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 Mr Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player Player T, from country B as Claimant against the club Club A, from country T 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 (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 10 July 2013, by Mr Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player Player T, from country B as Claimant against the club Club A, from country T as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the Claimant and the Respondent I. Facts of the case 1. On 25 August 2008, Club A, from country T (hereinafter: the Respondent), and the Player T, from country B (hereinafter: the Claimant), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid from the date of signature until 31 May 2010. 2. According to art. 1 of the “conditions of the contract”, the Claimant was to be remunerated as follows: a) USD 7,000 net per month for the season 2008-2009 payable on the last day of each month, i.e. as from 30 August 2008 until 30 July 2009; b) USD 10,000 net per month for the season 2009-2010 payable on the last day of each month, i.e. as from 30 August 2009 until 31 May 2010. 3. On 27 April 2012, the Claimant lodged a complaint in front of FIFA claiming the amount of USD 188,500 plus interest, made up of USD 100,000 as outstanding amount for the season 2009-2010 as well as USD 88,500 as compensation. 4. On 11 June 2012, the parties reached an agreement in order to solve the matter amicably. According to the “protocol” (hereinafter: the protocol) which was signed by both parties, the Respondent accepted still owing USD 75,000 to the Claimant regarding the contract, thus, in order to settle its debts, would pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 57,500 as follows: a) USD 20,000 on 10 July 2012; b) USD 10,000 on 10 September 2012; c) USD 7,500 on 10 October 2012; d) USD 5,000 on 10 November 2012; e) USD 5,000 on 10 December 2012; f) USD 5,000 on 10 January 2013; g) USD 5,000 on 10 February 2013. 5. Furthermore, clause 4 of the protocol also stipulated that “if the Club fails to pay one of the above given installments in its due time, then an amount of NET 75,000.-$ which is born from the professional player's employment contract shall become due”. 6. On 30 July 2012, the Claimant stated that the Respondent had not yet fulfilled its obligations in connection with the protocol and, after amending his claim, requested the payment of the amount of USD 75,000 plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as from 10 July 2012. In addition, the Claimant asked to “to condemn the Club to the payment of all the costs of the proceedings”. 7. Despite having been invited by FIFA to provide its position in respect of the amended claim of the Claimant, the Respondent did not answer. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, the DRC judge took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 27 April 2012. Consequently, 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 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) the DRC judge is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment- related dispute with an international dimension between a country B player and a country T club. 3. Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players 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 (editions 2012 and 2010) and considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 27 April 2012, 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 DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. The DRC judge started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the documentation contained in the file. 5. First of all, the DRC judge acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an employment contract on 25 August 2008 valid from the date of signature until 31 May 2010. As to the financial terms of said employment contract, the DRC judge took note that it had been agreed upon between the parties that the Respondent would remunerate the Claimant with a salary of USD 7,000 net per month for the season 2008-2009, as well as USD 10,000 net per month for the season 2009- 2010. 6. The DRC judge further observed that the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent seeking payment of the amount of USD 188,500 plus interest. More specifically, the Claimant indicated that USD 100,000 corresponded to outstanding salaries and the remaining USD 88,500 corresponded to compensation. 7. Furthermore, the DRC judge took due note that the parties reached an agreement in order to solve the matter amicably. In this respect, the DRC judge observed that the protocol was signed by means of which the Respondent confirmed still owing USD 75,000 to the Claimant regarding the contract and, thus, in order to settle its debts, would pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 57,500. 8. Equally, the DRC judge also noted that clause 4 of the protocol stipulated that “if the Club fails to pay one of the above given installments in its due time, then an amount of NET 75,000.-$ which is born from the professional player's employment contract shall become due”. 9. Subsequently, the DRC judge observed that the Claimant reverted to FIFA once more on 30 July 2012 indicating that the Respondent had not fulfilled its obligations as established in the protocol dated 11 June 2012. Therefore, the Claimant requested to be paid the total amount of USD 75,000 in accordance with clause 4 of the protocol as well as interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as from 10 July 2012. 10. Furthermore, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent had been given the opportunity to reply to the amended claim submitted by the Claimant, but that the Respondent had failed to present its response in this respect. In this way, so the DRC judge deemed, the Respondent renounced to its right of defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 11. As a consequence of the preceding consideration, the DRC judge established that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules he shall take a decision upon the basis of the documents on file. 12. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC judge established that the Respondent had failed to pay to the Claimant the amounts as agreed upon in the protocol, totalling USD 57,500. 13. At this point, the DRC judge reverted to the clause 4 of the protocol and concluded that the amount of USD 75,000 became due after the non-payment of the first instalment established in the protocol which was due on 10 July 2012. 14. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that, in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda” as well as clause 4 of the protocol, the Respondent is liable to pay the Claimant the amount of USD 75,000. 15. In continuation and with regard to the Claimant's request for interest, the DRC judge decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 75,000 as from 11 July 2012 until the date of effective payment. 16. The DRC judge further decided to reject the Claimant's claim for legal costs, in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the respective longstanding jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. 17. The DRC judge concluded his deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player T, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club A, has to pay to the Claimant, Player T, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of USD 75,000 as well as 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 11 July 2012 until the date of effective payment. 3. If the amount plus interest due in accordance with point 2 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 T, are rejected. 5. The Claimant, Player T, 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 DRC judge of every payment received. Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to article 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