F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2011-2012) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2011-2012) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 20 July 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member on the claim presented by the player Player P, from country S as Claimant against the club Club C, from country G as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2011-2012) - controversie di lavoro - ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2011-2012) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 20 July 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member on the claim presented by the player Player P, from country S as Claimant against the club Club C, from country G as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 18 July 2008, Player P, from country S (hereinafter: the Claimant), born in May 1992, and Club C, from country G (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 1 July 2008 until 30 June 2011. 2. Article 4 of the contract specified inter alia that the Respondent would provide the Claimant with a monthly salary in the amount of EUR 1,000 net, payable until the end of each month. 3. Furthermore, article 5.6 of the contract specified that “the player is entitled to buy the remainder of his contract, by paying out to the club the amount of EUR 7,000,000”. 4. In addition, on the same day an agreement (hereinafter: the agreement) was signed by both parties as well as by the Claimant’s father as his “Legal Guardian”, valid for the same period as the contract, which established inter alia a remuneration in the amount of EUR 96,000 net. 5. On 1 July 2009, the Claimant and the Respondent signed a second employment contract (hereinafter: the second contract), valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2012. 6. Article 4 of the contract specified inter alia that the Respondent would provide the Claimant with the following: - EUR 1,000 net, as a monthly salary payable until the end of each month; - Christmas Bonus, equivalent to a monthly salary; - Easter Bonus and Holiday Benefit, equivalent to half of a monthly salary each; - An apartment; - Two daily meals; - Medical and life insurance according to the regulations of the Super League; - Payment of pension contributions and social security expenses. 7. Moreover, article 5.6 of the second contract specified that “the player is entitled to buy the remainder of his contract, by paying out to the club the amount of ………….”. 8. On 15 July 2009, a second agreement (hereinafter: the second agreement) was signed by both parties as well as by the Claimant’s father as his “Legal Guardian”, valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2012, which established inter alia a total remuneration of EUR 81,000, as follows: Season 2009-2010: - EUR 45,000 net, to be paid “upon signing the present agreement”. - EUR 12,000 net, to be paid in 12 equal monthly instalments of EUR 1,000 each, the first instalment due on 30 July 2009 and the last due in 30 June 2010. Season 2010-2011: - EUR 12,000 net, to be paid in 12 equal monthly instalments of EUR 1,000 each, the first instalment due on 30 July 2010 and the last due in 30 June 2011. Season 2011-2012: - EUR 12,000 net, to be paid in 12 equal monthly instalments of EUR 1,000 each, the first instalment due on 30 July 2011 and the last due in 30 June 2012. 9. In addition, the second agreement established that the Claimant was entitled to: a) “a furnished three bedroom apartment”; b) two daily meals. 10. Finally, the second agreement determined in its article 4 c) and d) that: - “The CLUB will make all the necessary actions so that the GUARDIAN will acquire a work permit for the duration of the present agreement”; - “The CLUB will make all the necessary actions so that, for the duration of the present agreement, the GUARDIAN will be employed legally with a minimum monthly salary which is at least equal to the salary required by the country G work-employment legislation”. 11. On 7 January 2010, the Claimant lodged a complaint against the Respondent before FIFA, which was amended on 20 February 2011, by means of which the Claimant requested the total remuneration of EUR 284,177 as well as 5% interests as from “the date of the receipt of the petition” as follows: - EUR 143,398 consisting of: a)“EUR 76,000 for remuneration, including 5% interest of EUR 45,000 from 18/07/2009 for the signing-on fee”; b) “EUR 6,000 for boni”; c) “EUR 31,000 for rental of apartment”; d) “EUR 9,300 for two meals per day”; e) “EUR 21,098 for the guardian’s job”; - “EUR 100,000 as partial compensation for damages to his professional career including 5% interests”; - “EUR 40,779 as compensation for damages until the end of November 2009, which he suffered in support of his family namely EUR 11,229 for payments to his father of Player P, EUR 4,800 for payments to his sister, and EUR 24,750 for payments concerning traveling costs for his father, his mother and his sister including 5% interests”. 12. The Claimant further requested the imposition of sporting sanctions for breach of contract as well as procedural costs to the Respondent. In addition, the Claimant also requested FIFA to declare that both contracts and agreements were terminated by him with just cause and to determine that the Respondent must provide him with a copy of the medical and life insurance policy contracted as well as the sums paid for pension contributions and social security funds along with their respective names, addresses and pertinent information. 13. In this regard, the Claimant held that, according to the second contract and second agreement, he was entitled to receive a total remuneration in the amount of EUR 81,000 for the whole contractual period, but the Respondent had only paid the amount of EUR 5,000 corresponding to the salaries from July until November 2009, thus he would be still entitled to receive the remaining amount of EUR 76,000 as compensation. Additionally, he requested the payment of EUR 6,000 also as compensation corresponding to the Christmas bonuses of 2009, 2010 and 2011 as well as Easter bonuses and Holiday bonuses of 2010, 2011 and 2012. 14. Moreover, the Claimant stated that the Respondent was obliged to rent him an apartment, allegedly with the minimum value of EUR 1,000 per month and, therefore, he would be entitled to receive EUR 31,000 for the remaining period of the second contract, i.e. from December 2009 until 30 June 2012. In the same regard, the Claimant held being entitled to receive two meals daily until the end of the contract, allegedly corresponding to EUR 300 per month and, therefore, requested the payment of EUR 9,300 as compensation for the remaining period of the second contract, i.e. from December 2009 until 30 June 2012. 15. In addition, and considering that the Claimant’s father quit his job to join the Claimant and was not provided with a new job and that the “statistic of the Eurostat for 2008 indicate a minimum monthly salary for country G with EUR 680,60 for 2008”, the Claimant alleged that his father suffered damages in the minimum amount of EUR 680,60 per month for the period of 31 months, amounting to EUR 21,095.60. The Claimant alleged that he has to compensate his father and that the latter allegedly “assigned his rights against the Respondent to the Claimant to collect this money from the Respondent”. 16. Also the Claimant stated being entitled to further compensation for damages to his professional career in the amount of EUR 100,000. In this respect, the Claimant referred to article 5.6 of the first contract, which established the amount of EUR 7,000,000 in favour of the Respondent, in case the Claimant terminated the contract before the end of its contractual period. 17. Finally, the Claimant requested the payment of the amount of EUR 40,779 as compensation, corresponding to the expenses he incurred to support his family during the period from mid-July 2008 until the end of November 2009. In this respect, he alleged having spent EUR 11,229 to support his father, since he had quit his job to go to country G. Furthermore, the Claimant requested compensation in the value of EUR 4,800 for his sister, by asserting that she was a student in country S and moved to country G, once she was allegedly informed by the Respondent that she could continue her studies in country G. In this respect, the Claimant stated that a student’s permit was not arranged by the Respondent and the sister had to return to country S, which consequently resulted in the loss of a study semester. Moreover, the Claimant additionally requested the Respondent to pay the travelling costs the family had to bear from country S to country G on the basis that they only had a tourist visa and had to frequently travel during the period the Claimant was employed, which summed up to approximately EUR 24,750, i.e. EUR 1,500 per month. 18. The Claimant added that both contracts and both agreements signed between the parties did not take into account the fact that the Claimant was a minor and that allegedly the working conditions applicable to an adult cannot be applied without modifications. 19. Subsequently, the Claimant explained that both agreements were signed also by his father as his legal guardian, since he was a minor. According to the Claimant and considering article 19.2 (a) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, his transfer from country S to country G would only be possible if his parents would accompany him for reasons not linked to football. In this respect, he alleged that the Respondent did not make it possible for his parents to stay in country G, not assisting them to obtain visas, work permit or residence permit. In the same context, the Claimant held that the Respondent breached the second agreement, in particular its clause 4 (cf. point I.10 above), considering that the Respondent had the contractual obligation to help his father obtaining a job. The Claimant affirmed that his situation did not meet any of the exceptions regarding the transfer of minors. 20. Also, the Claimant held that the transfer happened in breach of the UEFA standards, since he was a minor. 21. According to the Claimant, upon the signing of the contract, the Respondent was obliged to assist him with obtaining the “corresponding visa, working permit and residence permit”, which however, was not done from the beginning of his stay in country G. 22. In this regard, the Claimant alleged having been surprised that the Respondent had apparently done nothing in order to facilitate his family members to stay in country G. Consequently, under the above mentioned circumstances and due to outstanding payments regarding the first contract and agreement, the Claimant allegedly started to look for a new club. However, in the hope that the Respondent would improve its attitude towards the Claimant and his family, he and his father, as his legal guardian, signed a second employment contract and a second agreement, respectively on 1 July 2009 and 15 July 2009. Nevertheless, the Respondent allegedly continued to breach its contractual obligations. 23. Consequently, the Claimant affirmed having had his career affected because of extreme economic and emotional stress which he had to undergo. Therefore, “his professional career did not develop in such a manner as it would have developed had his family been able to support him with the emotional framework, which a 16 or 17 years old minor needs under such competitive conditions”. 24. Finally, the Claimant alleged that it is unclear whether the Respondent paid for his medical and health insurance as well as for the social contributions and social security expenses since the Respondent did not provide him with copies of the relevant payment receipts even though he had requested them. Therefore, the Claimant stated that he needed the relevant information in order to assess his rights regarding insurance, pension contributions and social security. 25. The Respondent submitted its response rejecting the claim since it allegedly had “not violated any legal regulation or any clause of its professional contracts with the player”. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that the Claimant was given a six days holiday leave as of 22 December 2009, but he neither returned to the training session scheduled, nor participated in a football match held on 3 January 2010. In this respect, the Respondent’s board of directors allegedly requested a meeting to be held on 11 January 2010, by means of which it was expected that the Claimant would explain his actions, but the Claimant allegedly did not attend to it. 26. In his replica, the Claimant rejected the Respondent’s position, affirming that he was not allowed to re-enter the country at the country G border since he and his family were not provided with a visa. In this regard, the Claimant held that his father informed the Respondent about the situation. 27. Furthermore, the Claimant provided a letter sent by the Claimant’s legal representative to the Respondent on 22 December 2009, by means of which the Respondent was given a deadline until 27 December 2009 to reply and comply with its contractual obligations, which remained unanswered by the Respondent. Finally, the Claimant stated not having been informed nor contacted by the Respondent regarding the meeting allegedly scheduled for 11 January 2010. 28. In spite of having been invited by FIFA to do so, the Respondent has failed to provide its final position to the claim. 29. Finally, the Claimant stated having entered into a new employment contract with Club J, from country M, as of 2 January 2011 and valid until 31 December 2014, by means of which he is entitled to receive USD 20,000 as a signing on fee, as well as a monthly salary in the amount of USD 5,000. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as DRC or Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the present matter. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 21 par. 1 and 2 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) and took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 7 January 2010, thus after 1 July 2008. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the 2008 edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand. 2. Subsequently, the members of the DRC referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2010), the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall adjudicate on employment-related disputes between a club and a player of an international dimension. As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber confirmed to be competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute between a country S player and a country G club. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber 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, the Chamber referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010) and, on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged on 7 January 2010. In view of the aforementioned, the Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded that the 2009 edition of the regulations, the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, the Chamber started to acknowledge the facts of the case as well as the documents in the file. 5. In this respect, the Dispute Resolution Chamber started by acknowledging that it remained undisputed by the parties that, on 18 July 2008, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded an employment contract as well as an agreement, both valid retroactively as from 1 July 2008 until 30 June 2011. 6. Moreover, the members of the DRC acknowledged that it also remained undisputed by the parties that, on 1 July 2009, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded a second employment contract and subsequently, on 15 July 2009, a second agreement, both valid until 30 June 2011. 7. Additionally, the Chamber observed that the second agreement established that the Respondent would make the necessary actions to enable the Claimant’s legal guardian to acquire work permit as well as to be employed with at least a minimum monthly salary in country G. 8. Subsequently, the Dispute Resolution Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant lodged a claim, requesting the total amount of EUR 284,117 plus 5% interest, as follows: - EUR 76,000 as the remaining remuneration; - EUR 6,000 as bonus; - EUR 31,000 as rental fee until the end of the contractual period; - EUR 9,300 for two meals per day until the end of the contractual period; - EUR 21,098 as salary for his father; - EUR 100,000 as compensation for damage to his career; - EUR 40,779 as compensation for the expenses incurred to support his family. 9. Furthermore, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant requested FIFA to declare that the contracts and the agreements were terminated by him with just cause and to oblige the Respondent to provide copies of the medical and life insurance policies as well as disclose the sums paid for pension contributions and social security funds. 10. The members of the Chamber took note that the Respondent rejected the claim, affirming that it did not fail to fulfill with its obligations. On the contrary, the Respondent alleged that the Claimant breached the contract by not returning to the training sessions and not participating in a match after leaving on holidays in December 2009. 11. At this point, and considering the contradictory position of both parties, the DRC proceeded to analyze the arguments and documents submitted by both parties in order to establish whether the Claimant indeed had just cause to terminate the employment relationship. 12. In this regard, the Chamber took into account that the Claimant alleged being a minor upon signing of the contract and that it was the Respondent’s responsibility to help him and his family to obtain the necessary visas, as well as an employment for his legal guardian, i.e. his father. In addition, the Chamber took note that the Claimant alleged that the Respondent did not fulfill with its contractual obligations in accordance with the first contract and the first agreement. Additionally, the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant agreed to sign the second employment contract and the second agreement for a longer period under the promise that the Respondent would comply with its obligations. 13. The Chamber further noted that the Claimant alleged not having received the signing-on fee of EUR 45,000 due in July 2009 established in the second agreement as well as the salary for the month of December 2009 and the Christmas bonus for 2009, in the amount of EUR 1,000 each. 14. In addition, the Chamber noted that the Claimant held that the Respondent failed to comply with its contractual obligation to help the father find a job and because of that he incurred in expenses to support his family. In this context, the Claimant, through a correspondence dated 22 December 2009, put the Respondent in default by requesting the payment of the outstanding remuneration and other contractual obligations. 15. In continuation, the DRC took note that the Respondent alleged that the Claimant was authorized to go on holidays for six days and afterwards he neither returned to a scheduled training session, nor did he participate in a football match held on 3 January 2010, thus allegedly breaching the contract. 16. The DRC further considered that the Claimant explained that he did attempt to return to country G in order to join the club after his holidays, but he was allegedly not allowed to re-enter the country because he and his family were not provided with a visa. 17. The aforementioned arguments of both parties having been recalled, the members of the DRC went on to consider that it remained undisputed by the Respondent that it had failed to pay the signing-on fee payable unpon signature of the second agreement in the amount of EUR 45,000, the salary for the month of December 2009 and the Christmas Bonus of 2009, as well as that it did not help the Claimant obtain the necessary visa. 18. Conversely, the DRC considered that the Claimant put the Respondent in default for outstanding salaries on 22 December 2009 providing a deadline until 27 December 2009 and the Respondent never reacted. 19. In continuation, the Chamber recalled that the employment contract and agreement at the basis of the present dispute was terminated by the Claimant in reaction to the behavior of the Respondent that failed to fulfill its contractual obligations for a relevant period of time. The Claimant undisputedly rendered his services to the Respondent until 27 December 2009, while the latter failed to pay him the signing–on fee due in July 2009 as well as salary of December 2009 and the Christmas Bonus for 2009. 20. In view of the above, the Chamber considered that, in the present case, it is established that the Respondent seriously violated the terms of the relevant employment contract by clearly disrespecting its financial obligations in a substantial way. 21. Furthermore, the DRC highlighted that the Respondent also failed to obtain the pertinent visa to allow the Claimant to perform his activities, thus seriously breaching its contractual obligations. In this context, the Chamber was eager to recall that according to its well-established jurisprudence it is the obligation of the club to ensure that the player is continuously and throughout the entire duration of a contract, in possession of a valid visa allowing to render his services to the club. 22. In view of the above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent was found to be in breach of contract, and, in particular, that this breach of contract had reached such a level that the Claimant, who suffered the breach, was entitled to terminate the contract unilaterally. 23. Considering all the facts and arguments previously mentioned, the Chamber reached the conclusion that the Claimant terminated the relevant employment contract with just cause at the end of December 2009. 24. Thus, the Dispute Resolution Chamber held that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent must fulfill with its obligations as per the employment contract and agreement concluded with the Claimant and, consequently, pay the outstanding remuneration due to the latter. 25. As a consequence, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to cancel all outstanding amounts under the relevant employment contract and agreement until the date on which the employment contract was terminated, i.e. at the end of December 2009. 26. As to the amount of outstanding remuneration due to the Claimant, the members of the Dispute Resolution Chamber determined that since the Claimant offered his services until the end of December 2009, the Chamber considered the Claimant was to receive the uncontested amount of EUR 47,000 composed of EUR 45,000 as signing-on fee that became due on 15 July 2009, EUR 1,000 as the salary of December 2009 and EUR 1,000 as Christmas Bonus concerning the year 2009. 27. Moreover, concerning the interests claimed by the Claimant on the outstanding remuneration, the DRC noted that the contract did not provide for any specific interest rate in case of late payment. Consequently, the DRC decided to award, in accordance with the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, default interest at a rate of 5% p.a. to the Claimant as from the first day after the respective due dates of each installment and/or as from the date claimed. 28. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 47,000 as outstanding salary as well as 5% p.a. interests over the amount of EUR 45,000 as from 16 July 2009 and 5% p.a. interest over the amount of EUR 2,000 as from the date of the claim, i.e. 8 January 2010. 29. Having established that the Claimant had terminated the contract with just cause, as well as that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequences of such breach of contract. Therefore, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is also liable to pay compensation for the damages suffered by the Claimant as a consequence of said early termination. 30. In this respect, the Chamber analyzed all the Claimant’s requests and reasoning for compensation and focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including, in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period. 31. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract and agreement contain a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. The Chamber established that no such compensation clause was included in the second contract neither in the second agreement at the basis of the matter at stake. 32. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that the said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable. Therefore, other objective criteria may be taken into account at the discretion of the deciding body. In this respect, the DRC emphasized beforehand that each request for compensation for contractual breach has to be assessed by the Chamber on a case-by-case basis taking into account all the specific circumstances of the respective matter. 33. The DRC took into account, inter alia, in line with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the remuneration due to the Claimant in accordance with the second employment contract and the second agreement signed by the parties as well as the time remaining on the second contract and the second agreement and the professional situation of the Claimant after the early termination occurred. 34. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the second contract and the second agreement until 30 June 2012. In this regard, the DRC considered that the Claimant requested the remaining value considering the second contract and the second agreement, i.e. remuneration and the bonuses due for the remaining contractual period, in the total amount of EUR 28,000. 35. In continuation, the Chamber took into account that the Claimant had signed a new employment contract with a Club J, from country M, valid as of 2 January 2011 until 31 December 2014, being entitled to receive USD 20,000 as signing-on fee as well as monthly salaries in the amount of USD 5,000. In this regard, the members of the DRC highlighted that the remuneration under the new contract was considerably higher than the one established under the contract and agreement at the basis of the dispute. 36. Consequently, on the account of all the above mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the remaining value of the second contract and the agreement during the period he remained unemployed, i.e. as from 7 January 2010 until 2 January 2011 corresponding to EUR 14,000, was to be considered reasonable and justified as compensation for the breach of the contract by the Respondent. 37. Regarding the request for rental fees (EUR 31,000) and meals allowances (EUR 9,300), amounting to EUR 40,300, regarding the residual period of the contract, the DRC, on one hand, pointed out that the second contract and the second agreement did not establish the amount of the rental fee and of the meal allowance and, on the other hand, that the Claimant did not provide any evidence of the alleged amounts. In this regard, the members of the Chamber referred to the general legal principle of the burden of proof, according to which a party deriving a right from an alleged fact has the obligation to prove the relevant fact (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). Therefore, the DRC held that it could not take into account these amounts as a base for calculation of the compensation due by the Respondent to the Claimant. 38. In continuation, the DRC analyzed the request of the Claimant corresponding to compensation for damages to his professional career in the amount of EUR 100,000. In this regard, the Chamber deem it appropriate to point out that the request for said compensation presented by the Claimant had no legal basis nor evidence that demonstrated the damage suffered or its quantity. In this context, the members of the Chamber referred once again to the principle of the burden of proof (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules) and recalled that it had already granted a compensation for the breach of contract. On account of the aforementioned, the DRC decided that the request for compensation related to professional damages shall be rejected. 30. Subsequently, the DRC proceeded to analyze the request of the Claimant in the amount of EUR 21,098 for the salaries which his father, i.e. his legal guardian, would have earned for the remaining contractual period. The Claimant held that the Respondent was responsible for providing his father with a new job, which it failed to do. In this context, the Claimant alleged that the Respondent has to compensate the father and that the latter allegedly assigned him any claim which he personally may have against the Respondent. In this regard, before entering into the substance of the matter, the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant claims such amount making reference to article 4 c) and d) of the second agreement (cf. point I.10) that established obligations undertook by the Respondent regarding the father of the Claimant. In this respect, the DRC made reference to article 6 of the Procedural Rules which establishes that only the members of FIFA, clubs, players, coaches and licensed match and players’ agents can be a party before FIFA and thus, concluded that the Claimant’s father cannot be a party before FIFA. In addition, the Chamber highlighted that the Claimant cannot invoke the damages regarding obligations undertook by the Respondent in favour of his father. Therefore, the DRC concluded that the claim for the amount of EUR 21,098 shall be rejected. 39. In continuation, the DRC acknowledged the claim for the amount of EUR 40,779 as compensation for damages he suffered in order to support his family from the beginning of the contractual period until the end of November 2009. The members of the Chamber pointed out that the request for compensation presented by the Claimant had neither contractual basis nor evidence which demonstrated the damage suffered. In this context, the members of the Chamber referred once again to the general legal principle of the burden of proof (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules) and emphasized that the compensation for the breach of contract granted sufficed, thus the Claimant could not claim any further compensation. On account of the aforementioned, the DRC decided that the request for compensation related to the damages he suffered to support his family shall be rejected. 40. In conclusion, taking into account all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand the Chamber decided to partially accept the claim of the Claimant and, as a consequence, determined that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the total amount of EUR 14,000, as compensation for the breach of the second contract and the second agreement, as well as 5% interest p.a. over said amount as from the date of the decision, i.e. 20 July 2012, until the date of effective payment. 41. Also, the Chamber held that the Claimant’s claim for reimbursement of the procedural costs in the amount of EUR 1,000 shall be rejected in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as with the Chamber’s respective longstanding jurisprudence. 42. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player P, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, Player P, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 47,000 plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows: - 5% interest p.a. as from 19 July 2009 over the amount of EUR 45,000; - 5% interest p.a. as from 8 January 2010 over the amount of EUR 2,000. 3. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, Player P, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 14,000 as well as 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from the date of the decision until the date of effective payment. 4. In the event that the sums due in accordance with points 2 and 3 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. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Player P, are rejected. 6. The Claimant, Player P, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club C, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Enclosed: CAS directives