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 (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 6 March 2013, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player S, from country F as Claimant / Counter-Respondent against the club, Club N, from country C as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club Club A, from country L as Intervening Party 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 (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 6 March 2013, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player S, from country F as Claimant / Counter-Respondent against the club, Club N, from country C as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club Club A, from country L as Intervening Party regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 22 July 2008, Player S, from country F (hereinafter: the Claimant / Counter- Respondent), and Club N, from country C (hereinafter: the Respondent / Counter-Claimant), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2010. In addition, on 10 July 2009, the parties signed an amendment agreement (hereinafter: the amendment agreement). 2. According to the contract - and its further amendment - enclosed by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, he was, inter alia, entitled to receive the following net amounts: a) Contract: - EUR 15,000 “will take with the signing of the contract”; - EUR 45,000 for the season 2008-2009 paid in ten equal installments of EUR 4,500 each; - EUR 20,000 “will take with the signing of the contract”; - EUR 65,000 for the season 2009-2010 paid in ten equal installments of EUR 6,500 each; - EUR 600 per month for accommodation; - two return plane tickets for the player and his family. b) Amendment agreement: - EUR 65,000 for the season 2009-2010 paid in ten equal installments of EUR 6,500 each. 3. Furthermore, by means of the amendment agreement, the rescission clause of the contract, which was set at the amount of EUR 50,000, was amended to EUR 20,000. 4. Clause 3 of the amendment agreement states: “In the case that the Club fail to pay the Player any installment more than 45 days, then the present Amendment Agreement is automatically cancelled and it produce no legal effects. In such case the Original Agreement dated 22/07/2008 shall be the only valid agreement between the parties”. 5. Clause 33 of the contract and clause 4 of the amendment agreement state the following: “This agreement is to be governed by country C Law and/or Rules of the country C Football Association and country C Football Association’s committees shall have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate on any dispute”. 6. On 1 March 2010, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent lodged a claim against the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in front of FIFA, indicating that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had unilaterally terminated the contract on 8 February 2010 without any justified reason. Therefore, the Claimant / CounterRespondent requested to be awarded with the following amounts: - EUR 26,000 as outstanding salaries for the months October, November and December 2009 and January 2010; - EUR 20,000 “that he ought to receive upon renewal of the employment contract for the football season 2009/2010”; - EUR 26,000 as compensation for the breach of contract, for the months of February until May 2010; - EUR 1,800 for the accommodation of the months December 2009, January and February 2010 (600€ per month); - EUR 500 for a plane ticket; - the interest rate on the above amounts and the legal fees of the claim. 7. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent explained that on 8 February 2010, he received a letter from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant by means of which it terminated the contract, arguing that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had (i) failed to train and play to the best of his ability, (ii) attempt to induce other players to stop the association with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and to not play to the best of their abilities and (iii) been found guilty of serious misconduct and breach of the internal regulations of the football team. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent argues that the termination of the contract by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was without just cause and he utterly denies the reasons the Respondent / Counter-Claimant establishes in the letter of termination, to justify its decision. 8. In its reply to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant firstly challenged FIFA’s competence to deal with the case on the basis of clauses 33 of the contract and 4 of the amendment agreement. When asked by FIFA to provide the relevant national regulations that evidence that the “country C Football Association Committees” fulfill the requirements of FIFA in order to be recognized as an independent arbitration tribunal, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant provided FIFA with the “Regulations for the registration and transfer of football players country C Football Association (2005)” (hereinafter: the country C Regulations; that came into force on 15 June 2005). According to the country C Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Committee (hereinafter: NDRC) is composed of five members, namely the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman and one member, all appointed by the Executive Committee of the country C Football Association and two members appointed by the country C Football Players’ Association (art. 22.1.1 and art. 22.1.3). 9. The decisions are taken by simple majority (art. 22.8.1), subsequent to a summary and written procedure (art. 22.13.1 and art. 22.13.3). Clubs affiliated to the country C Football Association, football players and other interested persons are entitled to lodge a claim before the NDRC (art. 22.13.5). Any decision of the NDRC may be appealed to the Disciplinary Authority of the country C Football Association, which shall reach a final decision (art. 22.10). 10. Besides the objection to FIFA’s jurisdiction, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant also entered into the merits of the claim, indicating firstly that the contract provided by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was not the valid contract. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant accompanied a contract virtually the same as the one of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, dated 22 July 2008, however, without any reference to a rescission clause and as to the remuneration it only establishes the following: “The player’s basic wage is: € 15,000 for the first year, from 31/08/2008 to 31/05/2009 € 20,000 for the second year, from 31/08/2009 to 31/05/2010”. 11. In this respect, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant indicated that it had signed a contract with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in July 2008. In continuation, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant explained that on 22 July 2008 the parties signed a new contract, which in art. 28 stipulates that “all previous agreements between the club and the player are hereby cancelled”. Therefore, in the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s view the contract dated 22 July 2008 presented by it, is the only valid agreement. 12. Moreover, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant argued that the amendment agreement is not valid or enforceable on the basis of the aforementioned clause 3. 13. Furthermore, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant declared that on 4 February 2010 they invited the Claimant / Counter-Respondent for the next meeting of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s disciplinary committee in order to inform and hold a hearing about his misconduct, but that he refused to sign the delivery receipt. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant also stated that on 8 February 2010, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent presented his apologies for his behavior in front of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s disciplinary committee, but that, following the hearing and taking into account the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s defence, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant decided to terminate the contract with immediate effect, in this regard referring to clauses 21 and 22 of the contract which contain provisions about serious and/or persistent misconduct. 14. In addition, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant stressed that in the contract they provided, the basic wage of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was EUR 20,000 and that there is no allowance for accommodation and/or airplane tickets, or any other kind of allowance. Therefore, it stated that in case it were to pay something to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the amount would be EUR 10,000 for the loss of salary until the end of the season, as they had already paid the Claimant / Counter-Respondent EUR 10,000 for the period between 31 August 2009 and 8 February 2010. 15. Additionally, in its response, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant lodged a counterclaim indicating that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent failed to fulfill his obligations according to the contract and that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant terminated the contract with just cause, requesting a compensation of EUR 10,000 plus damages and legal expenses. 16. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent responded to the counterclaim presented by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, rejecting and denying all its allegations and reaffirming himself in his initial petition. Moreover, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent insisted in the competence of FIFA, and particularly of the DRC, to deal with his claim and to give a ruling in the matter. 17. Finally, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, upon request of FIFA, declared that during the period from 1 February 2010 to 31 May 2010 he did not enter into any new employment relationship with any other club. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent affirmed that it was only in September 2010 when he signed a new employment contract with Club A, from country L. 18. Despite having been invited by FIFA to do so, Club A did not provide any comments in relation to the present matter. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First of all, the DRC judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 1 March 2010. Consequently, the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. With regard to the competence of the DRC judge, the latter referred to art. 3 par. 2 and par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. (b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012) he is, in principle, competent to decide on the present litigation, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a country F player, a country C club, with a country L club as the Intervening Party. 3. In particular, and in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 lit. i) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the DRC judge confirmed that, in principle, he may adjudicate in the present dispute which value does not exceed currency of country H 100,000. 4. However, the DRC judge acknowledged that the Respondent / Counter- Claimant contested the competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of art. 33 of the employment contract and art. 4 of the amendment agreement highlighting that the country C Football Association has an independent deciding body to deal with the matter, i.e. the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the country C Football Association and that this deciding body was appointed as the only one having jurisdiction. 5. In this regard, the DRC judge noted that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent rejected such position and insisted that FIFA has jurisdiction to deal with the present matter. 6. Taking into account the above, the DRC judge emphasised that in accordance with art. 22 lit. b) of the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players he is competent to deal with a matter such as the one at hand, unless an independent arbitration tribunal, guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of players and clubs, has been established at national level within the framework of the Association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. With regard to the standards to be imposed on an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings, the DRC judge referred to FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20 December 2005. In this regard, the DRC judge further referred to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008. 7. For the sake of good order, the DRC judge first turned to art. 33 of the employment contract and art. 4 of the amendment agreement, on the basis of which the Respondent / Counter-Claimant contested FIFA’s jurisdiction. According to said articles “this agreement is to be governed by c Law and/or Rules of country C Football Association and country C Football Association’s committees shall have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate on any dispute”. Hence, the aforementioned articles clearly do not refer to a specific national dispute resolution chamber or any similar arbitration body in the sense of art. 22 lit. b) of the aforementioned Regulations. What is more, the DRC judge stressed that the employment contract or the amendment agreement do not make explicit reference to any collective agreement or regulations that would provide for an arbitration clause. 8. In continuation, the DRC judge wished to stress that, even if any of the contracts at the basis of the present dispute would have included such arbitration clause in favour of a national dispute resolution body, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was unable to prove that, in fact, the country C Football Association “Dispute Resolution Committee” meets the minimum procedural standards for independent arbitration tribunals as laid down in art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, in FIFA Circular no. 1010 as well as in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations. 9. In this respect, the DRC judge referred to the jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, which, already on several occasions, established that the country C Football Association “Dispute Resolution Committee” does not meet the minimum procedural standards for independent arbitration tribunals as laid down in art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. In this regard, the DRC judge, as previously done by the DRC, referred to the principle of equal representation of players and clubs and underlined that this principle was one of the very fundamental elements to be fulfilled, in order for a national dispute resolution chamber to be recognised as such. Indeed, this prerequisite is mentioned in the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, in the Circular no. 1010 as well as in art. 3 par. 1 of the NDRC Regulations, which illustrates the aforementioned principle as follows: “The NDRC shall be composed of the following members, who shall serve a four-year renewable mandate: a) a chairman and a deputy chairman chosen by consensus by the player and club representatives (…); b) between three and ten player representatives who are elected or appointed either on proposal of the players’ associations affiliated to FIFPro, or, where no such associations exist, on the basis of a selection process agreed by FIFA and FIFPro; c) between three and ten club representatives (…).” In this respect, the FIFA Circular no. 1010 states the following: “The parties must have equal influence over the appointment of arbitrators. This means for example that every party shall have the right to appoint an arbitrator and the two appointed arbitrators appoint the chairman of the arbitration tribunal (…). Where arbitrators are to be selected from a predetermined list, every interest group that is represented must be able to exercise equal influence over the compilation of the arbitrator list.” 10. The DRC judge, following the established jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, considered that the “Regulations for the registration and transfer of football players country C Football Association (2005)”, in accordance with which, inter alia, the chairman, vice-chairman and one member are elected by the Executive Committee of the country C Football Association and two members are elected by the country C Football Players’ Association, do not meet the aforementioned principles. 11. In view of all the above, the DRC judge established that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s objection to the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected and that the DRC judge is competent, on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, to consider the present matter as to the substance. 12. Subsequently, the DRC judge analysed which edition of the Regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2009, 2010, 2012) and considering that the present claim was lodged on 1 March 2010, the 2009 edition of said Regulations is applicable to the present matter as to the substance. 13. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, he started by acknowledging the abovementioned facts of the matter as well as the documentation contained in the file. 14. In this respect, the DRC judge acknowledged that, according to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the parties had signed a valid employment contract on 22 July 2008 in accordance with which the Respondent / Counter-Claimant would pay the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, for the season 2008-2009, a sign-on fee of EUR 15,000 as well as a monthly salary of EUR 4,500 for the period of ten months and for the season 2009-2010, a sign-on fee of EUR 20,000 as well as a monthly salary of EUR 6,500 for the period of ten months. Furthermore, the DRC judge acknowledged that the parties had signed an amendment agreement on 10 July 2009 according to which the Respondent / Counter-Claimant would pay the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, for the season 2009-2010, a monthly salary of EUR 6,500 for the period of ten months, and by means of which the rescission clause in the contract was reduced to the amount of EUR 20,000. 15. Equally, the DRC judge noted that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent maintains that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract towards the beginning of February 2010. 16. In this context, the DRC judge took note of the Respondent / Counter- Claimant’s letter dated 8 February 2010, by means of which it informed the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in writing about the termination of the contract due to an alleged misconduct of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 17. The DRC judge further noted that according to the Respondent / Counter- Claimant, who rejects the claim put forward by the Claimant / CounterRespondent, the employment contract was terminated with just cause since the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had failed to fulfil its obligations as per the contract and, consequently, lodged a counter-claim against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent requesting the amount of EUR 10,000 as compensation, plus damages and legal expenses. 18. Having taken due note of the above, the DRC judge, first and foremost, focussed his attention on the question as to which of the employment contracts respectively provided by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was to be considered the legally binding employment contract. 19. In this regard, the DRC judge pointed out that the Respondent / Counter- Claimant contested the validity of the employment contract provided by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and, furthermore, accompanied another employment contract with a different type of remuneration for the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. Additionally, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant acknowledged the validity of the amendment agreement signed on 10 July 2009. 20. The DRC judge, in this respect, highlighted that the amendment agreement signed by the parties, among other modifications, adjusted the rescission clause to the amount of EUR 20,000, while in the initial employment contract provided by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent it was agreed to be in the amount of EUR 50,000. Moreover, the DRC judge acknowledged that the contract provided by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant does not make any reference to a rescission clause. Furthermore, and in relation to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s argument that clause 28 of the contract it had provided stipulated that “All previous Agreements between the Club and the Player are hereby cancelled”, the DRC judge pointed out that all contracts provided in the present proceedings, including the one enclosed by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, contained the exact same clause and that, therefore, no particular weight could be given to this argument of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. 21. On account of all the above and taking into account all particularities of the present matter, the DRC judge was of the opinion that, although both employment contracts respectively provided by each of the intervening parties could be considered valid, it is the duty of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to avoid any action that can lead to confusion in the application of an employment contract. Therefore, the DRC judge considered that the fact that there existed two different employment contracts dated 22 July 2008, both duly signed by the parties, could not be held against the Claimant / CounterRespondent. In this respect, the DRC judge concluded that the employment contract provided by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent should be the one considered as legal and binding for the parties. 22. In this context, the DRC judge further observed that the Respondent / Counter- Claimant disputed the validity of the amendment agreement, by means of which the employment contract was amended, on the basis of clause 3 of the agreement. 23. Therefore, the DRC judge had to analyse the validity of clause 3 of the agreement which stipulates: “In the case that the Club fail to pay the Player any instalment more than 45 days, then the present Amendment Agreement is automatically cancelled and it produce no legal effects. In such case the Original Agreement dated 22/07/2008 shall be the only valid agreement between the parties”. The DRC judge was of the firm opinion that such a clause could not be considered valid and legally binding as it would basically reward the Respondent / Counter-Claimant for failing to meet its contractual obligations. Hence, the DRC judge deemed that the relevant clause could not be considered. 24. Having established the above, the DRC judge highlighted that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the claim and the counterclaim by the parties, was to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause and which party was responsible for the early termination of the contractual relationship in question. 25. In doing so, the DRC judge took into account that, according to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, his salaries as from October 2009 had remained unpaid and that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had also failed to pay the signing fee for the second season, a flight ticket and the accommodation allowance for three months. 26. In continuation, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, which merely bases its defence on denying the legal effects of the pertinent employment contract, has not contested such particular allegations. 27. On account of the above circumstances, the DRC judge established that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had not fulfilled its contractual obligations by failing to remit the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s salaries without any valid reason during four months. 28. Furthermore, the DRC judge took note that the Respondent / Counter- Claimant terminated the employment contract by means of a letter sent to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent on 8 February 2010, in which it alleged a serious misconduct of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent as the reason of the termination. The DRC judge noted, in this regard, that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant held that it had invited the Claimant / Counter-Respondent for the hearing of the disciplinary committee that would deal with his alleged misconduct, however, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent refused to sign the delivery receipt of the notification. In this context, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant acknowledged it had held the meeting of the disciplinary committee and, although taking into account the player’s apparent apologies, it had decided to terminate the contract. 29. In this regard, the DRC judge, referring to the principle of the burden of proof contained in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, considered that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not proof sufficiently that the internal process of the disciplinary committee was held in presence of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and that it could not be established that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was indeed duly notified of said process. Therefore, the DRC judge recalled that such process was not a fair and equal process as it did not give the Claimant / Counter-Respondent the opportunity to contend the accusations brought against him by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. What is more, the DRC judge observed that the reasons put forward by the disciplinary committee of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to justify the termination, i.e. the alleged misconduct, had not been substantiated by any documentary evidence, and, therefore, the DRC judge decided that such reasons could not be considered as a valid reason to unilaterally terminate the contract with just cause. 30. Accordingly, and taking into account the particularities of the present matter, in particular, the unpaid salaries of four months, the unpaid accommodation and other allowances as well as the reasons invoked by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to terminate the employment contract, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not have just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment contract on 8 February 2010 and that, consequently, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contact without just cause. 31. Consequently, the DRC judge determined that the counter-claim lodged by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant should be fully rejected. 32. Having established that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract without just cause, the DRC judge focussed its attention on the consequences of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the DRC judge decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant an amount of money as compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding payments on the basis of the relevant contract. 33. First of all, the DRC judge reverted to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s financial claim, which includes outstanding remuneration of EUR 26,000 for the months of October, November and December 2009 and January 2010, i.e. EUR 6,500 per month in accordance with the amendment agreement. In addition, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent asked to be awarded with the outstanding signing fee provided in the employment contract in the amount of EUR 20,000 as well as with the accommodation allowance for the months of December 2009, January and February 2010 in the total amount of EUR 1,800. The DRC judge recalled that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant failed to demonstrate that it had in fact paid such remunerations. Furthermore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent requested the amount of EUR 500 for an unpaid flight ticket. The DRC judge noted, however, that the claim for this concept was not accompanied by a detailed breakdown and that neither the contract specified any amount for this concept. In this respect and considering that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent requested one plane ticket, the DRC judge determined that the amount to which the Claimant / Counter- Respondent was entitled to for this concept, is the equivalent to a one-way flight ticket in economy class for the route country C - country F, resulting in an amount of EUR 185 as established by the travel department of FIFA. 34. Consequently, taking into account the documentation remitted by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to substantiate his claim and the fact that the employment contract was considered terminated as of 8 February 2010, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is liable to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent the remuneration that was outstanding at the time of the termination in the amount of EUR 47,985 relating to payments due to him in accordance with the employment contract and amendment agreement. 35. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim, the DRC judge decided that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is entitled to 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 1 March 2010 until the date of effective payment. 36. Moreover, the DRC judge focussed his attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the matter at stake. In doing so, the DRC judge firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and 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 / Counter-Respondent 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. 37. In application of the relevant provision, the DRC judge held that he first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contains 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. In this regard, the DRC judge established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake. 38. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the DRC judge proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent under the terms of the employment contract until 31 May 2010, taking into account that the player’s remuneration for the period between October 2009 and January 2010 is included in the calculation of the outstanding remuneration (cf. no. II./33. above). Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the amount of EUR 26,000 (i.e. salary as from February until May 2010) serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 39. In continuation, the DRC judge verified as to whether the Claimant / Counter- Respondent had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages. 40. The DRC judge noted that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had not signed any other employment contract. 41. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay the amount of EUR 26,000 to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent as compensation for breach of contract. 42. In addition and with regard to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent's request for interest, the DRC judge decided that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is entitled to 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 6 March 2013 until the date of effective payment. 43. Furthermore, the DRC judge held that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim for legal costs is rejected in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the Dispute Resolution Chamber’s respective longstanding jurisprudence. 44. The DRC judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any further claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Player S, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is partially accepted. 3. The counter-claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, C, is rejected 4. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / Counter- Respondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 47,985 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 1 March 2010 until the date of effective payment. 5. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / Counter- Respondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 26,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 6 March 2013 until the date of effective payment. 6. If the aforementioned sums plus interests are not paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant within the stated time limits, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 7. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected. 8. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent / Counter-Claimant immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances are to be made and to notify the DRC judge 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 DRC judge: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives