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 theDispute Resolution Chamber(DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 2 October 2012, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge on the claim presented by the player, Player K, from country Z 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 theDispute Resolution Chamber(DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 2 October 2012, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge on the claim presented by the player, Player K, from country Z 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 3 May 2009, Player K, from country Z (hereinafter: the Claimant) and Club D, from country C (hereinafter: the Respondent) signed an employment contract, valid from the date of its signature until the end of the 2009/2010 season, according to which the Claimant was entitled to receive, inter alia, salary in the amount of EUR 10,000 in ten monthly instalments of EUR 1,000 each. 2. On 4 May 2009, the Claimant and the Respondent signed a supplementary contract, in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent, inter alia, an “extra amount” of EUR 40,000 as follows: EUR 6,000 as “advance payment”, EUR 4,000 ”until 31/5/2009” and EUR 30,000 in ten equal monthly instalments of EUR 3,000 each, the first instalment to be paid on 30 August 2009 and the last instalment to be paid on 30 May 2010. In addition, the supplementary contract stipulated that the Respondent had to “provide the Player accommodation in a fully furnished one or two bedroom apartment or house in country C” and that the Claimant “will pay electricity and water (Euro 600.00 per month maximum)”. 3. On 31 March 2010, the Claimant and the Respondent signed an agreement, by means of which they terminated their contractual relationship with immediate effect. In this respect, the agreement provided for the Claimant to receive from the Respondent “the remaining amount” of EUR 19,000 “before 31/5/2010” and indicated that “by the signing of the present agreement all previous contracts and/or any other supplementary contracts between the parties are hereby considered void and the Player is free to seek employment with any other Football Club without any financial demands by the Club”. Also, the agreement indicated that “with this documents is to be confirmed that all Articles of the Contract of Employment have been fully performed with respect and honour from both sides.” 4. On 27 July 2010, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, requesting from the latter the payment of EUR 19,000, plus interest, as well as requesting the payment of “the legal fees of the present claim”. In addition, the Claimant asked “the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber” to “award any other remedy that [it] deem appropriate.” In this respect, the Claimant referred to the termination agreement and argued that the Respondent had never him paid the amount of EUR 19,000. 5. By correspondence dated 1 September 2010, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim arguing that the latter was not entitled to receive the whole amount stipulated in the termination agreement. 6. In this respect, the Respondent explained that, although the Claimant had accepted to pay all the expenses in connection with his accommodation, he had left Cyprus without settling the amount of EUR 2,741 related to “the additional expenses for the apartment”. In this context, the Respondent submitted various invoices for the total amount of EUR 2,644.28. Furthermore, the Respondent submitted an alleged statement of the Claimant, in which the latter had specified that he would “pay all amount regarding electricity, water service, and all utilities of the apartment (..) before I leave the apartment”. 7. On 6 October 2011, the Claimant reiterated the content of his claim and rejected the Respondent’s allegations. In particular, the Claimant argued that the invoices submitted by the Respondent had no relation with him and bore “someone else’s name”. 8. In its final statement dated 1 February 2012, the Respondent reiterated the content of its previous submission and rejected the Claimant’s allegations. In this respect, the Respondent specified that the person mentioned in the invoices, i.e. “Mrs L” was the “owner of the property that our club leased on behalf of the player” and that the “specific address (…) is identical to that of the flat that the player was residing”. 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 27 July 2010. 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 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 lit. i) in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2010) the DRC judge is competent to decide on the present matter, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a country Z player and a country C club. 3. Furthermore, 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 2009 and 2010) and considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 27 July 2010, the 2009 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 as well as the documentation contained in the file. 5. In this respect and first of all, the DRC judge acknowledged that, on 3 May 2009 and 4 May 2009, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an employment contract, respectively a supplementary contract, both valid for the 2009/2010 season. 6. Equally, the DRC judge took note that, on 31 March 2010, the parties had concluded an agreement by means of which the parties put an end to the employment contract and the Respondent agreed that it would pay the amount of EUR 19,000 to the Claimant before 31 May 2010. Also, the DRC judge noted that the agreement stipulated that “with this documents is to be confirmed that all Articles of the Contract of Employment have been fully performed with respect and honour from both sides”. 7. In addition, the DRC judge observed that the Claimant is claiming the amount of EUR 19,000 from the Respondent, thereby asserting that the Respondent had not fulfilled its obligations deriving from the above-mentioned agreement. 8. Finally, the DRC judge took note that, for its part, the Respondent had acknowledged having signed the agreement with the Claimant and admitted it did not yet pay the relevant amount to the latter. However, the Respondent justified the non-payment by arguing that the Claimant had not yet settled all his debts in connection with the accommodation he had rented, emphasising that according to his contract with the club, the Claimant was responsible for the payment of all expenses incurred in relation to his accommodation. For that reason, the Respondent had not yet paid the Claimant, since the latter did not accept a deduction of the amount of EUR 2,741.01 from the amount of EUR 19,000. 9. In this context and after a thorough analysis of the agreement, the DRC judge was eager to emphasise that the parties to the employment contract had signed a termination agreement by means of which they mutually agreed to terminate their contractual relationship. In this respect, the DRC judge stressed that should the Claimant not have fully fulfilled his obligations towards the Respondent in connection with the employment contract, the Respondent should not have concluded an agreement by means of which it explicitly recognized that “all Articles of the Contract of Employment have been fully performed with respect and honour from both sides”. In other words, the DRC judge deemed that the Respondent could not, after having concluded the termination agreement, contest the contents of said agreement on the basis of alleged breaches of the employment contract which occurred prior to the date of signing the termination agreement and which, as such, bear no relation with the termination agreement. 10. In view of all the above, the DRC judge found that there was no basis to deduct any amount from the amount of EUR 19,000 contractually agreed between the parties and, consequently, also on the basis of the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, decided that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 19,000 to the Claimant. 11. In continuation and with regard to the Claimant's request for interest, the DRC judge decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 19,000 as from 27 July 2010 until the date of effective payment. 12. The DRC judge further decided that the Claimant's claim for legal expenses is rejected, in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the respective longstanding jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. 13. The DRC judge concluded his deliberations in the present matter by rejecting any further claim of the Claimant. III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player K, 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 19,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 27 July 2010 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid 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 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