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 K, from country A as Claimant against the club, Club F, from country G 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 (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 K, from country A as Claimant against the club, Club F, from country G as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. Player K, from country A (hereinafter: the Claimant) and Club F, from country G (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 12 August 2009 until 30 June 2010. 2. According to art. 4.4 of the contract, the Claimant was to be remunerated with the total amount of EUR 12,679.44, payable in 11 installments of EUR 1,152.68, the first one payable on 31 August 2009 and the last one payable on 30 June 2010. 3. Furthermore, the Claimant asserted that, apart from the contract, the parties also concluded a private agreement according to which the Claimant was entitled to receive an extra monthly amount of EUR 3,347.32 as well as a monthly accommodation allowance of EUR 1,610. The Claimant indicated that, therefore, he was to receive an aggregate monthly remuneration of EUR 4,500, which, according to the player, totalises EUR 50,000. The Claimant indicated that the employment contract signed between the parties as well as the private agreement were “freely and consciously signed by both parties”. 4. On 16 August 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent indicating that the Respondent had not yet fulfilled its contractual obligations in full. In particular, the Claimant claimed the total amount of EUR 9,610, corresponding to the following payments: - EUR 500 in respect of part of his salary for November 2009; - EUR 2,000 in respect of part of his salary for December 2009; - EUR 1,500 in respect of part of his salary for January 2010; - EUR 1,500 in respect of part of his salary for March 2010; - EUR 1,500 in respect of part of his salary for April 2010; - EUR 1,000 in respect of part of his salary for May 2010; - EUR 1,610 in respect of part of his accommodation allowance. 5. Equally, the Claimant requested 5% interest p.a. over the amounts due as from the date they became outstanding. 6. Having been requested by FIFA to provide a copy of the private agreement, the Claimant provided “a copy of the relevant bank check dated 30 June 2010 in the amount of EUR 30,000”. According to the Claimant such check was “given in advance by the Respondent to the Claimant, as a payment’s guarantee of such amount, which was not mentioned in the parties’ employment contract.” Furthermore, the Claimant submitted payment receipts for the total amount of EUR 34,000 as follows: 7. - EUR 5,000 received on 25 September 2009 - EUR 2,000 received on 25 November 2009 - EUR 2,000 received on 25 November 2009 - EUR 2,000 received on 26 October 2009 - EUR 2,500 received on 23 December 2009 - EUR 2,000 received on 14 January 2010 - EUR 1,500 received on 5 February 2010 - EUR 1,000 received on 5 February 2010 - EUR 2,000 received on 26 February 2010 - EUR 3,000 received on 24 March 2010 - EUR 3,000 received on 16 April 2010 - EUR 3,000 received on 14 May 2010 - EUR 5,000 received on 10 June 2010 8. In the Claimant’s view, such payment receipts were clear evidence that he was indeed entitled to more salary than the contract specified. 9. Having once again been requested by FIFA to provide a copy of the private agreement, the Claimant indicated that the private agreement concluded between the parties was of a verbal nature and that the document confirming its existence was the bank check dated 30 June 2010 which “was given in advance”. However, the Claimant claimed that such check was not covered, “the reason why the claimed amount remains outstanding to date”. 10. Despite having been invited by FIFA to provide its position in respect of the claim lodged against it, the Respondent never answered although it was informed that, in absence of a reply, a decision would be taken upon the basis of the documents on file. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the DRC judge took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 16 August 2011. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the 2008 and 2012 edition of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 lit. i. in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012) the DRC judge is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Argentinian player and a Greek club. 3. Subsequently, the DRC judge analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010 and 2012) and considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 16 August 2011, the 2010 edition of 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 DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. The DRC judge started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the documentation contained in the file. 5. First of all, the DRC judge acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an employment contract valid as from 12 August 2009 until 30 June 2010, in accordance with which the player was to be remunerated with the total amount of EUR 12,679.44, payable in 11 installments of EUR 1,152.68. 6. Equally, the DRC judge noted that the Claimant asserted that he had concluded another agreement with the Respondent according to which he was entitled to receive an additional monthly remuneration of EUR 4,500. However, upon request, the Claimant indicated he was not in possession of said agreement as it was agreed upon orally. 7. The DRC judge further observed that the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent seeking payment of the amount of EUR 9,610. 8. In this context, the DRC judge first recalled the basic principle of the burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. 9. In this respect, the DRC judge examined the documentation provided by the Claimant and came to the conclusion that there was no evidence on file from which it could, without a doubt, be established what were the exact financial terms of the agreement apparently agreed upon with the Respondent orally. In this context, the DRC judge found it first of all odd that the Claimant initially indicated that the private agreement was “freely and consciously signed by both parties”, that thereafter he asserted that the private agreement was concluded orally and that the check apparently “given in advance” was dated 30 June 2010, when, in fact, 30 June 2010 was the final day of the duration of the contract. The DRC judge acknowledged that it may well be that additional financial terms were agreed upon between the Claimant and the Respondent, however, the DRC judge deemed that the exact financial terms of such additional agreement had not been sufficiently proven. 10. Consequently, the DRC judge considered that, in view of the contradictory statements of the Claimant as well as taking into account the lack of documentary evidence, the Respondent had not sufficiently substantiated its claim, as it did not present any conclusive documentary evidence which adduced that the amount of EUR 9,610 was indeed still outstanding towards him. 11. In view of all the above, the DRC judge decided to reject the Claimant’s claim. ** III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player K, is rejected. 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 DRC judge: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives