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 passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 30 August 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Jon Newman (USA), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member on the claim presented by the player Player L, from country U as Claimant against the club Club A, from country G as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the Claimant and the Respondent

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 passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 30 August 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Jon Newman (USA), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member on the claim presented by the player Player L, from country U as Claimant against the club Club A, from country G as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the Claimant and the Respondent I. Facts of the case 1. On 25 August 2008, Player L, from country U (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the Club A, from country G, (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid until 30 June 2010. 2. According to clause 4.1. of the contract the Claimant was entitled to a monthly salary in the amount of EUR 765, payable at the end of each month, twelve months per year. Additionally, the Claimant was entitled to receive Christmas bonus in the amount of a monthly salary and Easter and Holiday bonuses in the amount of half of the monthly salary. 3. Moreover, the clause 4.4. stipulated that the Claimant shall receive the amount of EUR 180,000, in four instalments as follows: 1st instalment: EUR 40,000 net payable on 30 December 2008; 2nd instalment: EUR 50,000 net payable on 30 June 2009; 3rd instalment: EUR 40,000 net payable on 30 December 2009; 4th instalment: EUR 50,000 net payable on 30 May 2010. 4. On 22 July 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA, claiming a total outstanding amount of EUR 74,590 as follows: - EUR 4,590 concerning the last six monthly salaries each one in the amount of EUR 765, plus interest of 5% per year as of 30 May 2010; - EUR 5,000 as the residual part of the 3th instalment, plus interest of 5% per year as of 30 December 2009; - EUR 50,000 corresponding to the total 4th instalment, plus interest of 5% per year as of 30 May 2010; - EUR 15,000 as legal fees. 5. According to the Claimant, the contract was executed until the end of its original term and, after its end, the Respondent still had not fulfilled all its obligations stipulated in the contract, since it failed to pay the claimed amounts. In this regard, the Claimant affirmed having contacted the country G Football Federation (hereinafter: country G Football Federation) on 20 May 2010, requiring it to urge its affiliated club to pay the amount of EUR 5,000 concerning the residual sum of the 3th instalment, since, according to the Claimant, the Respondent paid only EUR 35,000. On 1 June 2010, the Claimant allegedly contacted the country G Football Federation once again, this time asking it to urge its affiliate to pay the amount of EUR 50,000 as well as six monthly salaries concerning the period from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2010. The Claimant enclosed a copy of the aforementioned communications dated 20 May 2010 and 1 June 2010. 6. Furthermore, the Claimant enclosed two correspondences that he allegedly received in reply from the Respondent, dated 28 June 2010 and 23 July 2010. According to the Claimant, through said correspondences the Respondent denied the existence of any debts towards the Claimant. 7. The Respondent remitted its position affirming that in fact the contract concluded with the Claimant for the mentioned period established a monthly salary of EUR 765 gross (EUR 714.90 net) as well as that “the amount of 180,000€ was stipulated to be paid out in monthly instalments (regardless of the fact that contract stated only 4 instalments)”. The Respondent held that, since the Claimant’s contract would have terminated on 30 June 2010, he was obliged to remain with the team until 10 June 2010, i.e. until the obligations of the team would have concluded and the whole team would have left for the summer leave. However, the Respondent affirmed that in mid-May the Claimant requested if he could leave earlier. Thus, according to the Respondent, the Claimant left with a written permission on 15 May 2010, submitting a copy of the written permission. 8. In continuation, the Respondent declared having received the Claimant’s letter dated 20 May 2010 and immediately, on 21 May 2010, having replied to the country G Football Federation, denying such debt. The Respondent enclosed a copy of the aforementioned correspondence sent to the country G Football Federation. Moreover, the Respondent confirmed having received the Claimant’s letter dated 1 June 2010 and replied to said correspondence via its correspondence dated 23 July 2010. 9. Regarding the claimed amounts, the Respondent first rejected the Claimant’s claim for the amount of EUR 5,000 as the residual part of the 3rd instalment, affirming that the Claimant received the full instalment considering the following payments: (i) Payment of EUR 7,855 made on 10 September 2009. The Respondent provided a copy of a bank transfer request of said payment, which under the reason stated: “Player L Partial Discharge of instalment 30/12/2009” as well as “your transaction was executed”; (ii) Payment of EUR 30,000 made on 30 September 2009. The Respondent attached a copy of a cheque in the player’s favour as well as a bank confirmation regarding the collection of said amount; (iii) Payment of EUR 1,000 made on 8 January 2010. The Respondent enclosed a copy of a bank transfer request of said payment with the notice “your transaction was executed”; (iv) Payment of EUR 1,555 made on 11 January 2010 for flight tickets (country G-country S-country U) for the Claimant and his family, however, the Respondent emphasized that according to the contract it did not have this obligation. The Respondent provided a copy of the flight ticket invoice; On the basis of the above-stated payments, the Respondent held that the Claimant, having received in total EUR 40,410, had actually received EUR 410 more than what he was entitled to. 10. In continuation, the Respondent refused the request of the Claimant concerning the outstanding salaries, for the period between 1 January 2010 and 30 June 2010, and the 4th instalment, arguing that the player has been paid almost in full his remuneration. In particular, the Respondent alleged that, in January 2010, the Claimant asked to receive part of the 4th instalment in advance, since he was facing certain financial problems. According to the Respondent, after accepting such request, it accomplished the following payments: (i) Payment of EUR 12,110.61 made on 19 January 2010 as an advance payment of the Claimant’s 4th instalment. The Respondent provided a copy of a bank slip regarding said payment, which under the reason stated: “Player L partial discharge of instalment 30/5/10” as well as “your transaction was executed”; (ii) Payment of EUR 15,000 made on 28 February 2010 as an advance payment of the Claimant’s 4th instalment. The Respondent attached a copy of a cheque in favour of the player as well as a bank confirmation regarding the collection of said amount on 1 March 2010; (iii) Payment of EUR 2,000 made on 4 March 2010 as an advance payment of the Claimant’s 4th instalment. The Respondent enclosed a copy of a bank transfer request regarding said payment, which under the reason stated: “partial discharge of contract” as well as “your transaction was executed”; (iv) Payment of EUR 10,000 made on 9 April 2010, in cash, as an advance payment of the Claimant’s 4th instalment. The Respondent provided a copy of the payment’s receipt signed by the player, which under the reason stated: “partial discharge of instalment 30/5/10”; (v) Payment of EUR 10,000 made on 4 May 2010, in cash, as an advance payment of the Claimant’s 4th instalment. The Respondent attached a copy of the payment’s receipt signed by the player, which under the reason stated: “partial discharge of instalment 30/5/10”; Thus, the Respondent set forth that taking into account the payments made in advance regarding the 4th instalment originally due on 30 May 3010 (EUR 12,110.61 + EUR 15,000 + EUR 2,000 + EUR 10,000 + EUR 10,000, points I.10 i to v), the Respondent considered that the Claimant already received “EUR 49,114.61” and that he would still be entitled to “EUR 885.39”. However, the Respondent asserted that since the Claimant received EUR 410 more (cf. point I.9) regarding the 3rd instalment, the Respondent would have to deduct such amount from the Claimant’s outstanding amount of “EUR 885.39”, reaching a result of “EUR 475.39”. 11. Furthermore, the Respondent alleged having also paid the following amounts: (i) Payment of EUR 2,144.70 made on 19 January 2010 for the settlement of the salaries regarding November 2009, December 2009 and January 2010. The Respondent attached a copy of a bank transfer request regarding the mentioned payment, which under the reason stated: “Player L salaries 11th-12th-1st/10” as well as “your transaction was executed”; (ii) Payment of EUR 744.69 made on 19 January 2010 for the settlement of the Claimant’s Christmas salary. The Respondent enclosed a copy of a bank transfer request regarding said payment, which under the reason stated: “Player L E.SAL.CR./2009{EXTRA SALARY FOR CHRISTMAS}” as well as “your transaction was executed”; 12. Finally, the Respondent accepted owing the Claimant the salaries for the months of February, March, April and May 2010, i.e. the amount of EUR 2,859.60, considering the monthly salary as EUR 714.90 (net). In addition, the Respondent held that it had consciously excluded the salary for June 2010, due to the fact that the Claimant left the club already in mid-May 2010. Hence, the Respondent declared intending to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 3,334.90, consisting of the outstanding salaries amounting to EUR 2,859.60 as well as the amount of “EUR 475.39” corresponding to the residual amount of the 4th instalment. 13. The Claimant remitted his comments, insisting in his claim and contradicting the Respondent’s declarations. According to the Claimant, the Respondent constantly failed to make the payments on time and thus, the relevant payments presented by the Respondent corresponded to previous outstanding amounts. In particular, the Claimant alleged that he did not receive the payment of his salary for the month of January 2010 on 19 January 2010, as alleged by the Respondent. Moreover, the Claimant affirmed that the bank document presented by the Respondent cannot be accepted as an accomplished payment, since it represents only a demand from the Respondent addressed to the bank, as well as it is not logical that the Respondent would execute, a payment which was due at the end of January 2010, already on 19 January 2010, when it was always late in complying with its financial obligations. Furthermore, the Claimant affirmed that the Respondent should submit receipts of salaries with the tax deductions to effectively prove the relevant payments. 14. Concerning the Respondent’s statement about the non-payment of the salary for the month of June 2010, the Claimant declared having acted in the correct way and that his request of leaving earlier as well as the Respondent’s written permission cannot be interpreted as an anticipated termination of the contract, since said documents do not bear such a statement. Additionally, the Claimant emphasized that the Respondent itself, in its letter dated 23 July 2010, considered that the contract lasted until 30 June 2010. 15. Furthermore, the Claimant held that, the contract established that the amount of EUR 180,000 would have been paid in four instalments and not in monthly instalments as alleged by the Respondent. However, the Claimant asserted that he had to keep a precise control of his finances in order to have an overview of the confusing payments made by the Respondent. In this context, the Claimant alleged that the payments of EUR 12,110.61, EUR 15,000 and EUR 2,000 (cf. points I.10 i, ii and iii) do not correspond to the instalment due on 30 June 2010, but to the one due on 30 December 2009. Also he held and that the document referred to the payment of the amount of EUR 12,110.61 cannot be recognised as an executed payment, since it is only a document addressed to the bank. 16. Finally, regarding the cash payments for the amounts of EUR 10,000 (cf. point I.10 iv and v), the Claimant denied having signed such documents with said contents. 17. The Respondent provided its final comments, maintaining firm its previous position. Additionally, the Respondent emphasized that, in his initial claim, the Claimant alleged that for the period from 1 January 2010 to 30 May 2010 he did not receive any payments. However, the Respondent continued, that after the submission of the payment’s evidence, the Claimant newly declared that said payments corresponded to previous debts. Moreover, the Respondent insisted having paid the amount of EUR 10,000 in cash on 9 April and again on 4 May 2010, and submitted the original receipts bearing the signature of the player. In this respect, the Respondent pointed out that said receipts cannot be contested since they bear the Claimant’s signature as well as “cannot constitute the payment of anything else apart from the last instalment of his 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 22 July 2011, thus after 1 July 2008. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008; hereinafter: the 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 U player and a country G club. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012 and 2010), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 22 July 2011, 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. 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 Chamber started to acknowledge the facts of the case as well as the documentation contained in the file. 5. First of all, the Chamber acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that, on 25 August 2008, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded an employment contract valid until 30 June 2010, as well as that on 15 May 2010, the Respondent authorized the Claimant to be absent from the team from 15 May 2010 until 30 June 2010. 6. In this respect, the members of the Chamber took note of the contents of the contract, which particularly according to clause 4.1 stipulated a monthly salary in favour of the player of EUR 765, payable at the end of the month during twelve months per year as well as Christmas bonus in the amount of a monthly salary and Easter and Holiday bonuses in the amount of half of the monthly salary. 7. Additionally, the DRC remarked that under clause 4.4 of the contract, the player was entitled to receive the amount of EUR 180,000, payable in four instalments as follows: 1st instalment: EUR 40,000 net payable on 30 December 2008; 2nd instalment: EUR 50,000 net payable on 30 June 2009; 3rd instalment: EUR 40,000 net payable on 30 December 2009; 4th instalment: EUR 50,000 net payable on 30 May 2010. 8. At this point the members of the Chamber reviewed the claim of the Claimant, who asserted that at the end of the contract the Respondent had not fulfilled all obligations stipulated in the contract and thus, claimed to be entitled to receive outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 74,590 as follows: - EUR 4,590 concerning the last six monthly salaries each one in the amount of EUR 765, plus interest of 5% per year as of 30 May 2010; - EUR 5,000 as the residual part of the 3th instalment, plus interest of 5% per year as of 30 December 2009; - EUR 50,000 corresponding to the total 4th instalment, plus interest of 5% per year as of 30 May 2010; - EUR 15,000 as legal fees. 9. On the other hand, the Chamber took note that the Respondent accepted owing only EUR 3,334.90 to the Claimant. 10. First of all, the members of the Chamber noted that the Respondent argued that the parties concluded the contract establishing a monthly salary in the amount of EUR 765 gross, which would be equivalent to EUR 714.90 net, as well as that the amount of EUR 180,000 would have been paid in monthly instalments even if otherwise stipulated in the contract. 11. In this regard, the members of the DRC emphasised that in accordance with the contract, the Respondent and the Claimant agreed upon a monthly salary in the amount of EUR 765, without specifying whether said amount corresponded to the net or to the gross value. In this context, the DRC referred to the legal principle of burden of proof, according to which the party claiming a right on a basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules) and concluded that the Respondent did not provide any evidence that proved that the amount of EUR 765 corresponded to the gross value of the monthly salary and hence the amount of EUR 714.90 to its net value. In view of the aforesaid, the Chamber decided that the salary owed by the Respondent to the Claimant every month, according to the contract, amounted to EUR 765. 12. In the same context, the DRC considered that the Respondent failed to demonstrate that the amount of EUR 180,000 was to be paid in monthly instalments and thus, concluded that such amount was to be paid in four instalments (cf. point I.3). 13. In addition, the DRC remarked that the Respondent stated that, considering the fact that the contract lasted until 30 June 2010, the player was obliged to remain with the team until 10 June 2010, but that, upon request from the player in mid-May, he left the club already on 15 May 2010 with a written permission. 14. Therefore, the DRC took note that in regards with the Claimant’s claim for outstanding salaries in the amount of EUR 4,590, the Respondent affirmed that it still has to pay to the Claimant his salaries for the months of February, March, April and May 2010, i.e. EUR 2,859.60 equivalent to four monthly salaries in the amount EUR 714.90, having consciously excluded the salary for the month of June 2010 since the Claimant left the club already in mid-May 2010. 15. Consequently, concerning the player’s claim for the amount of EUR 5,000, regarding the residual part of the 3rd instalment, the members of the Chamber took note that the Respondent rejected said claim declaring having paid the amount of EUR 40,410, EUR 410 more than it was supposed to. The Chamber noticed that the Respondent enclosed several documents as evidence of the payment of the afore-mentioned amount. 16. Moreover, the DRC noted that the Respondent partially rejected the claim of the Claimant for the amount of EUR 50,000, regarding the 4th instalment, because it affirmed having almost paid in full said instalment. The Chamber noticed that according to the Respondent it paid the amount of EUR “49,114.61” to the Claimant, thus it would still owe the amount of EUR 885.39 to the Claimant, but since the latter received EUR 410 more in connection with the payment of the 3rd instalment, the Respondent asserted still owing the Claimant only the amount of EUR 475.39 (EUR 885.39 - EUR 410), regarding the 4th instalment. The members of the Chamber acknowledged the fact that the Respondent provided evidencing documents concerning several payments corresponding to the payment of the 4th instalment. 17. In response to the Respondent’s position, the members of the DRC noticed that the Claimant contested the Respondent’s arguments. In this regard, the DRC remarked that the Claimant alleged that the Respondent was constantly failing to pay him on time and that the payments presented by the Respondent corresponded to previous outstanding amounts. Moreover, the Claimant had challenged the evidence provided by the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant denied having signed the two receipts corresponding to the cash payments, both for the amount of EUR 10,000. 18. In regards to the exclusion of the payment of the salary for the month of June 2010, the members of the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant asserted having left the club earlier after having received the Respondent’s permission, which according to the Claimant cannot be interpreted as an anticipated termination. 19. Finally, the members of the Chamber took note that in its final comments the Respondent maintained all its previous positions as well as provided the two original receipts of cash payments, each in the amount of EUR 10,000. 20. At this point, the DRC realised that it was undisputed by both parties that some payments remained outstanding, but that, considering the opposite positions of both parties, it had to analyse the effective amount of the outstanding remuneration. 21. In this context, the DRC proceeded to analyse the arguments of both parties. First, regarding the Claimant’s claim in the amount of EUR 5,000 as the residual part of the 3rd instalment, the members of the DRC noticed that the Respondent held having paid in total the amount of EUR 40,410, i.e. even EUR 410 more than the effective value of the 3rd instalment amounting to EUR 40,000 (cf. points II.7 and II.15). Accordingly, the members of the DRC took noted that the Respondent provided the following documents in order to support its allegation: (i) A copy of a bank transfer request dated 10 September 2009, regarding the payment of EUR 7,855, which under the reason stated: “Player L Partial Discharge of instalment 30/12/2009” as well as “your transaction was executed”; (ii) A copy of a cheque dated 30 September 2009 in the amount of EUR 30,000, in favour of the player, as well as a bank confirmation regarding the collection of said amount; (iii) A copy of a bank transfer request dated 8 January 2010, regarding the payment of EUR 1,000, with the notice “your transaction was executed”; (iv) A copy of a flight ticket invoice dated 11 January 2010 in the amount of EUR 1,555 for flight tickets (country G-country S-country U) for the Claimant and his family, which according to the Respondent, it did not have the obligation to pay. 22. At this point, the DRC stated that, considering the instalments established in the contract (cf. II.7 and II.12) and the several partial payments made by the Respondent without reference to their concept, it was not possible to establish to which instalment they corresponded to. 23. In this context, the members of the DRC recalled the legal principle of burden of proof (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules) and concluded that, considering the contents of the contract, the Respondent had the burden of proof to demonstrate that the 3rd instalment was paid in full. 24. Taking into consideration all the above, the Chamber concluded that the only payment that can be associated as payment of the 3rd instalment is the amount of EUR 7,855, because under the reason remark of the bank transfer request it was clearly stated that the payment was a partial discharge for the instalment due on 30 December 2009, i.e. the 3rd instalment, as well as that the transaction was executed. 25. Concerning the payments of the amounts of EUR 30,000 and EUR 1,000, the members of the Chamber held that the Respondent had failed to demonstrate that both payments corresponded to the 3rd instalment, since none of the documents presented a remark which related the payment to the 3rd instalment. In regards with the payment of EUR 1,555, the DRC decided that, considering the fact that such payment is relating to the payment of flight tickets, it also cannot be linked to the 3rd instalment, despite the fact that in accordance with contract the payment of flight tickets was not an obligation of the Respondent. 26. Considering all the above deliberations, the members of the DRC concluded that the Respondent failed to pay to the Claimant the 3rd instalment in its full amount of EUR 40,000, which was due on 30 September 2009, and thus the Claimant’s is entitled to receive the amount of EUR 5,000, as claimed, as outstanding remuneration of the 3rd instalment as claimed. 27. In continuation, concerning the Claimant’s claim in the amount of EUR 50,000 corresponding to the 4th instalment, the Chamber took note that the Respondent alleged having paid the Claimant the amount of EUR “49,114.61” (cf. point II.16). In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent presented the following evidence in order to prove the payment of the aforementioned amount: (i) A copy of a bank slip dated 19 January 2010, regarding the payment of EUR 12,110.61, which under the reason stated: “Player L partial discharge of instalment 30/5/10” as well as “your transaction was executed”; (ii) A copy of a cheque in the player’s favour amounting to EUR 15,000 and dated 28 February 2010, as well as a bank confirmation regarding the collection of said amount on 1 March 2010; (iii) A copy of a bank transfer request dated 4 March 2010, regarding the payment of EUR 2,000, which under the reason stated: “partial discharge of contract” as well as “your transaction was executed”; (iv) The original receipt of a cash payment in the amount of EUR 10,000, dated 9 April 2010, signed by the player, which under the reason stated: “partial discharge of instalment 30/5/10”; (v) The original receipt of a cash payment in the amount of EUR 10,000, dated 4 May 2010, signed by the player, which under reason stated: “partial discharge of instalment 30/5/10”. 28. In view of the foregoing, the DRC recalled the reasoning already explained in point II.11 and recalled the principle of burden of proof. In this context, the Chamber decided that the only payments that can be associated as payments of the 4th instalment are the amounts of EUR 12,110.61, EUR 10,000 and EUR 10,000. The members of the Chamber pointed out that under the reason remark of the bank slip of the amount EUR 12,110.61, it was clearly stated that said payment was a partial discharge for the instalment due on 30 May 2010, i.e. the 4th instalment, as well as that the transaction was executed. 29. Moreover, in regards with the two payments in the amount EUR 10,000, the DRC took note that the Claimant contested having signed these receipts of the payment of said amounts. On the other hand, the members of the DRC took note that the Respondent provided the original receipts with the signature of the Claimant. In this respect, the Chamber emphasized that as a general rule it is not the competent body to decide upon matters of criminal law, such as the alleged falsified signatures, but that such affairs fall into the jurisdiction of the competent national criminal authority. In continuation the DRC recalled that all documentation shall be considered with free discretion and therefore, it focused its attention to the receipts as well as other documents containing the player’s signature. In particular, the members of the DRC considered that on the original receipts provided by the Respondent it was clearly visible that both receipts bore the Claimant’s signature as well as that on both receipts there was the remark that the payment corresponded to a partial discharge for the instalment due on 30 May 2010, i.e. also the 4th instalment. 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 on the relevant documents appear to be the same. 30. Considering the cheque payments amounting to EUR 15,000 as well as the bank transfer of the amount EUR 2,000, the DRC held that the Respondent had failed to prove that said payments were related to the 4th instalment, since none of the submitted documents contained a remark that referred to the payment of the 4th instalment and thus cannot be considered as such. 31. After analysing the above-listed considerations, the members of the DRC decided that the Respondent effectively paid to the Claimant only the amount of EUR 32,110.61 (EUR 12,110.61 + EUR 10,000 + EUR 10,000, cf. points II.25 i, iv and v) concerning the 4th instalment and that, therefore, the Respondent still owes to the Claimant the amount of EUR 17,889.39, as outstanding remuneration of the 4th instalment. 32. Furthermore, considering the Claimant’s claim for the outstanding salaries in the amount of EUR 4,590, the Chamber observed that the Respondent held still owing to the Claimant the amount of EUR 2,859.60 for the months of February, March, April and May 2010, corresponding to four monthly salaries in the amount of EUR 714.90 (cf. points II.10 and II.14). 33. In continuation, the DRC reviewed the argument of the Respondent that, the Claimant would not be entitled to the monthly salary for the month of June 2010, because the latter left the team already in mid-May, while his duty with the Respondent would have lasted at least until 10 June 2010 (cf. point II.13 and II.14). In this respect, the members of the DRC, first considered that the Respondent itself gave a written permission to the Claimant in this respect and after a thorough analysis of the written permission dated 15 May 2010, a copy of which was provided by the Respondent (cf. point I.7), it considered that said written permission did nowhere mention that, due to his earlier leaving, the Claimant would not be entitled anymore to his monthly salary for the month of June 2010. On account of the above, the DRC concluded that the Respondent had the obligation to the pay to the Claimant the monthly salary for the month of June 2010. 34. On the other hand, the members of the Chamber took note that the Claimant held being entitled to the last six monthly salaries. In this context, considering that the contract lasted until 30 June 2010 and that it was stipulated that the monthly salaries would have been paid at the end of each month, the DRC assumed that the referred last six months mentioned by the Claimant would correspond to the months from January until June 2010. 35. In this respect, the members of the DRC took note that the Respondent alleged having paid the salary of January 2010. 36. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the Respondent provided the following documentary evidence: (i) A copy of a bank transfer request dated 19 January 2010, regarding the payment of EUR 2,144.70, which under the reason stated: “Player L salaries 11th-12th-1st/10” as well as “your transaction was executed”, regarding the settlement of the salaries of November 2009, December 2009 and January 2010; (ii) A copy of a bank transfer request dated 19 January 2010, regarding the payment of EUR 744.69, which under the reason stated: “Player L E.SAL.CR./2009{EXTRA SALARY FOR CHRISTMAS}” as well as “your transaction was executed”, regarding the settlement of the Claimant’s Christmas salary; 37. In this context, the members of the Chamber observed that the evidence of the payment in the amount of EUR 2,144.70, which under the reason stated: “Player L salaries 11th-12th-1st/10” as well as “your transaction was executed” (cf. point II.36), clearly referred to the execution of the payment of the Claimant’s salaries for the months of November and December 2009 as well as January 2010. Regarding the payment of EUR 744,69, the Chamber considered that the evidence of this payment mentioned visibly that it concerned the payment of the Christmas bonus stipulated in the contract. 38. In this regard, considering that the aforementioned evidence was effectively related inter alia to the payment of the monthly salary for the month of January 2010, as stated under the reason remarks, as well as that said document mentioned that the transaction was executed, the members of the DRC reached the conclusion that the Respondent had already paid the monthly salary for the month of January 2010 and thus, that the Claimant has no right to claim said monthly salary. 39. In view of all the previous considerations, the Chamber held that Claimant is entitled to receive the amount of EUR 3,825 as outstanding salaries, corresponding to five monthly salaries concerning the months from February until June 2010, each month in the amount of EUR 765 (cf. point II.11). 40. As a consequence the DRC decided that Respondent has to pay the amount of EUR 26,714.39 to the Claimant, as outstanding remuneration, consisting of EUR 5,000, concerning the outstanding remuneration of the 3rd instalment (cf. point II.26), EUR 17,889.39, corresponding to the outstanding remuneration of the 4th instalment (cf. point II.31) and EUR 3,825, related to the outstanding salaries for the period from February until June 2010 (cf. point II.39). 41. Concerning the interests claimed by the Claimant, the DRC noted that the contract did not provide for any specific interest rate in case of late payment. Consequently, the DRC, in accordance with the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, decided to award to the Claimant default interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as follows: - 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 5,000, as of 31 December 2009, related to the outstanding remuneration of the 3rd instalment; - 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 3,060, as of 30 May 2010, as requested by the Claimant, related to the outstanding salaries for the months from February until May 2010; - 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 17,889.39, as of 31 May 2010, related to the outstanding remuneration of the 4th instalment; - 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 765, related to the monthly salary for the month of June 2010, as of 1 July 2010, considering that, according to the contract, the monthly salaries were to be paid at the end of each month. 42. In regards with the Claimant’s claim in the amount of EUR 15,000, corresponding to legal fees, the members of the DRC held that the aforementioned claim shall be rejected in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as with the Chamber’s respective longstanding jurisprudence. 43. In conclusion, taking into account all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided to partially accept the claim of the Claimant and at the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 26,714.90 (cf. point II.40), plus the relevant interests (cf. point II.41). 44. The DRC concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected. * III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player L, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club A, has to pay to the Claimant, Player L, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 26,714.39 plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows: - 5% interest p.a. as of 31 December 2009 over the amount of EUR 5,000; - 5% interest p.a. as of 30 May 2010 over the amount of EUR 3,060; - 5% interest p.a. as of 31 May 2010, over the amount of EUR 17,889.39; - 5% interest p.a. as of 1 July 2010 over the amount of EUR 765. 3. If the above-mentioned amount plus interest is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Player L, are rejected 5. The Claimant, Player L, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club A., 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. * 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