequently, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent insisted that only the contents of the settlement agreement should be regarded in relation to the obligations of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. Therefore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent stressed that its claim is not excessive or disproportionate. 20. As to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s allegation that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent would be unjustly enriched by claiming both a remedy and a specific performance, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent firstly emphasized that it was a priori trying to obtain the damages that it has suffered due to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s breach of the settlement agreement. Secondly, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent argued that the fact that the player was transferred back to it was not in fact specific performance, as specific performance is where the court orders a party to perform its contractual obligations. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent thus asserts being entitled to claim damages and the unpaid monies from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and will thereby not receive double compensation. According to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the fact that the player already returned to its club does not make the amount claimed disproportionate and does not lead to an unjust enrichment, especially in view of the fact that the player was already transferred back to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent before the settlement agreement was signed. 21. Moreover, as to the penalties claimed, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent argued that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant cannot rely upon a mistake or ignorance in relation to the contractual penalties as they were negotiated and freely agreed in the two agreements. Furthermore, in relation to art. 163 par. 2 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent stressed that the amounts claimed and the interest applied in this matter are not unlawful or immoral and should not be reduced too easily as the principle of contractual liberty is always to be privileged. 22. Finally, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent requested the following: - to order the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to pay the full debt in the amount of EUR 235,000, i.e. EUR 315,000 less EUR 80,000 it already received; - to be awarded with the interest in accordance with the settlement agreement in the amount of EUR 50,085.62 as at 20 October 2014 and accruing at a daily rate of EUR 96,58; - to reject the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim in its entirety; - to order the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to bear all costs relating to the proceedings and; - to order the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to pay Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s legal costs. 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 of the 2012 and 2014 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) as well as to the fact that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 31 December 2012, thus after 1 December 2012. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 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 was 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 2014 edition 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 31 December 2012. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 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 confirmed 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 was competent to deal with the present matter since it concerned a dispute between two clubs affiliated 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 in connection with the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. However, the Single Judge emphasized that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and the documentary evidence which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. In this respect and first of all, the Single Judge noted that it was undisputed between the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant that, on 27 January 2011, an agreement had been concluded, pertaining to the transfer of the player from the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for a transfer fee of EUR 450,000 which was supposed to be paid in four instalments of EUR 105,00, EUR 120,000, EUR 120,000 and EUR 105,000, payable “at ITC receivement”, on 20 July 2011, 20 February 2012 and 20 July 2012, respectively. Moreover, the Single Judge took note that said agreement further provided for a default interest at a rate of “EURIBOR (90 days) plus 15%” as well as a penalty of EUR 20,000 for every payment made later than 14 days after the due date. 6. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that the agreement also stipulated that “if the payments (…) are made later than 30 days after the due date, [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] is obliged to release the ITC of the [player] back to [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent]. (…) The ITC will stay in [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] as long as the due payments, interests and fines are paid to [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent]. 7. Moreover, the Single Judge noted that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent argued that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to comply with part of its contractual obligations and, in this respect, lodged a claim before FIFA, requesting from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant inter alia (i) the payment of outstanding transfer compensation in the amount of EUR 225,000; (ii) to return the ITC of the player to it “until all obligations of the [Respondent/Counter-Claimant] are fulfilled”; (iii) to pay default interest as stipulated in the agreement and (iv) to pay a penalty in the amount of EUR 60,000, representing three penalties of EUR 20,000 for each of each of the payments allegedly made late by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 8. Furthermore, the Single Judge took note that the Respondent/Counter- Claimant generally acknowledged that the third and fourth instalments of the transfer agreement remained outstanding due to its financial difficulties. 9. Moreover, the Single Judge took note that on 3 May 2013, the parties signed a settlement agreement providing for the transfer of the player back to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and settling the debt in relation to the relevant transfer contract. In this context, the Single Judge acknowledged that the parties agreed that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant would pay the amount of EUR 200,000, thereof the amount of EUR 70,000 payable on 31 May 2013, the amount of EUR 130,000 payable in 26 monthly instalments of EUR 5,000 each, starting on 30 June 2013 and ending on 31 July 2015. Moreover, the Single Judge noted that the settlement agreement stipulated that, in case of a default in payment, the total amount of EUR 315,000 based on the original transfer agreement minus the amount already received would immediately have to be paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. The Single Judge further noted that the said amount of EUR 315,000 is composed of EUR 225,000 as per the 3rd and 4th instalments stipulated in the transfer agreement and EUR 90,000 as “sanctions and interest”. 10. In addition to the above, the Single Judge noted that the settlement agreement also stipulated that “if the obligations (…) are not fulfilled, for example, if one of the payments is not paid in time, the total amount of remaining debt (315,000 euros deducted with the payments made after the signing of this Agreement) is to be paid to [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] at once according to the terms of the original agreement. Thus, in case [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] fails to meet with the obligations of the Agreement, [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] is obliged to fulfil the payment terms of the original agreement.” 11. In this context, the Single Judge noted that, according to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the amount of EUR 283,268 is still outstanding from the settlement agreement since the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not respect the above-mentioned provisions. 12. In continuation, the Single Judge further noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant rejected the requests of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent as to the interests and penalties, alleging that article 4.2 of the transfer agreement was excessive and disproportionate. 13. In this respect, the Single Judge took note that, according to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, it had already remedied the alleged breach of the transfer agreement by having paid the amount of EUR 225,000 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and, therefore, believed that “any further obligation to pay outstanding amount is disproportionate, excessive and would lead to double compensation of [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent].” 14. Moreover, the Single Judge acknowledged the final request of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent according to which it demanded from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, inter alia, the amount of EUR 235,000, i.e. EUR 315,000 less EUR 80,000 that it already received as well as the interest in accordance with the settlement agreement in the amount of EUR 50,085.62 up until 20 October 2014 and accruing at a daily rate of EUR 96,58. 15. On account of the above, the Single Judge firstly established that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not comply in full with its financial obligations acquired in relation to the transfer of the player and that, therefore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was entitled to certain outstanding amounts. Having said this, the Single Judge deemed that he had to determine which amounts have to be paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 16. In this regard, the Single Judge concluded that in order to determine which amount is still outstanding it first needed to be determined which agreement concluded between the parties is the basis of the present dispute. 17. The Single Judge hence recalled that the parties had concluded a transfer agreement on 27 January 2011, stipulating the aforementioned terms of payment (cf. points I.2. and II.5). Moreover, the Single Judge recalled that said first agreement was later replaced by a settlement agreement concluded between the parties on 3 May 2013, defining an amended payable amount while stipulating new terms of payment as to the due dates of the respective instalments (cf. points I.10 and II.10-11). However, the Single Judge also noted that said settlement agreement provided for a clause which determined that “if the obligations (…) are not fulfilled, for example, if one of the payments is not paid in time, the total amount of remaining debt (315,000 euros deducted with the payments made after the signing of this Agreement) is to be paid to [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] at once according to the terms of the original agreement. Thus, in case [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] fails to meet with the obligation of the Agreement, [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] is obliged to fulfil the payment terms of the original agreement.” 18. In this context, the Single Judge further recalled that it remained undisputed between the parties that after the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had received the amounts of EUR 70,000, EUR 5,000 and EUR 5,000 on 30 June 2013 and 4 September 2013 respectively from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the latter club did not pay the outstanding amounts pertaining to the settlement agreement’s payment schedule. Given that the settlement agreement explicitly stipulates that in case that the payment obligations are not fulfilled, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s obligations derived from the transfer agreement would apply again, the Single Judge was of the opinion that the terms of the transfer agreement concluded between the parties on 27 January 2011 had to be applied again in order to determine which amounts have to be paid to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 19. Consequently, the Single Judge recalled that the transfer agreement stipulated the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s obligation to pay the amount of EUR 450,000 which was supposed to be paid in four instalments. Moreover, the Single Judge recalled that said agreement further provided for a default interest at a rate of “EURIBOR (90 days) plus 15%” as well as a penalty of EUR 20,000 for every payment made later than 14 days after the due date. 20. Bearing in mind the foregoing, and given that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, pursuant to the signing of the transfer agreement, had already paid the amount of EUR 225,000 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, as well as the total amount of EUR 80,000 pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant has yet to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the amount of EUR 40,000 plus interest at a rate of 15% p.a. on said amount as of 21 February 2012, as well as a further amount of EUR 105,000 plus interest at a rate of 15% p.a. as of 21 July 2012. 21. Likewise, the Single Judge recalled that it was undisputed between the parties that the second instalment of the first agreement was paid late by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, whereas the third and fourth instalments have not been paid at all. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the penalty fee of EUR 20,000 for each of the three payments fell due. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had to pay the penalty fee of EUR 60,000 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 22. In continuation, the Single Judge turned his attention to the counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and, in this respect, recalled that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had basically argued that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was in breach of the transfer agreement concluded between the parties, since the latter club was allegedly not the sole and rightful owner of the rights pertaining to the player and could therefore not fulfil its obligation pertaining to said agreement, i.e. to transfer the player to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. Moreover, the Single Judge recalled that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had consequently requested to get reimbursed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the amount of EUR 80,000 which was paid in relation to the settlement agreement, since said payment was made erroneously based on the assumption that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had the right to transfer the player to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 23. In this context, the Single Judge took note of the arguments of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, which argued that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was aware of the fact that Abo would transfer the player to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on behalf of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. In this regard, the Single Judge took note of the documentation provided by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, where it is allegedly confirmed that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent always was the sole holder of the player’s federative rights and that the player was always under contract with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. In addition to the above, the Single Judge took note of the of the e-mails provided by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent which were exchanged between it and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and from which it can be seen that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was made aware of the fact that despite the transfer being officially performed between the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and Club A in TMS, the relevant transfer was actually taking place between the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 24. In this regard, the Single Judge, after a thorough and comprehensive review of the documentation provided by the parties as well as after having carefully analysed the information contained in the TMS, concluded that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant contrary to what is stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, did not provide sufficient documentary evidence for its allegation that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent breached the transfer agreement. In this respect, the Single Judge particularly recalled the contents of the documentary evidence provided by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, and in this regard formed the belief that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, at the time that the player was transferred to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, was the sole holder of the rights pertaining to the player and could therefore successfully transfer the player to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. Hence, the Single Judge decided that in accordance with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules there was no basis for concurring with the argumentation provided by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and concluded that there is no legal basis for the latter club’s request to be reimbursed in the amount of EUR 80,000. Consequently, the Single Judge decided to reject the counter-claim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in its entirety. 25. 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). 26. In respect of the above, and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had been partially accepted and that the counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was rejected, the Single Judge concluded that both parties had to bear a part of the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. 27. 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 amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 365,085, based on the final requests of the Claimant/Counter/Respondent (cf. points I.22 and II.14) and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant (cf. points I.12 and II.22). Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 25,000. 28. In conclusion, and considering that the case at hand did pose some particular factual difficulties, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 25,000. Moreover, in line with his aforementioned considerations and taking into account the degree of success, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that the amount of currency of country H 8,000 has to be paid by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the amount of currency of country H 17,000 by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant 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/Counter-Respondent, Club T, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent/Counterclaimant, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 105,000 plus interest at a rate of 15% p.a. as of 21 July 2012. 3. The Respondent/Counterclaimant has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the further amount of EUR 40,000 plus interest at a rate of 15% p.a. as of 21 February 2012. 4. If the aforementioned amounts plus interest are not paid within the stated time limits, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. The Respondent/Counterclaimant has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the penalty fee of EUR 60,000. 6. If the aforementioned amount under point 5. is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, interest at a rate of 5% p.a. will apply as of the expiry of the stipulated time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee, for consideration and a formal decision. 7. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent are rejected. 8. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is rejected. 9. The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 25,000 are to be paid within 30 days as from the notification of the present decision, as follows: 9.1. The amount of currency of country H 17,000 by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to FIFA. Given that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant has already paid the amount of currency of country H 5,000 as advance of costs at the beginning of the present proceedings, only the further amount of currency of country H 12,000 is to be paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to FIFA. 9.2. The amount of currency of country H 8,000 by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to FIFA. Given that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent has already paid the amount of currency of country H 5,000 as advance of costs at the beginning of the present proceedings, only the further amount of currency of country H 3,000 is to be paid by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to FIFA. 9.3. The abovementioned amounts (cf. points 9.1. and 9.2.) are to be paid to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: 10. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under points 2., 3. and 5. 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