F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2013-2014) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2013-2014) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 10 July 2013, by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player J, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club F, from country R as Respondent regarding an employment-related contractual dispute arisen between the parties

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2013-2014) - controversie di lavoro - ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2013-2014) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 10 July 2013, by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player J, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club F, from country R as Respondent regarding an employment-related contractual dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. Player J, from country B (hereinafter: the Claimant) and Club F, from country R (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an undated employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from 1 January 2011 until 30 May 2011. 2. According to clause K of the contract, the Respondent undertook to provide the Claimant with a monthly salary of currency of country R 700, payable on the 25th day of every month. 3. In addition, on 12 January 2011, the parties signed an “agreement proposal” (hereinafter: the proposal), according to which “our club, Club F, confirms the interest to sign a labour contract with the player J” and as per which, the Respondent undertook to provide the Claimant, inter alia, with: - EUR 40,000 net payable in 5 equal instalments of EUR 8,000 each; - unspecified team bonuses. 4. On 26 March 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA against the Respondent, requesting, based on the “agreement proposal”, the payment of the total amount of EUR 19,000, plus interests as from the date the amounts became outstanding, as follows: - EUR 16,000 as outstanding salaries for April and May 2011; - EUR 3,000 for bonuses for matches won by the Respondent. 5. The Claimant also requests the application of sporting sanctions against the Respondent “in case it does not comply with its obligation of paying the outstanding salaries, in accordance with article 64 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code.” 6. In his claim, the Claimant explains that the salary provided for in the contract does not reflect what had in fact been agreed between the parties, as evidenced in the “agreement proposal”. 7. According to the Claimant, notwithstanding the fact that he entirely fulfilled his contractual obligations, the Respondent failed to pay him two salaries, as well as bonuses for matches won, the payment of which had allegedly been agreed with the squad. 8. In its reply, the Respondent rejects the Claimant’s claim, based on the fact that the claimed amount has already been paid. In this regard, the Respondent provides a copy of an agreement, signed between its president and Mr G, on 9 August 2011, as per which the parties agreed that “Club F pays to Mr G the debit of EUR 16,000 representing the salaries of April and May 2011. After signing the present agreement Club F has no financial obligations to the player J”. 9. In addition, the Respondent encloses to its reply a copy of an “exclusive authorization”, dated 3 August 2011 and allegedly signed by the Claimant, according to which the latter authorizes Mr G to receive on his behalf the amount of EUR 16,000, corresponding to outstanding salaries. 10. According to the Respondent, as the aforementioned amount of EUR 16,000 has already been paid to Mr G, as authorized by the Claimant, the Respondent is no longer in debt towards the Claimant. 11. In his replica, the Claimant asserts that he did not authorize anyone to collect payments on his behalf and that the “exclusive authorization”, dated 3 August 2011, submitted by the Respondent consists of a counterfeit. In particular, the Claimant claims that the signature contained in the aforementioned authorization is very different from the signature contained in the employment contract. 12. The Claimant further states that an “exclusive authorization” would not suffice to entitle someone to collect money on behalf of another person and that a specific power of attorney would have been necessary in such case. 13. Despite having been invited to do so, the Respondent did not provide its final position on the present affair. 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, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 26 March 2012. Consequently, 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 par. 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 par. 2 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2010) (hereinafter: the Regulations), he is competent to decide on the present litigation, concerning an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a country B player and a country R club. 3. Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which edition of the Regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter concerning the contractual dispute between the parties. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations (edition 2010) and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 26 March 2012, the 2010 edition of said Regulations is applicable to the present matter as to the substance. 4. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the judge entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, he started to acknowledge the facts of the case as well as the documents contained in the file. 5. In this respect, the DRC judge acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that they had signed an undated employment, valid as from 1 January 2011 until 30 May 2011, according to which the Claimant was entitled to receive a monthly salary of currency of country R 700, and that, on 10 January 2010, they had signed an “agreement proposal”, by means of which the Respondent confirmed its interest in signing an employment contract with the Claimant, and undertook to provide him with 5 equal instalments of EUR 8,000 each as well as unspecified team bonuses, inter alia. 6. The DRC judge further noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant claims that the Respondent failed to pay him his salaries for April and May 2011, in the amount of EUR 8,000 each, as well as EUR 3,000, corresponding to win bonuses. Therefore, the Claimant requests that the Respondent proceed with the payment of the aforementioned amounts, plus interests, and that sporting sanctions should be applied on the Respondent in case it does not comply with its contractual obligations. 7. Subsequently, the DRC judge took due note of the allegations of the Respondent, who claims, on the other hand, that the amount of EUR 16,000, corresponding to the Claimant’s salaries for April and May 2011, has already been paid to Mr G, on 9 August 2011, pursuant to the “exclusive authorization” allegedly issued by the Claimant on 3 August 2011 on his behalf, extinguishing thus any financial obligation of the Respondent towards the Claimant. 8. The DRC judge further noted that, in his replica, the Claimant denies ever having provided Mr G with an authorization to collect any contractually due monies on his behalf, the “exclusive authorization” provided by the Respondent being a counterfeit. In addition, the Claimant claims that such a general authorization would not suffice to entitle someone to collect monies on behalf of another person. 9. Finally, the DRC judge noted that, while providing FIFA with the original version of the “exclusive authorization”, the Respondent did not provide its final position as to the Claimant’s claim. 10. Having established the aforementioned, the DRC judge pointed out that the core document in the present dispute, considering the claim of the Claimant and the allegations of the Respondent, is the agreement apparently concluded between the Respondent and Mr R on 9 August 2011, by means of which “Club F pays to Mr G the debit of EUR 16,000 representing the salaries of April and May 2011 […]”, concluding that “[…] Club F has no financial obligations to the player J”. In other words, the DRC judge considered that the underlying issue in the dispute at hand consists of establishing whether the financial obligations of the Respondent towards the Claimant could be considered as extinguished with the signature of the aforementioned agreement, or if any amounts are still to be considered as outstanding. 11. In this context, the DRC judge noted that the parties’ argumentation as to whether the aforementioned debt is to be considered as acquitted or not is fundamentally divergent. While the Respondent, based on the “exclusive authorization” dated 3 August 2011 and on the agreement dated 9 August 2011, claims that the amount of EUR 16,000 has been paid and its receipt confirmed, the Claimant denies having received said amount from the Respondent and claims never having signed the “exclusive authorization” of 3 August 2011, such document being a counterfeit. 12. At this point, the DRC judge deemed that, in order to establish the Claimant’s entitlement to any outstanding amounts or the extinction of the Respondent’s financial obligations towards the Claimant, he would have to closely analyze the two documents presented by the Respondent, which are at the base of the present dispute, namely the “exclusive authorization” dated 3 August 2011 and the agreement dated 9 August 2011. 13. In this context, the DRC judge deemed it appropriate to recall the content of said documents. The “exclusive authorization” of 3 August 2011 bears what the Respondent claims to be the Claimant’s signature and authorizes Mr G to receive on his behalf the amount of EUR 16,000, corresponding to outstanding salaries. 14. In addition, the agreement of 9 August 2011, bearing the signatures of the Respondent’s president and of Mr R, states that “Club F pays to Mr G the debit of EUR 16,000 representing the salaries of April and May 2011. After signing the present agreement Club F has no financial obligations to the player J”. 15. At this stage, the DRC judge considered it appropriate to remark that, as a general rule, FIFA’s deciding bodies are not competent to decide upon matters of criminal law, such as the ones of alleged falsified signature or document, and that such affairs fall into the jurisdiction of the competent national criminal authority. 16. In continuation the DRC judge recalled that all documentation remitted shall be considered with free discretion and, therefore, he focused his attention on the “exclusive authorization” as well as on other documents containing the Claimant’s signature, provided by the parties in the context of the present dispute. In this regard, the DRC judge pointed out that the original version of the “exclusive authorization” was provided by the Respondent. 17. After a thorough analysis of the aforementioned documents, in particular, comparing the relevant signatures of the Claimant in the various documents provided in the present affair, the DRC judge had no other option but to conclude that, for a layman, the signatures on such documents appear to be the same. 18. In view of the foregoing, the DRC judge concluded that, by means of his authorization of 3 August 2011, the Claimant appears to have authorized Mr G to receive on his behalf the amount of EUR 16,000, corresponding to outstanding salaries. 19. In this context, the DRC judge deemed it appropriate to emphasize that a party signing a document of legal importance, as a general rule, does so on its own responsibility and is consequently liable to bear the possible legal consequences arising from the execution of such document. 20. In the present case, by means of the agreement of 9 August 2011, signed by the Respondent and by the Claimant’s authorized representative, the debt of the Respondent towards the Claimant, concerning his salaries for April and May 2011 amounting to EUR 16,000, was extinguished, and the parties confirmed not having any further financial claims against each other arising from the employment contract. 21. In view of the all of the above, and based on the documentation currently at his disposal, the DRC judge came to the conclusion that, unless proven otherwise by a neutral expertise or a decision of the competent national criminal authority, for the moment, the present claim of the Claimant pertaining to aforementioned salaries has to be rejected, since the relevant agreement dated 9 August 2011 seems to be duly signed by the Respondent and the Claimant’s authorized representative. 22. Subsequently and for the sake of completeness of the present analysis, the DRC judge focused his attention on the Claimant’s claim regarding the payment of allegedly outstanding win bonuses in the amount of EUR 3,000. In this respect, he referred to the previously made analysis and, based on the fact that the agreement of 9 August 2011 establishes that “After signing the present agreement Club F has no financial obligations to the player J”, he decided that the claim of the Claimant for outstanding win bonuses also had to be rejected. 23. The DRC judge concluded his deliberations by establishing that the claim of the Claimant is entirely rejected. III. Decision of the DRC judge The claim of the Claimant, Player J, is rejected. ** 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 Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives