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 18 December 2012, by Mr Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player Player F, from country S as Claimant against the club Club G, from country M 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 18 December 2012, by Mr Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player Player F, from country S as Claimant against the club Club G, from country M as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 16 July 2008 and on 15 August 2008, Player F, from country S (hereafter: the Claimant), and Club G, from country M (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded respectively an employment contract and an annex thereto (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 16 July 2008 until 31 July 2010. 2. According to the annex to the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive for his services, inter alia: EUR 40,000 as remuneration for the 2008/2009 season, payable in instalments, namely a first instalment of EUR 10,000 upon signing of the contract and 10 subsequent equal monthly instalments of EUR 3,000 each; and EUR 30,000 for the 2009/2010 season. 3. On 28 July 2010, the Claimant lodged a petition before FIFA against the Respondent claiming outstanding remuneration. In particular, the Claimant asserted that the Respondent had only paid him EUR 38,000 out of the EUR 40,000 salary agreed for the 2008/2009 season; and EUR 11,700 out of the EUR 30,000 salary agreed for the 2009/2010 season. In addition, the Claimant reported that in April and May 2009 he was fined EUR 1,000 without any written explanation. 4. Prior to his claim, the Claimant had put the Respondent in default by means of a letter sent to the latter on 19 July 2010, whereby the Claimant required the Respondent to pay outstanding salaries in the amount of EUR 21,300 within eight days and warned the Respondent that failure to do so would prompt the Claimant to bring his claim before FIFA. 5. In this respect, the Claimant stated that the Respondent refused to pay the abovementioned sums for various reasons (cf. par. I./7. below) 6. In view of the foregoing, the Claimant requested the DRC to order the Respondent to pay outstanding salaries in the amount of EUR 21,300, made up of EUR 2,000 for the 2008/2009 season and EUR 19,300 for the 2009/2010 season, plus 5% interest p.a. from 1 May 2009 until the date of payment; and to consider further disciplinary sanctions against the Respondent. 7. In its reply, submitted on 29 November 2010, the Respondent explained that since the Respondent’s plan to reach a rank in the country M competition that would secure the participation in the European competitions, a target set in the Respondent’s “Premium Rulebook”, had failed, the salary of all players for the months of April and May 2009 was reduced by 30%. The Respondent claimed that such reduction resulted from its disciplinary committee’s decision of 15 June 2009, a copy of which was submitted together with the Respondent’s submission, to fine the coaching staff and players 8. Also, according to the Respondent, due to the economic crisis it was forced to further amend the contractual obligations for the 2009/2010 season, and so it was agreed by means of a decision of the Respondent’s management dated 3 July 2009 to reduce the agreed financial terms by 30% while offering the players, who did not accept the new terms, the possibility of freely leaving the club; however, no compensation was agreed to be offered in that case. The Respondent stated that the Claimant accepted the amendments and continued his cooperation with the club. Furthermore, the Respondent submitted a document referred to as “declaration” dated 25 February 2010 by means of which, according to the Respondent, the members of the team (including the Claimant) acknowledged that there were no unsettled obligations towards them until that date. 9. Finally, the Respondent stated that the Claimant reported health problems in August 2009. Consequently, in order to find out the underlying cause, the Respondent arranged medical examinations in country M; however, these were unsuccessful in diagnosing the problem. For this reason, the Claimant went to country S to seek medical advice but when he returned to country M he simply informed the Respondent that nothing had been found. As a consequence, the Respondent made a proposal to amend the contract as regards the payment scheme and the overall remuneration by way of an annex. According to the new arrangement, the salary for the month of August 2009 was set at EUR 500 and, thereafter, the Claimant’s salary shall be linked to his participation in the team’s matches, ie on the basis of time effectively played, and shall be paid after each match. In this regard, while the Respondent acknowledged that the amendment was never signed by the Claimant, it stressed that the Claimant acted accordingly and that this undoubtedly showed the Claimant’s consent. 10. In view of the above, the Respondent asked that the Claimant’s petition be dismissed and, in particular, argued that given that the Claimant was among the signatories of the above-mentioned declaration, the amounts claimed until 25 February 2010 must in no event be taken into consideration. 11. In his replica, the Claimant stressed that the decisions of the club dated 15 June 2009 and 3 July 2009 to reduce the Claimant’s salary were taken by the club without the consent and knowledge of the Claimant and for this reason must be considered as non-binding. Further, the Claimant pointed out that in the document referred to as “declaration” there was no indication as to its nature and that he was asked to sign off on the “declaration” following the completion of a medical test. Finally, the Claimant asserted that he left for treatment to Belgrade with the Respondent’s consent and that the confirmation for this is that no disciplinary measures were taken against him as a result of his absence. The Claimant indicated that he refused to sign the amendment suggested by the Respondent. 12. In its duplica, the Respondent merely stated that it acknowledged that “earnings for the months April and May reduced by 50%, together with payments for insurance from January to May” were outstanding. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge (hereinafter: the DRC judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he firstly took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 28 July 2010. Therefore, 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 and in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012), the DRC judge is competent to decide on the present litigation, concerning an employment-related dispute of an international dimension between a country S player and a country M club. 3. In particular, and in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 lit. i) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012), the DRC judge confirmed that he may adjudicate in the present dispute, which value does not exceed currency of country H 100,000. 4. In continuation, the DRC judge analysed which edition of the 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 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010 and 2012) and also considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 28 July 2010, the 2010 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. 5. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. He started by acknowledging that the parties to the dispute had signed an employment contract valid as from 16 July 2008 until 31 July 2010. 6. Equally, the DRC judge observed that the parties had agreed an overall remuneration for the term of the contract amounting to EUR 70,000, made up of: EUR 40,000 as remuneration for the 2008/2009 season, payable in instalments, namely a first EUR 10,000 instalment upon signing of the contract followed by 10 equal monthly instalments of EUR 3,000 each; and EUR 30,000 for the 2009/2010 season. However, the DRC judge noted that as regards the 2009/2010 season no payment schedule had been agreed. 7. In continuation, the DRC judge noted that the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent requesting the payment of the amount of EUR 21,300, corresponding to unpaid salary instalments, namely EUR 2,000 for the 2008/2009 season and EUR 19,300 for the 2009/2010 season, plus 5% interest p.a. from 1 May 2009 until the date of payment. Furthermore, the DRC judge noted that the Claimant had requested disciplinary sanctions against the Respondent. 8. Equally, the DRC judge observed that the Claimant, prior to lodging his petition before FIFA, had put the Respondent in default by means of a letter, sent on 19 July 2010, unsuccessfully requiring the settlement of the outstanding salary instalments within eight days from receipt of the letter. 9. Having said this, the DRC judge turned his attention to the arguments of the Respondent and, in particular, took note that, according to the Respondent, the reduction of the Claimant’s salary has resulted from two decisions, dated 15 June 2009 and 3 July 2009, taken by the Respondent in order to, respectively: i) fine the coaching staff and players for failing to reach a rank in the country M competition allowing them to take part in the European competitions; and ii) cope with the economic crisis. Further, the DRC judge observed that the Respondent claimed that the Claimant was a signatory of a declaration dated 25 February 2010 by means of which, according to the Respondent, the Claimant had acknowledged that there were no unsettled obligations towards him until that date. Finally, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent claimed that, following the health problems suffered by the Claimant, it had made a proposal to amend the contract of the Claimant by way of an annex, effective as of August 2009, as regards the overall remuneration as well as the payment scheme. 10. In this context, the DRC judge 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). 11. In view of the above, the DRC judge concluded that the Respondent shall carry the burden of proof as regards the due notification of the abovementioned decisions to the Claimant as well as in relation to the other arguments put forward by the Respondent in the present matter. 12. In this respect, the DRC judge ascertained that the Respondent was unable to prove that the relevant decisions had been duly notified to the Claimant. Further, the DRC judge stated that it could be drawn from the submissions of the parties during the investigation that the decisions were only made available to the Claimant as an enclosure to the Respondent’s letter dated 23 July 2010. Finally, the DRC judge remarked that the Respondent had not submitted any documentary evidence which would support the basis on which said deductions were made. In view of all the foregoing, the DRC judge decided that the reductions of the salary could not be considered legitimate. 13. Subsequently, the DRC judge ascertained that in the original version of the document referred to as “declaration”, there did not seem to be any statements about unsettled obligations. As a matter of fact, the DRC judge concluded that said document was a rather simple list containing names next to the corresponding signatures. Therefore, the DRC judge came to the conclusion that the Respondent was not able to prove that the Claimant, as a signatory of the “declaration”, had acknowledged that there were no unsettled obligations towards him until that date. 14. Thereafter, in relation to the alleged amendment to the financial terms of the contract, the DRC judge observed that the Respondent has not presented any documentary evidence regarding a possible amendment to the contractual arrangements in place between the parties and equally noted that the Claimant denied having ever accepted such an amendment. Indeed, the DRC judge pointed out that the Respondent, in its submission dated 29 November 2010, acknowledged that the amendment was never signed by the Claimant. Against this background and once again referring to the burden of proof, the DRC judge stated that the Respondent’s argument in this respect cannot be upheld. 15. Finally, the DRC judge stressed that on the basis of the principle of pacta sunt servanda the contractual arrangements shall be honored by the parties. 16. Consequently, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant outstanding salaries in the total amount of EUR 21,300. 17. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a.. 18. Finally, in relation to the Claimant’s request for sporting sanctions, the DRC judge referred to art. 17 of the Regulations and outlined that sporting sanctions only apply to those matters involving an early termination of an employment contract without just cause. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player F, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club G, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 21,300, plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows: a. 5% p.a. as of 1 May 2009 on the amount of EUR 1,000; b. 5% p.a. as of 1 June 2009 on the amount of EUR 1,000; c. 5% p.a. as of 28 July 2010 on the amount of EUR 19,300. 3. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant in accordance with the above-mentioned number 2 are 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. 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