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 18 December 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Philippe Diallo (France), member on the claim presented by the player, Player P, from country C as Claimant / Counter-Respondent against the club, Club E, from country T as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club S, from country C as intervening party 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 18 December 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Philippe Diallo (France), member on the claim presented by the player, Player P, from country C as Claimant / Counter-Respondent against the club, Club E, from country T as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club S, from country C as intervening party regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 22 July 2008, Club E, from country T (hereinafter: the Respondent / Counter-Claimant or club) and Player P, from country C (hereinafter: the Claimant / Counter-Respondent or player) entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid from the date of signature until 31 May 2011. 2. According to the contract, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was entitled to receive the following net amounts: a. EUR 200,000 for the 2008/2009 season as follows: i. EUR 100,000 upon signature of the contract; ii. EUR 50,000 in ten monthly instalments of EUR 5,000, the first of which is due on 30 August 2008; iii. EUR 50,000 as league game participation fees; the amount in question is paid in 34 instalments of EUR 1,470, due for each league game in which the player takes part. b. EUR 250,000 for the 2009/2010 season as follows: i. EUR 100,000 due on 15 August 2009; ii. EUR 75,000 in ten monthly instalments of EUR 7,500, the first of which is due on 30 August 2009; iii. EUR 75,000 as league game participation fees; the amount in question is divided in 34 instalments of EUR 2,205, due for each league game in which the player takes part. c. EUR 300,000 for the 2010/2011 season as follows: i. EUR 100,000 due on 15 August 2010; ii. EUR 100,000 in ten monthly instalments of EUR 10,000, the first of which is due on 30 August 2010; iii. EUR 100,000 as league games participation fees; the amount in question is divided in 34 instalments of EUR 2,941, due for each league game in which the player takes part. d. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is entitled to the league game participation fees as follows: 100% if he is in the starting 11; 75% if he is in the first 18 and participates as a substitute; 50% if he is in the first 18 but does not participate as a substitute. e. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is also entitled to 4 return flight tickets (country C – country T) per season as well as a car and a house for the duration of the contract. 3. Art. 6.2 of the employment contract stipulates that ‘’in case the receivables of the player are not paid by the club in 90 days, the player may claim his receivables to be paid by giving notice in writing to the club through notary. In case the receivables are not paid to the player within 15 days after receiving the written notice, the player may terminate this contract’’. 4. By means of a correspondence dated 17 August 2009 and stamped by the notary public on 18 August 2009, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent requested the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to pay all outstanding amounts, i.e. EUR 154,354, within 15 days, as follows: a. EUR 25,000 as outstanding monthly instalments for January to May 2009; b. EUR 26,594 as league game participation fees; c. EUR 100,000 as lump sum due on 15 August 2009; d. EUR 2,760 as flight tickets (4 x return tickets country C – country T). 5. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent alleges having received the amount of EUR 25,000 from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant on 11 September 2009. 6. On 15 September 2009, the player notified the termination of the contract due to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s non fulfilment of its contractual obligations. 7. On 25 September 2009, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent lodged a claim against the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in front of FIFA requesting: a. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant to be ordered to pay the total amount of EUR 491,854 within 30 days following the judgment and 5 % interest as from the date of termination of the contract on 15 September 2009; b. To be allowed to register with the football club of his choice. 8. The amount of EUR 491,854 claimed by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is detailed as follows: a. EUR 129,354 as payments outstanding on the date of termination of the contract (cf. points I.4 and I.5. above); b. Compensation for the 2009/2010 season: i. EUR 75,000 as monthly salary; ii. EUR 37,500 as league game participation fees, considering that he estimates he would have played 17 games during the season; c. Compensation for the 2010/2011 season: i. EUR 100,000 as lump sum due on 15 August 2010; ii. EUR 100,000 as monthly salary; iii. EUR 50,000 as league game participation fees, considering that he estimates that he would have played 17 games during the season. 9. The player alleges he was removed from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s first team on 28 June 2009 and sent to train by himself. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent was then apparently reintegrated to the first team training process on 19 August 2009 and told that he would receive all outstanding payments. 10. In its response, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant alleges having paid all amounts due to the player for the 2008/2009 season, i.e. EUR 186,382, and all amounts for the 2009/2010 season, as well as an additional 78,000 currency of county T, amounting to a total of EUR 331,610. In particular, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant claims that it paid the Claimant / Counter-Respondent the amount of EUR 154,354 on 11 September 2009. In view of the foregoing, the club argues that it paid all outstanding amounts on 11 September 2009, thus prior to the termination of the contract by the player. In this respect, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant provided the original payment slip dated 11 September 2009 for the amount of EUR 154,354 in addition to several original payment slips for undisputed amounts. 11. With regard to the payments in favour of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant states that it was never provided with bank account details for the player and therefore paid all amounts in cash against receipt. 12. Furthermore, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant explains that it had financial difficulties due to its relegation but maintains that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had accepted delayed payments in the past. 13. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant also argues that it never received the player’s letter, in which he requests the club to pay all outstanding amounts within 15 days (cf. point 4 above). In fact, according to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the postal slip provided by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent clearly indicates that the letter in question was returned to the sender by the postal services. 14. In addition, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant believes that the termination of the contract by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was not valid, because the player’s default notice did not comply with Art. 6.2 of the contract. In this respect, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant argues that the player’s default notice was not notified by the notary public, but was merely translated by the latter before being sent by ordinary post to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. Therefore, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant maintains that the player didn’t respect the absolute condition set out in the aforementioned article which stipulates that: ‘’the player may claim his receivables to be paid, by giving notice in writing to the club [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] through notary’’. 15. Notwithstanding the aforementioned arguments, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant insists that it paid all outstanding payments to the player within the 15-day deadline it was apparently given, since it paid the entire amount on 11 September 2009. 16. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant concludes by lodging a counterclaim against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent for having terminated the contract on 15 September 2009 without just cause and demands: a. EUR 240,000 as refund for the transfer compensation allegedly paid to the player’s previous club, Club S; b. EUR 331,610 as refund for all amounts it paid to the player until the termination of the contract; c. EUR 462,500 as compensation for the amounts the Respondent / Counter-Claimant would have to have paid to the player until the end of the contract; d. Sporting sanctions to be imposed on the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, forbidding him to take part in competitive matches for a period of 4 months. 17. In his replica, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent disputes the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s statement that all outstanding amounts were paid on 11 September 2009. In particular, the player argues that the receipt dated 11 September 2009, provided by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in order to prove having paid the amount in question, is forged. 18. In this regard, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent repeats that he received only EUR 25,000 on 11 September 2009. In this regard, the player states that he accepted payments in cash against receipt because this was apparently usual practice at the Respondent / Counter-Claimant club. However, he insists that he was not given a receipt for the aforementioned payment despite having asked for one. 19. Furthermore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent explains that he had not received any payments since 30 April 2009 and, therefore, he wrote to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant on 17 August 2009 requesting the payment of all outstanding amounts on that date. 20. The player also disputes the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s statement according to which it did not receive the default notice (cf. point 13 above) and states that the postal receipt slip he remitted proves the contrary. 21. Furthermore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent equally argues that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s argument that the termination of the contract by the player was invalid for not having previously addressed a correctly notarised default notice (cf. point 13 above) is unfounded, and that the requirements of Art. 6.2 of the contract were fulfilled. 22. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent concludes by asking FIFA to entirely reject the counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. 23. On 16 July 2010, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee granted the country C Football Federation’s request to provisionally register the player with its affiliated club, Club S, following the country T Football Federation’s rejection to the relevant request for delivery of the International Transfer Certificate (ITC). 24. On 18 July 2010, the player signed an employment contract with the country C club, Club S for a period of 2 seasons, which provides for a monthly salary of EUR 3,500 for the 2010/2011 season. The player’s monthly salary is due as of 1 June 2010. In accordance with art. 17.2 of said contract, any previous contract between the player and Club S is replaced. 25. FIFA was provided with the position of the player’s new club Club S, explaining that it knew about the contractual dispute between the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant before hiring the player and that the fact the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee granted the request for provisional registration would tend to indicate that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had a just cause to terminate the employment contract. 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 25 September 2009. Consequently, the previous edition of 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. article 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 combination 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 C player and a country T club. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber 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, the Chamber referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2009, 2010 and 2012) and, on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged on 25 September 2009. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded that the 2008 version 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 Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, the members of the Chamber started by acknowledging that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had signed, on 22 July 2008, an employment contract valid until 31 May 2011(cf. point I.2. as to financial terms), which was undisputedly terminated by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent on 15 September 2009. 5. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, on the one hand, maintains that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract for failing to remit him the outstanding amount of EUR 129,354. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, on 17 August 2009, the player had apparently addressed a default notice for the amount of EUR 154,354 to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and subsequently informed the latter of the termination of the contract on 15 September 2009 due to the fact that he had only received the payment of EUR 25,000 on 11 September 2009. Consequently, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent claimed the total amount of EUR 491,854 (outstanding payments in the amount of EUR 129,354 and compensation in the amount of EUR 362,500) plus 5% interest as from the date of termination of the contract. 6. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, on the other hand, admits that it was in delay with certain payments, but holds that it remitted all payments due to the player on 11 September 2009. In particular, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant insists that it provided proof for the payment of EUR 154,354 on 11 September 2009, since it submitted the original payment slip for said payment along with several other slips for payments that are undisputed. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant further alleges that it did not receive the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s default notice, which, anyhow, it considers not to have complied with the stipulations of Art. 6.2 of the contract in that the default notice was not submitted through notary but merely translated by the latter. Therefore, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant lodged a counterclaim against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent asking, in particular, for compensation in the total amount of EUR 1,034,110, i.e. for all payments incurred for the player’s transfer, all amounts paid to the player during their contractual relationship and the residual value of the contract. 7. In this context, the Chamber firstly focussed its attention on the content of Art. 6.2 of the contract, which provides for a right for the player to unilaterally terminate the employment contract at the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s fault if two conditions are fulfilled. Firstly, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant fails to remit any payment to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent within 90 days as of the relevant due dates and, secondly, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent notified the Respondent / Counter-Claimant a 15-day deadline to pay all outstanding amounts through notary. 8. In relation to the above and with regard to the amount requested by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent by means of his correspondence of 17 August 2009, the Chamber emphasised that according to its understanding, Art. 6.2 of the contract had as a consequence that the player was only in a position to put the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in default 90 days after the due date of each payment. In other words, the player was only entitled to put the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in default for any payment that fell due at least 90 days prior to 17 August 2009. In this regard, the Chamber held that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had contested that it received the default notice but at the same time stated that it had paid all outstanding payments to the player on 11 September 2009 and thus within the relevant 15-day deadline. As a result, the chamber concluded that it could be established that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had put the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in default for the payments in question on 26 August 2009 at the latest. 9. In continuation, and regardless of whether the player’s default notice was notified correctly and in due form, the Chamber reverted to the essential question relating to the alleged payment of EUR 154,354 by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant on 11 September 2009. In particular, the DRC emphasised that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent contested the authenticity of the payment slip dated 11 September 2009 provided by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, insisting that his signature was forged. At the same time, the DRC emphasised that the original of the payment slip in question had been remitted to the attention of FIFA. 10. In this context, the DRC emphasised that as a general rule it is not the competent body to decide upon matters if criminal law, such as the alleged falsified signature or document, but that such affairs fall into the jurisdiction of the competent national criminal authority. 11. The DRC also recalled that all documentation remitted shall be considered with free discretion and therefore focused its attention on the relevant original payment slip as well as the other documents containing the player’s signature. After a thorough analysis of the aforementioned documents, in particular, comparing the relevant signatures the DRC had no other option but to conclude that for a layman the signatures seem to be alike. 12. In view of the above, and based on the documentation currently at its disposal, the Chamber unanimously came to the conclusion that, unless proven otherwise by a decision of the competent national criminal authority, the Chamber had to consider that the payment of EUR 154, 354 had effectively been made to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent on 11 September 2009. Thus, the Chamber further concurred that, in line with the requirements of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had presented adequate documentary evidence establishing that it had complied with all its financial obligations as per the contract until July 2009. 13. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question as to whether the player had just cause to prematurely terminate his contract with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the only reason given by the player for leaving was related to the alleged outstanding payments. 14. On account of the above, considering that all the outstanding amounts requested by the player appeared to have been paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant prior to the termination of the contract, the Chamber concluded that the player breached the contract without just cause and should therefore be held liable to pay compensation to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. 15. Prior to analysing the amount of compensation due, the Dispute Resolution Chamber pointed out that the salary for the month of August 2009, which was apparently due at the time the contract was terminated, had not been requested by the player in his letter of 17 August 2009, but was included in the amounts requested by the latter in his claim before the Dispute Resolution Chamber. In this respect, the Chamber emphasised that the payment of the salary for August 2009 fell due within the grace period of 90 days as stipulated in Art. 6.2 of the contract. 16. Consequently, taking into consideration that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant never invoked nor proved having paid the player’s salary for the month of August 2009, the Chamber held that it could only determine that the amount in question had not been paid. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is liable to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent for the amount of EUR 7,500 relating to the salary of August 2009. 17. In addition, taking into consideration the claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the Chamber decided to award the player interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the above-mentioned amount as from 15 September 2009. 18. As concerns the amount of compensation to be paid by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, on the basis of the counterclaim lodged by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, and clarified, first of all, that the relevant employment contract signed on 22 July 2008 did not contain a provision by which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation for breach of contract. 19. Turning its attention to the requests as contained in the counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the Chamber was eager to point out that investments made to sign the player, i.e. the transfer compensation allegedly paid in the amount of EUR 240,000 to the player’s previous club, cannot be considered due to the lack of evidence provided in this respect (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). Equally, the Chamber made clear that the amount of EUR 331,610 apparently paid to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent until the termination of the contract does not have to be refunded as the latter had fulfilled his obligations under the contract and provided his services for the period in question. 20. In continuation, the Chamber considered the documentation and information at disposal, in particular, the financial terms of the employment contract the player signed with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the employment contract the player signed with Club S, from country C, in order to gather indications as to the economic value attributed to the player by both his former and his new club. 21. Consequently, the Chamber took into account that by the time the player terminated his contract with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the period of time remaining on the contract corresponds to 20 months and 15 days. Moreover, the Chamber also took into account that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent signed the new employment contract with the country C club approximately 10 months after having terminated the contract with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. 22. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the relevant compensation should be calculated based on the average fixed remuneration, i.e. excluding any conditional or performance related payment, agreed by the player with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the country C club as well as considering the period of time remaining on the contract signed between the player and the Respondent / Counter–Claimant, i.e. between 15 September 2009 and 31 May 2011. 23. In this context, the Chamber noted that within the relevant period the player was entitled to receive a fixed remuneration under his contract with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant of EUR 67,500 for the 2009/2010 season, corresponding to nine monthly salaries, as well as a total fixed remuneration of EUR 200,000 for the 2010/2011 season. Moreover, and turning its attention to the financial terms of the employment contract signed between the player and the country C club, the Chamber acknowledged that according to the said contract signed for a duration of two seasons the player was entitled to receive twelve monthly salaries of EUR 3,500 until 31 May 2011. Thus, the Chamber established that the player’s total remuneration under the new contract with the country C club until 31 May 2011 corresponds to the amount of EUR 42,000. 24. Considering the above, the Chamber concluded that, for the relevant period, the player’s average remuneration between his fixed remuneration under the contract with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, i.e. EUR 267,500, and the player’s relevant salary under the contract with the country C club, i.e. EUR 42,000, amounts to EUR 154,750. 25. The DRC further analysed the stances of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, in order to consider if there were any exceptional mitigating or aggravating circumstances. 26. In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that from January to September 2009, during which the Respondent / Counter-Claimant apparently failed to remit the player his monthly salary, had to be considered as extensive. What is more, the beginning of this long period occurred already within six months of the contract, i.e. relatively shortly into the contractual relationship. On account thereof, the members of the Chamber held that the fact the player had not received regular payments for such a long period of time and had not received the sizeable payment of EUR 100,000 on its due date of 15 August 2009, created a situation of uncertainty by which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent could only difficultly trust in the continuation of the employment relationship. 27. In addition, the Chamber noted that after the termination of the contract, the player had failed to find a new club with which to compete for ten months and did not receive any remuneration for a period of nine months, i.e. the equivalent of one entire sporting season. 28. Consequently, taking into consideration the above-mentioned mitigating factors and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent must pay the amount of EUR 80,000 to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant as compensation for breach of contract. Furthermore, the Chamber decided that in accordance with art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations, the country C club is jointly and severally liable for the payment of this amount of compensation. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Player P, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club E, has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 7,500, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 15 September 2009 until the date of effective payment. 3. Any further claim filed by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected. 4. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent / Counter-Claimant immediately of the bank account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received. 5. The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is partially accepted. 6. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent has to pay to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant within 30 days as from notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 80,000. 7. The Club S, from country S, is jointly and severally liable for the payment of the aforementioned compensation. 8. In the event that the aforementioned amount (cf. point 6 above) is not paid within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will apply as of the expiry of the stipulated time limit until the date of effective payment. 9. Any further request filed by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected. 10. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant is directed to inform the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the intervening party, Club S, 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. 11. In the event that any of the above-mentioned amounts are not paid within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. ***** 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