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 25 October 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member David Mayebi (Cameroon), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member on the claim presented by the player, Player B, from country M as Claimant against the club, Club P, from country I 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 25 October 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member David Mayebi (Cameroon), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member on the claim presented by the player, Player B, from country M as Claimant against the club, Club P, from country I as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 20 June 2009, Player B, from country M (hereinafter: the Claimant), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) with Club P, from country I (hereinafter: the Respondent), valid for the season 2009/2010. 2. According to the said contract the Claimant would receive for the season 2009/2010 a total amount of USD 180,000. 3. On 15 October 2009, the Claimant contacted FIFA arguing that on 20 June 2009 he had signed the contract with the Respondent and at the end of the summer registration period and after his stay in country I of 45 days he was informed by the Respondent that he is free and can leave the country. The Claimant further explained that the club has not paid him any remuneration or any expenses. Therefore, the Claimant deems that the Respondent has breached the contract without just cause and should pay him the total amount of USD 180,000. 4. On 19 July 2010, the Respondent provided FIFA with the following 4 documents in its original version along with a translation. a) Contract of termination dated 18 November 2009 signed between country I Sports and Cultural Institute and Player B, represented by the agent A, based on which the parties mutually terminated the contract and the amount of USD 45,000 was paid as compensation for the termination to Agent A. b) Financial Settlement Sheet apparently signed by the player dated 15 December 2010 mentioning that the contract signed between the player Player B and the club P has expired and was settled. c) Contract Termination dated 14 December 2009, signed apparently between the player Player B and the club I by means of which the contract was terminated without any conditions or terms. d) A document without date stipulating the following: “I Player B give authorization to Agent A to negotiate in country I for me with Club P from country I for my financial condit.”. 5. The Claimant contested having signed any of the documents sent by the Respondent. Also, the Claimant contested his signature on the alleged authorization given to Agent I. Finally, the Claimant referred to his initial claim and emphasised that he has never received any remuneration at all from the Respondent. 6. With regard to his contractual situation the Claimant provided the following two contracts signed with Club S, from country D, one, valid as from 25 October until 31 December 2009 for the net amount of EUR 6,000 and a second one valid as from 3 February 2010 until 31 May 2010 for a monthly salary of net EUR 2,000. 7. Although having been invited to provide its final comments the Respondent never replied. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as DRC or Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 15 October 2009. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008; hereinafter: the 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 Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, 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 M player and an country I 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, and considering that the contract at the basis of the dispute was signed on 20 June 2009, while the present claim was lodged in October 2009, the 2009 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the 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 that, on 20 June 2009, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an employment contract valid for the season 2009/2010. 5. In this regard, the members of the Chamber duly considered the financial terms of the employment contract at the basis of this dispute. In this respect, the Chamber took note that it had been agreed upon between the parties that the Claimant was to receive the total amount of USD 180,000. 6. The Dispute Resolution Chamber further acknowledged that, on 15 October 2009, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, stressing that on 20 June 2009 he had signed the contract with the Respondent and at the end of the summer registration period and after his stay in country I of 45 days he was informed by the Respondent that he is free and can leave the country without paying him any remuneration. In this respect, the Chamber duly noted that the Claimant was seeking payment of the amount of USD 180,000 as compensation from the Respondent due to the latter’s breach of contract. 7. The Chamber turned its attention to the position and documents provided by the Respondent and noted that the latter provided the following 4 documents: • Contract of termination dated 18 November 2009 signed between country I Sports and Cultural Institute and Player B, represented by the agent A, based on which the parties mutually terminated the contract and the amount of USD 45,000 was paid as compensation for the termination to agent A. • Financial Settlement Sheet apparently signed by the player dated 15 December 2010 mentioning that the contract signed between the player B and the club P has expired and was settled. • Contract Termination dated 14 December 2009, signed apparently between the player Player B and the club P by means of which the contract was terminated without any conditions or terms. • A document without date stipulating the following: “I Player B give authorization to agent A to negotiate in country I for me with Club P from country I for my financial condit.”. 8. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that according to the legal principle of the burden of proof, any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). 9. In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent shall carry the burden of proof that it terminated the contract with just cause and/or that it had fulfilled all its contractual obligations. As a result, the Chamber analysed the documents provided by the Respondent and considered that the Claimant contested having signed any of the documents sent by the Respondent as well as contested his signature on the alleged authorization given to agent A. 10. In this respect, the Chamber first emphasised that neither of the documents entitled, “Financial Settlement Sheet” dated 15 December 2010 and “Contract Termination” dated 19 December 2009 which were apparently signed by the Claimant contain his signature. Moreover, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant contests ever having signed the documents. As a result, the Chamber decided that based upon the two aforementioned documents it cannot be established that the Claimant agreed to early terminate the employment contract at the basis of the present dispute. 11. In continuation the Chamber referred to the document entitled “Contract Termination” dated 18 November 2009. By means of the said document in the Respondent’s opinion, the Claimant, represented by agent A and the Respondent apparently mutually terminated the contract. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber again referred to the legal principle of the burden of proof and emphasised that the Respondent shall carry the burden of proof that agent A was acting on behalf of the Claimant and was authorized by the latter to sign the alleged termination dated 18 November 2009. 12. In this context, the Chamber considered that the Claimant contested having signed the alleged authorization. Moreover, the deciding body took due note of the general wording of the said authorization and the fact that the said authorization was undated. In view of the forgoing, the Chamber concluded that based on the said document it could not be manifestly established that the Claimant had authorized agent A to act on his behalf. Finally, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to underline that the document entitled “Contract Termination” dated 18 November 2009 was signed by country I Sports and Cultural Institute. 13. Considering the above-mentioned, the Chamber concluded that based upon the document entitled “Contract Termination” dated 18 November 2009 it cannot be established that the Claimant agreed to early terminate the employment contract at the basis of the present dispute. 14. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that based on the positions of the parties and documents on file the contract was terminated by the Respondent at the beginning of August 2009 without valid reason. 15. As a result, and considering the financial terms of the contract the Chamber concluded that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the outstanding salary for the month of July 2009 corresponding to USD 15,000. Moreover, and as regards the compensation for breach of contract, the Chamber considered that the remaining value of the contact, as from August 2009 until the end of the season 2009/2010 amounts to USD 165,000. Equally, the Chamber considered that the Claimant rendered his services to a third club as from 25 October until 31 December 2009 for the net amount of EUR 6,000 and as from 3 February 2010 until 31 May 2010 for a monthly salary of net EUR 2,000. As a result, the Claimant received during the relevant period of time the total remuneration of USD 18,000. Consequently, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to establish the amount of USD 147,000 as compensation for the breach of contract. 16. In view of all of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the outstanding remuneration amounting to USD 15,000 as well as the amount of USD 147,000 as compensation. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player B, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club P, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 15,000. 3. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation amounting to USD 147,000. 4. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant in accordance with the above-mentioned numbers 2. and 3. are not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limits, interest at the rate of 5% per year will apply as of expiry of the stipulated time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected. 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances are 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.