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 R, from country S as Claimant against the club, Club D, from country C 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 R, from country S as Claimant against the club, Club D, from country C as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 15 July 2010, Player R, from country S (hereinafter: player or Claimant), and the Club D, from country C (hereinafter: club or Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as from the date of signature until 1 January 2011. 2. According to the contract, the player was entitled to receive inter alia the amount of EUR 4,000, payable in 4 equal monthly instalments of EUR 1,000 as from 1 September 2010. Furthermore, the club had to pay to the player food allowances in the amount of EUR 2,000 and journey allowances amounting to EUR 2,000, each payable in 4 equal monthly instalments of EUR 500. In addition, the player was to receive two return tickets country S - country C - country S “for every season”. 3. Moreover, the contract stipulates that the club was to provide the player with a furnished apartment and that the player had to pay for electricity, water and other associated taxes or bills (paid equally between him and his flatmate). 4. On 16 December 2011, the player lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the club claiming that the club owes him the total amount of EUR 4,400 plus interest made up of 2 monthly salaries (EUR 2,000), 2 monthly food allowances (EUR 1,000), 2 monthly journey allowances (EUR 1,000) and the reimbursement of an airplane ticket to country S in the amount EUR 400. 5. In reply to the claim, the club stated that only the amount of EUR 1,525 is owed to the player. In this respect, the club held that it had imposed a fine amounting to EUR 2,000 to the player due to an alcohol incident in a bar during the club’s preparation session in country C. Additionally, the club pointed out that the player had not paid “electricity for 4 months amounting to EUR 297, water amounting to EUR 58 and common expenses for his residence amounting to EUR 120”, i.e. the total amount of EUR 475. According to the club, this amount was deducted from the player’s salary, since it was the player’s obligation to pay these expenses according to art. 4 of the contract. Furthermore, as regards the airplane tickets, the club indicated that the player would have received two airplane tickets only if he had stayed with the club for a complete season. Since the player already made use of this ticket in October in order to travel to country S, he cannot claim a second ticket. The club added that on 15 December 2010, the player was offered the amount of EUR 1,525, which offer according to the club, was refused by the player. 6. In his replica, the player denied that the club imposed a fine of EUR 2,000. He added that he was not informed of any disciplinary sanction and that he did not sign any document in this regard. Regarding the accommodation payments, the player held that all players were given two options, i.e. either to live in a low quality apartment, but without the obligation to carry the accommodation costs, or to choose a higher quality apartment and pay for these costs. The player allegedly chose the first option. The player further argued that he never received any invoices from the club in this respect. Concerning the airplane tickets, the player stated that the contract authorizes the player to use two tickets despite the fact that the contract has clearly been concluded for half a year. Finally, the player denied that he was approached by the club with an offer. 7. In spite of having been invited by FIFA to do so, the club did not respond to the player’s replica. 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, the DRC judge took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 16 December 2011. 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. 2 and par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge 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 competent to decide on the present litigation, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a country S player and a country C club. 3. Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which 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 2012 and 2010), and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 16 December 2011, the 2010 edition of said Regulations is applicable to the present matter as to the substance (hereinafter: Regulations). 4. 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 case as well as the documentation contained in the file. 5. In this respect, the DRC judge acknowledged that the parties had signed an employment contract on 15 July 2010, in accordance with which the player was entitled to receive, inter alia, the amount of EUR 4,000 as remuneration, the amount of EUR 2,000 as food allowances and EUR 2,000 as journey allowances. In addition, the player was to receive two return tickets country S - country C - country S “for every season”. 6. In continuation, the DRC judge noted that the Claimant alleged that the Respondent had failed to pay the amount of EUR 4,400 made up of two monthly salaries (EUR 2,000), two monthly food allowances (EUR 1,000), two monthly journey allowances (EUR 1,000) and the reimbursement of an airplane ticket to country S in the amount EUR 400. Consequently, the Claimant asked to be awarded payment of the total amount of EUR 4,400, plus interest. 7. Equally, the DRC judge took note of the reply of the Respondent, who asserted that it only owed the amount of EUR 1,525 to the Claimant. The DRC judge acknowledged that the Respondent stated having imposed a fine in the amount of EUR 2,000 on the Claimant and that the Claimant would owe EUR 475 to the Respondent corresponding to different accommodation costs. Furthermore, the DRC judge noted the Respondent’s allegation that the Claimant would have received two airplane tickets only if he had stayed with the club for a complete season. 8. With due consideration to the above, the DRC judge acknowledged that the Claimant stated not having received the amount of EUR 4,400 whereas the Respondent acknowledged that the amount of EUR 1,525 would be due to the Claimant. 9. In this respect, the DRC judge recalled the basic legal principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. 10. Bearing in mind the above, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent did not substantiate its defence with respect to the monthly salaries and allowances amounting to EUR 4,000, as it did not present any evidence in respect of the fine amounting to EUR 2,000 it sustained to have imposed on the Claimant, regardless of the question as to whether such fine would have been considered acceptable, and in respect of the accommodation costs of EUR 475 allegedly owed by the Claimant to the Respondent. 11. In view of the above, the DRC judge concluded that, therefore, it could be established that the Respondent had failed to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 4,000. 12. As regards the amount of EUR 400 relating to a flight ticket, the DRC judge noted that according to the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive two return tickets country S - country C - country S “for every season”. The DRC judge decided that since the player was only under contract for half a season, he was, consequently, entitled to receive one ticket. Hence, the DRC judge decided to reject the claim regarding the airplane ticket. 13. As a consequence of all of the above, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent must fulfil its obligations as per the contract and, consequently, is to be held liable to pay the outstanding amount of EUR 4,000 to the Claimant. 14. In continuation and taking into account the Claimant's request for interest as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the DRC judge decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 4,000 as from 16 December 2011 until the date of effective payment. 15. Finally, the DRC judge concluded his deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. ** III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player R, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club D, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 4,000, plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 16 December 2011 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s 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 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