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 14 August 2013, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player S, from country L as Claimant against the club, Club P, from country G as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute 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 14 August 2013, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player S, from country L as Claimant against the club, Club P, from country G as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 10 September 2010, Player S, from country L (hereinafter: the Claimant), and Club P, from country G (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the date of its signing until 30 June 2011. 2. In addition, on the same date, the above-mentioned parties signed a private agreement which extended the salary provisions of the contract. 3. According to the private agreement, the Claimant was entitled to receive the following amounts as salary: - EUR 5,000 upon arrival of the Claimant’s blue card; - EUR 25,000 distributed in 10 installments of EUR 2,500 each, payable the last day of each month between September 2010 and June 2011. 4. The last bullet point of the private agreement states “the player [the Claimant] will receive a draft check dated 30/06/2011 as guarantee for the above amount. This check will be returned after the player receives all his payments as per private agreement”. 5. On 22 May 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA, indicating that the Respondent had not paid any of the amounts established in the private agreement. The Claimant explained that after requesting the relevant payments three times, he received a response from the Respondent on 16 November 2011, where it asserted that the Claimant had been transferred to another club at the beginning of January 2011 and held that it had paid every due amount to him. 6. In view of the above, the Claimant requested to be awarded with the whole value of the private agreement, this is, EUR 30,000. 7. The Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim, stating that it did not owe any amount to the Claimant, as it had already announced to him in the abovementioned letter of 16 November 2011. The Respondent based its arguments on a statement signed by the Claimant on 11 January 2011, by means of which he stated the following: “I am fully paid off from Club P from our collaboration and I do not have any other financial claim from the club [the Respondent] or personally by any other member of the board of directors of the club”. 8. Furthermore, the Respondent specified that the Claimant was transferred, on a loan basis, to another country G club in January 2011, which was the reason why the Claimant signed the abovementioned statement. 9. In addition, the Respondent indicated that the Claimant had not returned the promissory note he had received from the Respondent as guarantee of the private agreement, and so he was acting in bad faith by not returning such cheque and at the same time requesting that amount. 10. The Claimant, in his replica, argued that he had not returned the abovementioned cheque because the private agreement had not been complied with. According to the Claimant, the private agreement was never terminated although he acknowledges to have been loaned to another country G club. 11. Moreover, the Claimant added that the letter of 11 January 2011 was written exclusively in the country G language, a language he was not familiar with. 12. Despite having been invited by FIFA to provide its final position to the statements of the Claimant, the Respondent did not reply. 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 22 May 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 of the 2008 and 2012 editions of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and par. 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 2012) he is competent to decide on the present litigation, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a country L player and a Greek club. 3. In particular, and in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 lit. i) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, 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 analyzed which edition of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010 and 2012), and, on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 22 May 2012. The DRC judge concluded that 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. In doing so, he started by acknowledging the abovementioned facts of the case as well as the documentation contained in the file. 6. In this respect, the DRC judge acknowledged that the parties to the dispute had signed a valid employment contract as well as a private agreement on 10 September 2010, in accordance with which the Respondent would pay the Claimant a total remuneration in the amount of EUR 60,000. 7. The DRC judge then turned to the complaint of the Claimant, who maintained that the Respondent had failed to pay him the entire remuneration envisaged in the private agreement signed by the parties to the dispute, in the total amount of EUR 30,000. 8. Equally, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent, in its statement of defence, denied owing any amount to the Claimant. In particular, the Respondent referred to a document signed by the Claimant on 11 January 2011, by means of which he indicated that he was fully paid by the Respondent and that he did not have any further financial claims against it. 9. In view of the argumentation put forward by the Respondent, the DRC judge deemed that, in order to be able to establish whether the Respondent had any outstanding salaries to be paid to the Claimant, it was crucial to closely examine the aforementioned document which the Respondent claimed had settled all debts. 10. In this respect, the DRC judge first of all acknowledged the translation of the document in question dated 11 January 2011, in which the Claimant states that “I am fully paid off from Club P from our collaboration and I do not have any other financial claim from the club (…)”. 11. Furthermore, the DRC judge noted that the Claimant did not reject the existence of the above-mentioned document but merely indicated that the document dated 11 January 2011 was written in the country G language, invoking that he is not familiar with such language. 12. To this end, the DRC judge emphasised that a party signing a document of legal importance without knowledge of its precise contents, as a general rule, does so on its own responsibility. 13. By examining the evidence at his disposal, in particular the signature of the Claimant on the original version of the relevant document, the Claimant’s acknowledgement as to the existence of such document and the acknowledgement that he was loaned to a third club in January 2011 and thus no longer playing for the Respondent, the DRC judge found that he had no other alternative but to conclude that the Claimant signed a statement on 11 January 2011 declaring himself as fully paid by the Respondent and renouncing to any future financial claim towards the Respondent. 14. In view of all of the above, the DRC judge came to the conclusion that the Respondent does not owe the Claimant any outstanding monies and, consequently, the Claimant’s claim for outstanding salaries is rejected. ** III. Decision of the DRC judge The claim of the Claimant, Player S, 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