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 C as Claimant against the club Club L, 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 10 July 2013, by Mr Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player Player T, from country C as Claimant against the club Club L, from country G as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 13 August 2008, Player T, from country C (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the Club L, from country G (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2010. 2. On 26 June 2010, the parties concluded a termination agreement (hereinafter: the agreement), by means of which the parties terminated the contract and the Respondent agreed to pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 5,530 by “no later than February 28, 2009”. 3. On 30 August 2011, the Claimant lodged a complaint against the Respondent before FIFA claiming the amount of EUR 5,530 plus interest as of 28 February 2010 and legal costs. 4. In this respect, the Claimant informed that both parties had agreed to terminate the contract and therefore signed the termination agreement, which however, has not been honoured by the Respondent. Furthermore, the Claimant informed that the due date of the payment established in the termination is clearly wrong and it should actually read 2010 and not 2009. 5. In its reply, the club held being willing to find an amicable settlement, however, did not submit any further comments despite being invited to do so. 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 30 August 2011. Consequently, the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. article 21 par. 2 and 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 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, 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 C player and a country G 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 on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2012 and 2010), and considering that the claim was lodged on 30 August 2011, the 2010 edition of the said regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance (hereinafter: the Regulations). 4. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established and entering into the substance of the matter, the DRC judge acknowledged the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file. 5. In this respect, the DRC judge took due note that it was undisputed by the parties that on 26 January 2010, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded a termination agreement and that the Respondent agreed to pay to the Claimant the total amount of EUR 5,530 by no later than 28 February 2010, despite being wrongly mentioned the date “28 February 2009”. 6. The DRC judge acknowledged that based on the claim lodged, the Claimant requested the payments by the Respondent of the amounts listed in the agreement plus interest as of 28 February 2010 as well as legal costs. 7. In this respect, the DRC judge noted that, on the other hand, the Respondent was willing to find an amicable solution, however, did not submit any further comments nor did act towards the conclusion of an amicable solution. 8. With due consideration to the above, the DRC judge recalled that the parties had signed a termination agreement by means of which they had agreed to mutually terminate their employment relationship and the termination agreement stipulated that “Club L agrees to pay to the PLAYER for the early termination of their Contract the amount of five thousands five hundreds and thirty euro (5.530,00) €. Club L hereby commits that the amount will be paid until no later than February 28th, 2009”. 9. Therefore, bearing in mind the aforementioned allegations provided by the parties and what was established by the termination agreement, as well as, taking into account the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the DRC judge concluded that the Claimant is entitled the amounts specified in the agreement. 10. In this regard, the DRC judge decided that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and that the Claimant is entitled to the total amount of EUR 5,530. Moreover, the DRC judge considered that since the Claimant did not specify any interest rate, the DRC judge decided to award, in accordance with the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, default interest at a rate of 5% p.a. to the Claimant as of 1 March 2010. 11. Furthermore, the DRC judge decided to reject the Claimant’s claim pertaining to legal costs in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the Chamber’s respective longstanding jurisprudence in this regard. 12. The DRC judge concluded its 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 T, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club L, has to pay to the Claimant, Player T, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 5,530 plus interest at 5% p.a. as of 1 March 2010 until the date of effective. 3. If the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the above-mentioned deadline, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further claims filed by the Claimant, Player T, are rejected. 5. The Claimant, Player T, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club L, 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 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