F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2012-2013) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2012-2013) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 18 December 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Philippe Diallo (France), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, from country C as Claimant against the club, Club B, from country D as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2012-2013) - controversie di lavoro - ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2012-2013) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 18 December 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Philippe Diallo (France), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, from country C as Claimant against the club, Club B, from country D as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 29 August 2008, Player A, from country C (hereinafter: player or Claimant) and Club B, from country D (hereinafter: club or Respondent) signed an employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid for the sporting seasons 2008/09 and 2009/10, entering into force on the date of signature and coming to its end on 30 June 2010. 2. The financial terms of the contract are stipulated in an annex signed by and between the parties on the same date and which set forth that the player would receive EUR 6,500 net per month between 29 August 2008 and 30 June 2009 as well as an advance of EUR 10,000 upon signature. Additionally, and for the sporting season 2009/10, the player would receive EUR 7,000 net per month as from 1 July 2009 until 30 June 2010. 3. On 12 November 2008 and 22 May 2009, the player put the club in default of the execution of the alleged oral promises it would have made on the occasion of the negotiations following the termination of the contract by the club in September 2008. 4. The player thereby requested the club to pay him, save the amount compensating his moral damages, the agreed amount, which would correspond to the residual value of the contract and which allegedly was to be paid in two installments by the club. 5. On 3 June 2009, the player lodged a claim before FIFA against the club, maintaining that the club terminated the contract without just cause. In this respect, the player held that the club’s coach informed him in September 2008 that he was no longer needed in the team. The player explained that the club confirmed this information, which, in the player’s opinion, consists of a termination of contract without just cause. Also, the player stressed that the club promised to pay him the residual value of the contract. 6. The player underlined that the club only paid him EUR 5,000 when he left the club and promised him to pay the rest as soon as possible, which it never did. 7. Additionally, the player specified that apart from the aforementioned EUR 5,000, the club had only paid him EUR 2,500 as part of the salary of August 2008 and EUR 4,000 as part of the “signing-on fee”. 8. The player asserted that as the termination of the contract by the club during the protected period is deprived of any sporting just cause, he is entitled to include in his claim for compensation for breach of contract the residual value of the contract on the basis of art. 17 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. Consequently, the player claims the total amount of EUR 400,500 as well as the imposition of sporting sanctions upon the club. 9. In its reply to the claim, the club held that the player and the club signed an agreement (hereinafter: agreement) on 15 January 2009 cancelling the contract and stipulating that as from that date, the player and the club will not have any financial claims against each other. 10. The club presented the original version in country D language and a translation into English of the agreement, which stipulates that “the [contract] is canceled from the date 15.01.2009 with the agreement of both parties. […] The player will receive the amount 5000 Eur in January and 5000 Eur in February. […] From (starting) the date of 15.01.2009, both, [the player] as well as [the club] not have any financial claim. […] From the date of this Convention, the player may contract with any club or association, without the financial claims from [the club].” 11. The club underlined that by having signed the agreement, any financial claim from the player based on a termination of the contract is groundless. Consequently, the club rejected the player’s claim. 12. The player denied having ever signed the agreement and held that the club created this document and forged his signature, which is easily observable by way of comparison with other samples of his signatures. The player concluded that in case of doubt, an expert should be appointed and that said expert will logically confirm the player’s opinion. 13. Furthermore, the player held that it was not mentioned in the agreement that the player was terminating the contract in order to be able to register for a new club, nor did the club prove that the initiative of the termination of the contract comes from the player. In this respect, the player stressed that he had no interest in terminating the contract since the remuneration he was receiving under said contract was better than the remuneration related to the contract that he signed afterwards with a country E club on 12 March 2009. 14. For its part, the club insisted that the contract was mutually terminated by means of the agreement and stressed that it would accept to proceed to a forensic examination of the document at stake. In this respect, the club pointed out that the player’s signature is the same on all the documents it has in its possession. 15. The club, in order to facilitate a comparison of signature, submitted a payment receipt dated 6 October 2008 bearing the player’s signature. 16. The club further submitted a statement dated 3 April 2009 signed by the players’ agent B, who allegedly was involved in the negotiations regarding the player, in accordance with which the agent explained that he was present on 15 January 2009 and “participated” to the signature of the challenged agreement by means of which the “two parties MUTUALLY agreed to rescind [the contract]”and that “the player (…) has personally signed [the challenged agreement] in which he wished the amicable rescission of his contract with [the club], without any claims from the latter in case of a possible transfer.” II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 3 June 2009. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the members of the Dispute Resolution Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012) the Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a country C player and a country D Club. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2012, 2010 and 2009), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 3 June 2009, the 2008 edition of said regulations (hereinafter Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. In continuation, and entering into the substance of the matter, the members of the Chamber firstly acknowledged that, on 29 August 2008, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded an employment contract valid during 2 sporting seasons, i.e. as from 29 August 2008 until 30 June 2010. 5. The Chamber further noted that the Claimant asserted that the club unilaterally decided to put an end to the contractual relationship with the player in September 2008 as, reportedly, the player was not needed by the club any longer. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that this assertion was not denied by the club. 6. The members of the Chamber further acknowledged that the Respondent rejected the player’s claim for breach of contract without just cause lodged against it as, on 15 January 2009, the parties signed an agreement inter alia cancelling the above-mentioned contract and containing a clause by means of which both parties undertook not to lodge any financial claim against each other in the future in connection with said contract. 7. In this respect, the Chamber duly noted that the Claimant, for his part, denied having signed the agreement at hand and stressed that the Respondent forged his signature. Consequently, the Claimant contested the authenticity of the agreement. 8. In view of the above, the Chamber concurred that it firstly had to proceed to an analysis of the contents of the agreement and in particular, to assess its validity. In this respect, the DRC emphasized that the original of the agreement is on file. 9. After having analysed the stipulations of the agreement, the Chamber found that the terms of its art. 1 were indeed putting an end to the contractual relationship based on the contract that had been signed by and between the parties on 29 August 2008. 10. Equally, the Chamber found that art. 3 of the agreement clearly indicated that within the context of the termination of the contract, the two parties had accepted not to lodge any financial claim against each other in the future in connection with the employment contract. 11. In this context, and this stage, the members of the Chamber therefore unanimously agreed that the agreement submitted by the club was an agreement on the mutual termination of the contract containing a waiver by its signees to lodge any financial claim against each other as from 15 January 2009, i.e. prior to the date on which the Claimant lodged his claim against the Respondent before this decision-making body. 12. Following its analysis of said agreement, the Chamber reverted to the Claimant’s argumentation, in accordance with which the agreement submitted by the Respondent is invalid as it would be a forgery. 13. In this regard, the DRC emphasized that, as a general rule, it is not the competent body to decide upon matters of criminal law, such as allegedly falsified signatures or documents, but that such affairs fall within the jurisdiction of national penal courts. 14. In continuation, the DRC recalled that all documentation remitted shall be considered with free discretion and, therefore, focused its attention on the termination agreement as well as the other documents containing the player’s signature. After a thorough analysis of the aforementioned documents, in particular, comparing the relevant signatures, the DRC had no other option but to conclude that for a layman, and in the contrary of the player’s point of view, the player’s signatures on the various documents available, including the challenged document, seem to be alike. 15. In view of all of the above, and based on the documentation currently at its disposal, the DRC unanimously came to the conclusion that, unless proven otherwise by a decision of the competent national criminal authority, the relevant termination agreement dated 15 January 2009 is to be considered valid and shall, thus, be taken into consideration. 16. As a consequence, the Chamber decided that the claim for compensation for breach of contract without just cause lodged by the Claimant against the Respondent is rejected. 17. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber reverted to the contents of the agreement at stake and noted that said agreement contained financial terms which, prima facie, did not appear to have been fully complied with. 18. In particular, the DRC wished to recall that according to art. 2 of the agreement dated 15 January 2009, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant the amounts of EUR 5,000 in January (2009) and EUR 5,000 in February (2009). 19. However, the Chamber noted that in his statement of claim, the Claimant had inter alia indicated having received EUR 5,000 from the Respondent upon his leaving the club and nothing else afterwards. 20. On the other hand, the Chamber found that the Respondent had not specifically contested this assertion of the Claimant nor proven that in fact, the aforementioned two installments of EUR 5,000 each as per the agreement had been paid to the Claimant. 21. As a result of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent had partially failed to execute its obligation to pay what it owed to the Claimant on the basis of the termination agreement signed on 15 January 2009. 22. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 5,000 corresponding to the second installment stipulated in art. 3 of the termination agreement dated 15 January 2009. 23. The Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by rejecting any further claim lodged by the Claimant. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club B, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 5,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. In the event that the aforementioned amount is not paid within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the aforementioned time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the 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 Encl.: CAS directives