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 Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the club, Club Z, from country H as Claimant / Counter-Respondent against the player, Player C, from country L as Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club B, from country F as Respondent 2 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 17 January 2014, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the club, Club Z, from country H as Claimant / Counter-Respondent against the player, Player C, from country L as Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club B, from country F as Respondent 2 regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 January 2013, Player C, from country L (hereinafter: the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant), and Club Z, from country H (hereinafter: the Claimant / Counter-Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the day of signing until 30 June 2013. 2. Clause III of the contract establishes that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant would receive a monthly salary in the amount of currency of country H 1,200,000 (approx. EUR 4,000), payable “until the 10th day of the month following the current month”. 3. According to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant was on holiday between 1 and 16 June 2013 and the preparation for the 2013/2014 season began on 17 June 2013, however the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant did not attend such training sessions and did not give any reasons to justify his absence. Furthermore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent declared that it found out from the media that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant “trained with the country F football club B without our permission”. 4. In this regard, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent considered that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant had breached the employment contract and lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant on 31 July 2013, requesting the amount of EUR 10,000 as “damages”. 5. Additionally, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent requested the amount of EUR 10,000 from Club B, from country F (hereinafter: the Respondent 2), alleging that the latter “failed to inform our club about testing our contracted player”. 6. The Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant replied to the claim and stated that according to art. 18 par. 3 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and given that the contract with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent finished on 30 June 2013, he was free to sign with any other club for the season 2013/2014. The Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant highlighted that he was never called up for the training session of 17 June 2013, so he did not know such session was taking place. 7. In view of the above, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant concluded that he was not liable for breach of contract because the contract with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent ended on 30 June 2013 and the contract with the Respondent 2 was only valid as from 1 July 2013. 8. Furthermore, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant declared that he did not receive his salary for June 2013 and, in this regard, lodged a counterclaim against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent requesting the payment of the salary of the month of June 2013, in the amount of EUR 4,000. 9. Equally, the Respondent 2 replied to the claim lodged against it and declared that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant visited its facilities on 24 June 2013 and, on that same day, both parties signed an employment contract valid as from 1 July 2013. Moreover, the Respondent 2 explained that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant did not train with the team until 4 July 2013, when it received an e-mail from the country H club confirming that the contract between the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant and the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had finished on 30 June 2013. 10. In response to the counterclaim lodged by the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent declared that it had the intention to extend the employment contract with the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant after he returned from his vacation period. In this respect, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent stated that if it had known that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant was negotiating a contract with another club, it would have increased the contractual offer to the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant accordingly. 11. According to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant should have known the exact date on which he was expected to return after his holidays and because “he did not return to the club and he did not start the preparation – he is not entitled to receive his payment for July”. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent held that all the players were individually informed about the date on which they were to return. 12. In view of the above, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent considered that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant had the obligation to inform them about his negotiations with other clubs so that it would have had the chance to “make an agreement with him” or even to get a “possible future transfer fee”. Moreover, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent stated that it had to sign another player as a substitute in the amount of EUR 10,000 and, therefore, maintained its initial petition requesting the amount of EUR 10,000 from the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant for breach of contract and the amount of EUR 10,000 from the Respondent 2. 13. Finally, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant declared that he informed the president of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent about the negotiations with the Respondent 2 and the new salary he would receive and, according to the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant, the president told him that he could not “compete with such offers”. 14. The Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant, upon request of FIFA, declared that he only entered into a new labour relationship as from 1 July 2013, by signing a contact with the Respondent 2. According to such contract, which is valid as from 1 July 2013 until “the end of season 2014/2015”, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant is entitled to a monthly salary in the amount of EUR 9,000. 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 31 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 of the 2012 edition 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 an country H club, and country L player and a country F 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 S 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 (edition 2012), and, on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 31 July 2013. The DRC judge concluded that the 2012 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. 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. 6. In this respect, the DRC judge acknowledged that, on 1 January 2013, the parties had concluded an employment contract valid as from 1 January 2013 until 30 June 2013, in accordance with which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent would pay the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant a monthly remuneration in the amount of currency of country H 1,200,000. 7. Subsequently, the DRC judge noted that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent lodged a claim against the Respondent 1 / Counter – Claimant for an alleged breach of contract, considering that the latter had been absent from training sessions at the end of June 2013 without a reasonable justification. 8. Furthermore, the DRC judge took note that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent requested compensation from the Respondent 2 as well, considering that both Respondents had failed to inform the Claimant / Counter-Respondent about the negotiations that were taking place between them. 9. At this stage, the DRC judge turned his attention to the allegation of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant had been absent from the training sessions as from 17 June 2013, as he had not returned from his holiday period. 10. In this respect, the DRC judge observed that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent did not provide any evidence which could establish that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant should have returned from his holiday by 17 June 2013. Indeed, the DRC judge stressed that the employment contract was set to terminate on 30 June 2013 and, therefore, there could not be any evident assumption from the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant in the sense that he had to return to the training sessions for a short period of time. 11. Furthermore, the DRC judge examined the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s allegations that the Respondents had an obligation to inform it of their contract negotiations. In this respect, the DRC judge first referred to the second sentence of art. 18 par. 3 of the Regulations which stipulates that a professional shall be free to conclude a contract with another club if his contract with his present club has expired or is due to expire within six months. In view of the foregoing and given the circumstances of the present matter, in particular the fact that the Respondents had concluded an employment contract on 24 June 2013 only, the DRC judge could not find any legal or regulatory basis to uphold the claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 12. On account of the above, the DRC judge decided to reject the claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in its entirety. 13. In continuation, the DRC judge turned his attention to the counter-claim lodged by the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant, by means of which he requested the payment of the amount of EUR 4,000 corresponding to the unpaid monthly salary of June 2013. 14. The DRC judge considered that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had not put forward any valid reasons for such non-payment and, as a result, decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant is entitled to that aforementioned salary payment, for the period of June 2013 in which he was effectively with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, i.e. for 16 days of June. 15. Consequently, the DRC judge decided that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is liable to pay to the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant outstanding remuneration in the total amount of currency of country H 640,000. 16. The DRC judge concluded his deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claims lodged by the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant are rejected. III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Club Z, is rejected. 2. The counter-claim of the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant, Player C, is partially accepted. 3. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent has to pay to the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of currency of country H 640,000. 4. If the aforementioned sum is not paid by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent within the aforementioned deadline, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the stipulated time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. Any further claim lodged by the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant is rejected. 6. The Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant is directed to inform the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 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