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 17 January 2014, by Mr Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player N, from country F as Claimant against the club, Club A, from country L as Respondent regarding an employment-related 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 17 January 2014, by Mr Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player N, from country F as Claimant against the club, Club A, from country L as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 28 September 2010, Player N, from country F (hereinafter: the Claimant), and Club A, from country L (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the date of signature until the end of the 2010/2011 season. According to the country L Football Federation, the 2010/2011 season started on 15 September 2010 and was suspended on 15 February 2011, due to the start of the civil unrest in country L. 2. According to art. 3 of the contract, the Respondent undertakes to pay the Claimant the total amount of USD 100,000, payable as follows: - USD 50,000 payable upon receipt of the International Transfer Certificate (ITC); - USD 50,000 as remuneration, payable in equal instalments of USD 5,000. 3. By means of his correspondence dated 2, 18 June 2012 and 21 July 2013, addressed to the country L Football Federation, the Claimant put the Respondent in arrears for the payment of outstanding salaries in the amount of USD 35,000, to be paid by the Respondent within 15 days as from the date of receipt of said correspondence. 4. As the aforementioned correspondence remained unanswered, the Claimant terminated the contract in writing on 9 August 2011. 5. On 29 July 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, requesting the payment of the amounts of USD 35,000 and EUR 10,000, broken down as follows: - USD 35,000 in outstanding salaries for January to July 2011 (7 x USD 5,000); - EUR 5,000 as compensation for the delay in payment; - EUR 5,000 legal fees. 6. In his arguments, the Claimant claims that in spite of his reminders, his salary for the months of January to July 2011 remained unpaid by the Respondent. 7. In its response, the Respondent claims to have paid the Claimant the amount of USD 50,000 upon receipt of his ITC as well as three monthly salaries each one in the amount of USD 5,000. In relation to these three monthly salaries, the Respondent submitted copies of three undated receipts, in their original language only, each in the amount of USD 5,000. 8. In addition, the Respondent claims that the Claimant abandoned the club before the start of the civil unrest in country L, without previous notice, breaching therefore art. 3 par. 12 of the contract (“Second party [the player] shall be committed not to travel abroad unless approved in written from the administration of the club”). In this regard, the Respondent provided a copy of an undated document issued by its management board, according to which the Claimant “did not attend the team exercises this evening has been shown that the player travelled to country F without the knowledge of the technical, administrative and leave the keys to the apartment”. 9. The Respondent further states that, due to the civil turmoil in country L, all other players received only 60% of the value of their contracts and did not claim the outstanding remuneration. 10. Finally, the Respondent maintains having had to bear the costs of the Claimant’s accommodation after his departure, amounting to currency of country L 15,000, corresponding to approximately USD 12,241. 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 29 July 2013. Consequently, the 2012 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. In continuation, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012; hereinafter: the Regulations), he was competent to adjudicate on an employment-related dispute with an international dimension, between a country F player and a country L club. 3. At this point, the DRC judge stated that prior to deliberating on the substance of the matter he must verify whether the competent FIFA body would be able to deal with the present affair or not for formal reasons. 4. In particular, the DRC judge referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations (edition 2012), in connection with the Procedural Rules, which stipulates that the decision-making bodies of FIFA shall not hear any dispute if more than two years have elapsed since the facts leading to the dispute arose and that the application of this time limit shall be examined ex officio in each individual case. 5. Subsequently, the DRC judge took note of the fact that the event giving rise to the dispute was the alleged non-payment of the Claimant’s remuneration for the months of January to July 2011. In addition, the Chamber observed that the claim of the Claimant was lodged on 29 July 2013. 6. Furthermore, the DRC judge observed that the contract at the basis of the present dispute does not stipulate any specific due date for the Claimant’s monthly remuneration and that, therefore, it should be considered that such remuneration is payable on the last day of each month. 7. Bearing in mind the foregoing and, in particular, the contents of art. 25 par. 5 of the FIFA Regulations, the DRC judge observed that the Claimant’s request for remuneration for the months of January to June 2011 was time-barred as it was lodged more than two years after the date on which each of the relevant salaries fell due. Thus, the DRC judge concluded that this part of the Claimant’s claim is to be considered as affected by prescription and, thus, shall be considered inadmissible. 8. Having established that the Claimant’s claim of 29 July 2013 is partially admissible, the DRC judge went on to analyse which regulations were applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2, and art. 29 of the 2012 edition of the Regulations, and considering that the claim was lodged on 29 July 2013, the 2012 edition of said Regulations was applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 9. His competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, he started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the DRC judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 10. In this respect, the DRC judge acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that, on 28 September 2010, the Claimant and the Respondent signed an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until the end of the 2010/2011 season, in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive the amounts detailed in point I.2. above. 11. Subsequently, the DRC judge noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant claims that, in spite of his reminders dated 2, 18 June 2012 and 21 July 2013, the Respondent failed to pay his remuneration for the month of July 2011, inter alia. Thus, on 9 August 2011, the Claimant terminated the contract with the Respondent in writing. 12. The DRC judge further noted that, on the other hand, the Respondent claims that the Claimant left the club before the start of the civil unrest in country L, breaching therefore art. 3 par. 12 of the contract (cf. point I.8. above). In addition, the Respondent claims that due to the civil turmoil in country L all players of the club received only 60% of the value of their contracts. 13. Having established the aforementioned, the DRC judge deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the claim of the Claimant and the allegations of the Respondent, was to determine whether the Claimant’s request for outstanding remuneration, insofar as it is admissible, could be upheld. 14. For the sake of good order, the DRC judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right from an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. 15. Still bearing in mind the aforementioned principle, the DRC judge noted that in the present case the Respondent bore the burden of proof regarding the Claimant’s remuneration for the month of July 2011. 16. In this respect, the DRC judge noted that the Claimant has provided copies of his letters addressed to the Respondent on 2, 18 June 2012 and 21 July 2013, reminding it of the existence of unpaid remuneration for the months of January to July 2011. 17. Subsequently, the DRC judge observed that the only documentary evidence provided by the Respondent in this regard are receipts, not translated into an official language of FIFA, regarding the payment of three unspecified monthly salaries. 18. At this point, the DRC judge referred to art. 9 par. 1 lit. e) of the Procedural Rules which stipulates that all documents of relevance to the dispute shall be submitted in the original version as well as translated into one of the official FIFA languages, i.e. English, Spanish, French and German. 19. In this context, the DRC judge noted that, in spite of having been made aware of the contents of the aforementioned provision, the Respondent did not provide a translated version of the documents enclosed to its submission into one of the official FIFA languages. In view of the foregoing, the DRC judge decided that he could not take into account the relevant documents provided by the Respondent. 20. As to the documentary evidence presented in English, i.e. the document issued by the Respondent’s management board regarding the allegedly unauthorized absence of the Claimant at training (cf. point I.8. above), the DRC judge observed that such document was undated and did not make any explicit reference to a specific period of time, during which the Claimant would have been absent. Therefore, the DRC judge decided that said document could not be considered as a legitimate basis to justify the Respondent’s failure to pay the Claimant’s monthly remuneration. 21. Consequently, the DRC judge considered that the Respondent had not sufficiently substantiated its defence, as it did not present any conclusive documentary evidence to corroborate its allegations. 22. Consequently, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent must fulfill its obligations as per the employment contract concluded with the Claimant and, consequently, is to be held liable to pay the outstanding remuneration to the latter in the amount of USD 5,000, corresponding to his salary of July 2011. 23. The DRC judge further decided that the Claimant’s claim for legal fees is rejected, in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the respective longstanding jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. 24. Finally, the DRC judge concluded his deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected. ** III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player N, is partially accepted, insofar as it is admissible. 2. The Respondent, Club A, is ordered to pay to the Claimant, Player N, the amount of USD 5,000 as outstanding remuneration within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. If the aforementioned amount is not paid within the above-mentioned time limit, an interest rate of 5% p.a. will apply on said amount as of expiry of the above-mentioned time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Player N, are rejected. 5. The Claimant, Player N, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club A, immediately and directly of the account number to which the entire 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 Enclosed: CAS directives