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) passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 April 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member on the claim presented by the player, Player C, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club M, from country T as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen 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) passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 April 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member on the claim presented by the player, Player C, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club M, from country T as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 31 January 2012, Player C, from country B (hereinafter: player or Claimant) and Club M, from country T (hereinafter: club or Respondent), signed an employment contract valid as from 31 January 2012 until 31 May 2012 (hereinafter: contract). 2. In accordance with the contract, the player was entitled to receive, inter alia, for the 2011-2012 season the total amount of EUR 140,000; EUR 70,000 net as of 1 February 2012 as advance payment and two monthly equal instalments of EUR 35,000 net between 5 March 2012 and 5 April 2012. 3. On 12 July 2012, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA requesting that the club be ordered to pay EUR 117,000, which was detailed as follows: - EUR 64,000 relating to the instalments that fell due between 5 March 2012 and 5 April 2012; - EUR 8,000 related to a match bonus; - EUR 35,000 as compensation for breach of contract; - EUR 10,000 for damages and losses due to breach of contract. 4. The player also requested to be awarded 5% legal interests p.a. on the above amounts as well as procedural costs. 5. The player alleged that the club only paid EUR 6,000 out of the total amount of EUR 70,000 corresponding to the instalments due between March and April 2012 and also failed to pay EUR 8,000 related to a match bonus. Consequently, and after having sent correspondence in this regard to both the club and the country T Football Federation, on 19 April 2012, the player formally notified the club of the unilateral termination of the contract with just cause. 6. Moreover, the player explained that, on 17 April 2012, the club requested him to immediately return the vehicle that was provided to him by the club. Furthermore, the player alleged that he was requested to return the house keys and that he was obliged to train on his own while other players were already either on vacation or dismissed. 7. Furthermore, according to the player, the club offered to pay him half of the outstanding amount instead of the full payment of the sum owed to him in return for being exempt from attending the club’s training sessions. 8. In its response to the claim, taking into account the player’s petition, the club held that the amount due to the player does not correspond to the sum claimed, since he was paid by the club the amount of EUR 85,000 to EUR 90,000, approximately. 9. Finally, the club alleged that despite having financial difficulties it tried to fulfill the liabilities arising from the contract and that it acted in good faith. The club also requested the Dispute Resolution Chamber to take into consideration that the club was relegated and lost its highest income source, which were the TV rights it was entitled to. The club also alleged that the player was employed with the aim of preventing sportive failure; however, his performance was not positive and he failed to attend training sessions, records of which have allegedly been kept by the club. 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 12 July 2012. 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 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a country B player and a country T 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 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2012 and 2010), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 12 July 2012, the 2010 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: 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. The members of the Chamber started by acknowledging the facts of the case, as well as the documentation contained in the file. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the parties had signed an employment contract valid as from 31 January 2012 until 31 May 2012, in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive, inter alia, a total guaranteed amount of EUR 140,000. 5. In continuation, the members of the Chamber took into account that, on 19 April 2012, the Claimant notified the Respondent of the unilateral termination of the contract with just cause on the basis of outstanding remuneration. Moreover, the DRC noted that at the time of the termination of the contract, i.e. 19 April 2012, the entire contractual remuneration had fallen due. 6. In this respect, the Chamber first acknowledged that, according to the Claimant, at the time of the termination of the contract, part of the instalments due between March and April 2012 in the total amount of EUR 64,000 as well as EUR 8,000 related to a match bonus were yet to be paid by the Respondent. 7. The DRC further noted that the Respondent, for its part, admits that it still owes to the Claimant remuneration in connection with the financial obligations stipulated in the contract, which amount, according to the Respondent, does not correspond to the sum claimed by the Claimant. 8. In continuation, the DRC referred to the legal principle of the burden of proof contained in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which, a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. 9. In view of the above, the DRC concluded that the Respondent shall carry the burden of proof in connection with its allegations that the amount of EUR 85,000 to EUR 90,000 approximately was paid by the Respondent against the Claimant’s EUR 140,000 credit. The members of the Chamber observed that the Respondent failed to present any documentary evidence in this respect. As a result thereof, the Chamber highlighted that the Claimant had just cause to terminate the contract on 19 April 2012. 10. The Chamber then turned its attention to the Claimant’s request regarding the amount of EUR 8,000 allegedly due by the Respondent in connection with a match bonus, which amount has not been acknowledged by the Respondent as outstanding, and concluded that the Claimant failed to submit evidence to substantiate his allegations that the Respondent would be liable to pay to him the amount of EUR 8,000 in connection with a match bonus. In this regard, the Chamber highlighted that the contract did not contain any stipulation in accordance with which the Claimant would be entitled to match bonuses. 11. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR 64,000. 12. As a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the members of the Chamber pointed out that with the payment of the amount of EUR 64,000 the full contractual value will have been remitted to the Claimant as a result of which, bearing in mind the Chamber’s jurisprudence relating to breach of contract, no further amount was to be awarded to the Claimant. 13. Furthermore, taking into account the Claimant’s petition for interest as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive interest at the rate of 5% p.a. over the amount of EUR 64,000 as from 12 July 2012 until the date of effective payment. 14. Moreover, the Chamber decided that the Claimant’s claim for procedural costs is rejected in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the Dispute Resolution Chamber’s respective longstanding jurisprudence. 15. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player C, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club M, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 64,000 plus interest at 5% p.a. as of 12 July 2012 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the above-mentioned 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 the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and 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