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 27 February 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Todd Durbin (USA), member Mohamed Al Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member on the claim presented by the player, Player N, from country B as Claimant / Counter-Respondent against the club, Club H, from country I as Respondent / Counter-Claimant with the club, Club A, from country B as Intervening Party 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 passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 February 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Todd Durbin (USA), member Mohamed Al Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member on the claim presented by the player, Player N, from country B as Claimant / Counter-Respondent against the club, Club H, from country I as Respondent / Counter-Claimant with the club, Club A, from country B as Intervening Party regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 17 July 2007, Player N, from country B (hereinafter: player or Claimant/CounterRespondent), and Club H, from country I (hereinafter: club or Respondent/CounterClaimant), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2011, i.e. for the four seasons 2007/08 until 2010/2011. 2. The contract established the following remuneration payable by the club to the player: Currency of country I 172,450 as signing-on fee, due each season, payable until• 15th day of August; Currency of country I 117,110 as monthly salary (12 x per season).• 3. Furthermore, the contract determined that the player was entitled to a return flight ticket for himself and his family to country B twice per season. In addition, the player was entitled to a residential apartment and a car. 4. Additionally, art. 17 par. 5 of the contract stipulates that “in the event of the Club being relegated during the period of this contract, from the premier league to the national league and in the event of the club having foreign players in excess of amount permitted in the national league as shall be stipulated, the Club shall loan a foreign player in accordance with the regulations to another club in the premier league or the national league and/or shall release him. For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby clarified that the club may, at its sole discretion, decide that the player should be loaned or released as specified above.” 5. As from January 2008 until December 2008, the player was loaned from the club to Club R, from country B (hereinafter: Club R). 6. On 27 November 2008, through a fax addressed to Club R, the club acknowledged that the player suffered an injury in country B and agreed that the player would undergo a surgery. 7. On 20 March 2009, Club R requested an extension of the loan of the player until 30 June 2009, since the player was in recovery. Club R also requested that, assuming Club R’s interest to continue making use of the player’s services, the loan be renewed until 31 December 2009 without costs.8. On 29 October 2009, the player lodged a claim before FIFA requesting that the club be ordered to comply with its contractual obligations emphasising that he wished to continue the employment relation with the club and that the club be asked to declare whether it intends to comply with the contract. 9. In this connection, the player claimed the following outstanding remuneration: Currency of country I 813,340 as outstanding salaries (signing-on fees for the• seasons 2007/08 and 2008/09 in the amount of currency of country I 172,450 each as well as four monthly salaries for July, August, September and October 2009, in the amount of currency of country I 117,110 each); Reimbursement of an air ticket country B – country I – country B: Currency of• country B 2,474; Apartment and a car.• 10. Alternatively and the default not being remedied by the club, the player asked that the club be held liable for breach of the contract without just cause. In this regard, the player requested the payment of the following additional amounts: Currency of country B 3,155,540 as compensation for breach of contract,• corresponding to the remaining value of the contract (signing-on fees and salaries for the seasons 2009/10 and 2010/11); USD 100,000 “to indemnify the financial and moral damages”;• USD 20,000 for legal expenses.• On 11 November 2013, after the closure of the investigation-phase of the• matter, the player added a claim for 5% interest as of the day on which all amounts fell due. 11. According to the player, during his loan at Club R in 2008 he suffered an injury. As a consequence, the loan was renewed and he remained at Club R until his full recovery. In this regard, the player affirmed that Club R requested the renewal of the loan until 30 June 2009 and that the club authorized the surgery and the renewal of the loan. 12. The player affirmed that in accordance with a letter sent by Club R to the club, the player’s treatment was successful and he was considered fully fit to return to the club. After the end of the aforementioned renewed loan period, he requested the club to send the air ticket for him to fly back to country I, upon which the club informed him that he no longer had a position in the team and should look for a team in country B. Additionally, the player held that he could not find a club in country B, in particular considering the amounts allegedly requested by the club for his loan and the fact that he had a valid employment contract with the club until 2011. 13. Furthermore, according to the player, he insisted on his request for the flight tickets to go back to country I in order to render his services to the club. Also, in order to show that he wanted to fulfil the agreement, he stated having paid for the tickets to return to country I. Once in country I, the club allegedly failed to provide him with accommodation and a vehicle, prevented him from taking part in the training sessions and told him that he was no longer part of the team. Also, the club did not pay the amounts outstanding until that time, in spite of his default notice dated 13 August 2009. 14. Moreover, the player stated that, although he insisted on the continuation of the contract and attempts to reach an amicable solution were made, the club did not fulfil its contractual obligations and, as a consequence, he had to return to country B. In this respect, the player presented a copy of his correspondence dated 2 September 2009, in which he informed the club of his forced return to country B and claimed that the club had breached the employment contract. 15. On 8 August 2011, the club lodged a claim against the player for breach of contract without just cause and compensation emphasising that its claim was lodged within the relevant time limit, in the light of the fact that the player had suddenly left the club between 10 August 2009 and 2 September 2009 without notification, thus disrespecting his contractual obligations. 16. In its claim, apart from its request that sporting sanctions be imposed on the player, the club asked to be awarded compensation for breach of contract by the player in the amount of currency of country I 11,095,344 “or the highest amount that should be considered as more fair and due by the DRC at 5% interest per annum from 2 September 2009”, which was detailed as follows. 17. First, the club refers to the so-called “positive interest” and the fact that the employment contract was to run for two more seasons. 18. The club included the non-amortised amount of fees and expenses incurred for the acquisition of the player’s services of currency of country I 891,331.50 (USD 235,000, which is half of the total of USD 470,000). In this respect, the club presented a copy of an agreement signed in July 2007 by and between Club R, the club and the player involving a fee of USD 175,000 regarding the early termination of the player’s contract with Club R, as well as copy of the relevant bank transfer order. Furthermore, the club presented a copy of the letter of the player’s club of origin, Club B, addressed to the club, in which Club B confirms the definitive transfer of the player to the club for the amount of USD 250,000 as well as a copy of the relevant bank transfer order. In addition, the club presented a non-signed “Commission agreement” dated 23 July 2007 involving the club and an agent as well as a fee of USD 45,000 for the transfer of three players including the Claimant/CounterRespondent.19. Furthermore, the club included the amount of currency of country I 8,683,136 relating to “lost profit”. In this respect, the club pointed out that it would have sold another defender if it had known in advance that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was going to return to the club. It alleges that it stopped negotiations with a country G club which offered EUR 1,600,000 for one of its defender players. In this regard, the club refers to the decision issued by the Court of Arbitration for Sport in the case “XY”. 20. Moreover, should the DRC decide not to take this element into consideration, the club alleged that the player’s market value can be established on the basis of other objective criteria. The club had received an offer from another club to acquire the services of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, which proves that the club suffered damages by not having been able to sell the player’s services due to his unilateral breach of contract. In order to estimate the damages, the club refers to a loan fee of USD 50,000 for the 2008-09 and 2009-10 seasons each. Therefore, it alleged having been deprived of the possibility to transfer the player on a loan basis for the remaining two seasons for the total amount of currency of country I 379,290. 21. Also, the club refers to a remaining remuneration under the existing contract of currency of country I 1,577,770. 22. In response to the player’s claim, the club asked that the player’s claim be rejected and that its claim of 8 August 2011 be accepted. 23. The club confirmed the loan of the player to Club R until 31 December 2008 as well as the extension of the loan until 30 June 2009, due to the injury suffered by the player while playing in country B, so the player could have medical treatment. The club further alleged that the club and Club R agreed to extend the loan once more until 31 May 2010. 24. In this regard, the club held that from the player’s agent’s letters of 25 March 2009 and 12 May 2009, it was clear that the player and Club R wanted to extend the loan until 31 December 2009. Considering that the player wanted to stay in country R, the club stated that it informed the player’s agent that it would agree with another loan extension for the entire 2009/10 season though, since December 2009 would fall in the middle of the country I season, and for the amount of USD 70,000. In this context, according to the club, Club R finally offered USD 50,000 for a loan until 31 May 2010, which was instantly accepted by the club and the player’s agent promised to revert to the club with the relevant draft of a new loan agreement. 25. Given those circumstances, the club alleges that it was “under the assumption that [the player] would indeed stay in country B for the 2009/2010 season” and that, therefore, since the club was forming the team for the qualifying rounds of the Europa League, it hired another country B defender. In this context, the club alleged that it was astonished when it received an e-mail from the player’s agent on 10 July 2009 informing that Club R was no longer interested in extending the loan and that the player could not find any other club in country B. 26. The club affirmed that the loan agreement having expired on 30 June 2009 and the player having contacted the club on 10 July 2009 only, the club no longer expected that the player would return to country I and that in fact the alleged new loan agreement had been accepted. 27. Furthermore, the club denied the facts described by the player in the letters he sent to the club (relating to points I./12. and I./13. above), by means of which, according to the club, the player initiated “the well-known practise of producing a letter that intents to establish (false) “grounds” for the submission of a (false) demand for FIFA.” 28. According to the club, the player remained in country B until 10 August 2009, when he suddenly showed up in country I, at a time when the club was already participating in the Europa League and had already “completed the quota of foreign players as stipulated by the country I Football Association”. 29. The club made reference to article 17 par. 5 of the employment contract, while emphasising that a limitation of the number of foreign players is common practise in the world of football and that the player was aware of this when he signed the employment contract, affirming that this situation occurred due to the conduct of the player. In this context, the club alleged that it offered the player two options to avoid releasing him: be loaned as stipulated in the employment contract; or• stay with the club and accept a decrease in his salary in order for the club to• maintain the approved budget. 30. The club alleged that, after such offer, while it was awaiting the player’s response, the player disappeared without giving notice, and, later, it discovered that he was in country B. The club argued that the player breached the contract without just cause by leaving the country without any notification. Furthermore, the club considered the player’s return to the club in August 2009 to be an attempt to falsely establish a situation in which the player could accuse the club from not wanting to comply with the terms of the employment contract. 31. Regarding the request of the player for the club to fulfil the contract, the club affirmed that it did not have a chance to do so or respond to it, since it only received the claim in August 2011. Also, the club stated that the player signed an employment contract with Club A (hereinafter: Club A or Intervening Party), so it could neither consider nor comply with such proposal.32. Regarding the player’s request for flight tickets to country I at the beginning of the 2009/2010 season, the club explained that it had no financial obligations towards the player until January 2009 in accordance with the document signed by the player on 28 February 2008, before the player was transferred on loan to Club R. Also, considering that the loan was extended until July 2009, the club alleged that it had no contractual obligations towards the player until that time. In addition, it affirmed that it is “common practice in the world of football” that the club that receives a player on loan from another club is the one responsible for the player’s travel expenses. Should it be considered that the club had the obligation to provide the player with flight tickets to return at the end of the loan, the club held that not providing this ticket does not constitute a ground to determine that the club acted in breach of contract without just cause. 33. In addition, the club held that since the player suddenly appeared at the club, it could not be expected that the club immediately provides him with an apartment and a vehicle and it alleges that it temporarily booked the player a hotel room instead. The player left soon after his arrival in country I and because of this short period of time the violation did not “reach such a level that the party suffering the breach is entitled to terminate the contract unilaterally”. 34. Moreover, the club denied having prevented the player from taking part in the training sessions, while emphasising once more that the club no longer relied on the player’s services for the above-mentioned reasons and pointed out that the player did not submit any evidence in this regard. 35. Furthermore, regarding the player’s claim relating to the signing-on fee for the 2007/08 season that fell due on 15 August 2008, the club held that such claim should be rejected on the basis of the document that he signed on 28 February 2008 (cf. point I./33. above). 36. Regarding the salary for July 2009, the club pointed out that the player only arrived in country I on 10 August 2009 and was, thus, not even present at the club in July 2009. 37. The club held that the player had no just cause to terminate the employment contract. Even if it is considered that the club did not comply with one or more minor obligations, these breaches could not lead to the conclusion that the club unilaterally breached the contract without just cause. In addition, the club points out that even if it is considered that it terminated the employment contract, it was entitled to do so under art. 17 par.5 of the employment contract. 38. In case the Dispute Resolution Chamber considers that the club must pay compensation, the club held that overdue payments should be limited to the salaries and signing-on fees outstanding until the moment of the alleged breach, i.e. midAugust 2009, and thus shall exclude September and October 2009. 39. In addition, according to the club, the amount of compensation must be reduced by the amounts received under the player’s contract with Club A. 40. The club held that the player’s request for USD 100,000 for moral damages shall be rejected as it does not constitute an objective criterion according to art. 17 par. 1 of the FIFA regulations. 41. The club further requested that the player bears the legal expenses of the club in the amount of currency of country H 25,000. 42. In reply to the club’s claim, the player pointed out that such claim is inadmissible, as it is time-barred given that the event giving rise to the dispute arose on 14 July 2009 and the club’s claim was lodged on 8 August 2011. The player deemed that the club’s reply of 14 July 2009 to his e-mail clearly indicated that the club no longer wanted to make use of his services and refused to provide him with the relevant air ticket in accordance with the terms of the employment contract in order for him to return to the club after the expiry of the loan. 43. Should the club’s claim be considered admissible, the player asked that it be rejected and his claim be accepted. 44. The player pointed out that the club was well aware of the fact that the loan agreement with Club R would end by the end of June 2009 and that his contract with the club was still in force, as a result of which he needed to return to the club at the end of the loan period. 45. According to the player, when he returned to the club, the club tried to discharge themselves of their obligations towards him invoking art. 17 par.5 of the employment contract. In this respect, the player emphasised that the two simultaneous conditions contained in this article were not fulfilled, i.e. the club did not get relegated and the limit of foreign players in the national league is, thus, irrelevant. In addition, the player considered this article to be abusive. 46. Furthermore, the player held that the club failed to prove that it was Club R’s obligation to provide him with an air ticket in order to return to the club. 47. In addition, when the player returned to the club at his own expense, the club failed to fulfil its contractual obligations; that is, it did not pay his salary for July and August 2009 nor the signing-on fee that fell due on 15 August 2009, nor did it provide him with a house or allow him to train.48. The player further deemed that the club had had sufficient time to remedy the breach between his arrival on 10 August 2009 and his departure in September 2009. 49. In addition, the player pointed out that during the period of time between his departure in September 2009 and the club’s claim of 8 August 2011, which it lodged after it had taken note that the player had lodged a claim against it, the club had not undertaken any action in order to enforce the terms of the contract, which, according to the player, indicates that the club was not interested in his services any longer. According to the player, another indication in this respect is that the club never replied/objected to the request for the international transfer certificate made by the association of his new club in February 2010. 50. Should his claim be rejected and the DRC hold him liable for breach of contract, he rejects the amount of compensation claimed by the club. 51. The player informed FIFA that between September 2009 and January 2010 he remained unemployed and that as from 6 January 2010 until 30 November 2010 he was contractually bound to Club A earning a monthly salary of currency of country B 10,000. He signed a second employment contract with Club A valid as from 1 January 2011 until 10 December 2012, in accordance with which he received a monthly salary of currency of country B 17,500. 52. Club A, for its part, maintains that it has always acted bona fide when it hired the player and that it cannot be held liable for inducement to breach of contract. Club A adds that Club A obviously was no longer interested in maintaining the player’s services and that the rules relating to the registration of the player were fully respected. The player was registered with it provisionally, since the country B Football Federation never received a reply from the country I Football Association to its international transfer certificate (ITC) request. Club A deems that Club H terminated the contract without just cause. However, should the DRC decide that both Club H and the player are liable for the early termination of the contract, the joint and several liability to pay compensation (cf. art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players) shall be mitigated. 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 matter at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 29 October 2009. Consequently, the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 1 and par. 2 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 B player and an country I club and involving a country B club. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 29 October 2009, the 2009 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: 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 this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. In addition, the Chamber highlighted that the claim of the player Player N against Club H and the claim of the club, Club H against the player N have been merged into a single procedure, which is presently in front of this Chamber for its consideration and decision. 6. The Chamber, first and foremost, acknowledged that the Claimant/CounterRespondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant were contractually bound by an employment contract, which was signed on 17 July 2007 and valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2011, i.e. which was of a four seasons’ duration. It was further noted that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was transferred by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on a loan basis to the country B club, Club R, for the period time between January 2008 and December 2008. Moreover, it has remained uncontested by the parties that the loan of the player to Club R was extended until 30 June 2009. 7. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent, on the one hand, maintained that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract without just cause after the expiry of the aforementioned loan period and shall, thus, be held liable to pay, inter alia, compensation for breach of contract. 8. The Chamber noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, on the other hand, rejected the claim put forward by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. According to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is to be held liable for breach of contract without just cause arguing inter alia that the player left country I between 10 August 2009 and 2 September 2009 without any notification and disrespecting his contractual obligations. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant claimed that, therefore, the player is to be held liable to pay compensation for breach of contract. 9. In continuation, the Chamber took into account that the Claimant/CounterRespondent fully rejected the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s claim. According to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant clearly no longer wanted to make use of his services. Furthermore, the Respondent/CounterClaimant was aware of the fact that the loan agreement with country R would end by the end of June 2009 and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to fulfil its contractual obligations as from July 2009. 10. The members of the Chamber highlighted that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the diverging position of the parties, was to determine as to which party is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract signed by and between the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/CounterClaimant, and as to whether such termination was with or without just cause. The Chamber also underlined that, subsequently, if it were found that the contract was terminated without just cause, it would be necessary to determine the consequences for the party that was responsible for the early termination of the contractual relation. 11. Subsequently, the Chamber proceeded with an analysis of the circumstances surrounding the present matter, the parties’ arguments as well the documentation on file, bearing in mind art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. 12. In this regard, the members of the Chamber took into consideration that, on 10 July 2009, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent offered his services to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and asked it to issue an air ticket in order for him to return to the club. In reply, on 14 July 2009, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant informed the Claimant/Counter-Respondent that it was no longer counting on his services and that it had hired another player, as the Claimant/Counter-Respondent allegedly had indicated that he preferred to stay in country B.13. The Chamber further duly noted in this context that, according to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the loan of the player to Club R had, once more, been extended until 31 May 2010 and that therefore, it was under the assumption that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent would stay in country B. Consequently, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant hired another player, since at that time it was forming its team for the qualifying rounds of the Europa League. In this connection, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant further highlighted that the Claimant/CounterRespondent having contacted the club on 10 July 2009 only, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant no longer expected that the player would return to it and deemed that the renewed extension of the player’s loan to Club R until 31 May 2010 had been accepted. 14. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent, for his part, maintains that his loan to Club R had been renewed until 30 June 2009 only. 15. As regards the alleged extension of the loan of the player to Club R until 31 May 2010, bearing in mind the aforementioned art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the members of the Chamber stressed that there is no convincing documentary evidence on file demonstrating that, indeed, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Club R and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had agreed upon the extension of the player’s loan to Club R for another season until 31 May 2010. For instance, there is no written agreement signed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in this respect. 16. What is more, the DRC believed that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant itself might have been uncertain about the alleged agreement on the loan extension until 31 May 2010, in the light of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s observation that, since the player contacted the club on 10 July 2009 only, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant no longer expected that the player would return and deemed that the renewed extension of his loan to Club R until 31 May 2010 had been accepted. 17. On account of the above, in particular, due to the lack of documentary evidence, the Chamber had to reject the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s argument that the loan of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to Club R, from country B had been extended until 31 May 2010. 18. In continuation, the DRC recalled that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent first offered his services to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on 10 July 2009. It was further noted that after an exchange of correspondence with the Respondent/CounterClaimant, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent travelled to country I on 9 August 2009 at his own expense. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant confirmed that the player “showed up” at the club on 10 August 2009, at the time when the foreign player quota “stipulated by the country I Football Association” allegedly had been completed already.19. The members of the Chamber further took into account that whereas the Claimant/Counter-Respondent held that in spite of his default notice of 13 August 2009 the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had failed to respect its contractual obligations towards him, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant argued that it made an offer to the player in relation with art. 17 par. 5 of the employment contract (cf. point I./4. above), which article, so the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, was known to the player when he signed the employment contract and which allegedly finds application due to the player’s own conduct. According to the Respondent/CounterClaimant, while awaiting the player’s response to its alleged offer, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent would have left the country without notification and, thus, acted in breach of contract. 20. In this regard, the DRC noted from the file that, on 2 September 2009, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent informed the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in writing of his return to country B while indicating that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had breached the employment contract. In addition, the Chamber observed that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent left country I on 9 September 2009. 21. It was further noted that in its correspondence dated 23 September 2009 addressed to the player, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant informed the Claimant/CounterRespondent that it held the player responsible for breach of contract and payment of compensation. 22. The members of the Chamber observed that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was of the firm opinion that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had no just cause to terminate the employment contract. In addition, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant maintained that if the club is considered to have terminated the employment contract, it was entitled to do so in accordance with art. 17 par. 5 of the employment contract. 23. The Chamber then turned its attention to art. 17 par. 5 of the employment contract which stipulates that “in the event of the Club being relegated during the period of this contract, from the premier league to the national league and in the event of the club having foreign players in excess of amount permitted in the national league as shall be stipulated, the Club shall loan a foreign player in accordance with the regulations to another club in the premier league or the national league and/or shall release him. For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby clarified that the club may, at its sole discretion, decide that the player should be loaned or released as specified above.” 24. The members of the Chamber, however, concurred that due to its unilateral character, drafted to the benefit and the decision being left at the discretion of the club only, said art. 17 par. 5 of the employment contract cannot be considered valid.In addition, in this context, the DRC deemed it of utmost importance to highlight that the loan of a player from one club to another club mandatorily requires the player’s consent. 25. Therefore, the Chamber decided to dismiss the arguments of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant relating to art. 17 par. 5 of the employment contract. 26. Reverting to the circumstance that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had offered his services to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant 10 days after the end of the loan period at Club R, for the sake of completeness, the Chamber wished to emphasise that a 10 days’ absence of a player cannot be considered a just cause to terminate a contract, particularly without any previous warning. In this regard, the Chamber highlighted that only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract without prior warning. A premature termination of an employment contract can always only be an ultima ratio. 27. On account of all of the above, having duly taken note of the parties’ arguments as well as of the documentation on file, the Chamber decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant terminated the employment contract without just cause on 14 July 2009, date on which the Respondent/Counter-Claimant notified the Claimant/Counter-Respondent that it was no longer counting on his services. 28. At the same time, the members of the Chamber rejected the claim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 29. In continuation, prior to establishing the consequences of the breach of contract without just cause by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber held that it had to address the issue of any unpaid remuneration at the moment the contract was terminated by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 30. Indeed, in his statement of claim, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent asks to be awarded the amount of currency of country I 813,340, which includes the signing-on fees for the seasons 2007/08 and 2008/09 in the amount of currency of country I 172,450 each as well as four salaries regarding the months of July, August, September and October 2009, in the amount of currency of country I 117,110 each. In this respect, the members of the Chamber took note of the document signed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent on 28 February 2008, prior to his loan to Club R, in accordance with which the player confirmed that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had no financial obligations towards him until January 2009. In addition, the Chamber took into consideration that during the player’s loan at Club R until 30 June 2009, the effects of his contract with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant must be considered suspended. Furthermore, the Chamber took into account that the employment contract was terminated on 14 July 2009. For these reasons, themembers of the Chamber decided to reject the claim of the Claimant/CounterRespondent pertaining to the aforementioned amount of currency of country I 813,340. 31. Equally, in the absence of any monetary value in the contractual condition relating to an apartment and a car and of any documentary evidence in this connection (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules), the Chamber had to reject the Claimant’s unspecified claim relating to said fringe benefits. 32. Having established the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the consequences of the unilateral termination of the contract by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant without just cause on 14 July 2009. 33. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is entitled to receive compensation from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for the termination of the contract without just cause. 34. The members of the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including, in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period. 35. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contains a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake. 36. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable. Therefore, other objective criteria may be taken into account at the discretion of the deciding body. In this regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber emphasised beforehand that each request for compensation for contractual breach has to be assessed by the Chamber on a case-by-case basis taking into account all specific circumstances of the respective matter.37. In order to estimate the amount of compensation due to the Claimant/CounterRespondent in the present case, the members of the Chamber first turned their attention to the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant/CounterRespondent under the existing contract and/or the new contract, which criterion was considered by the Chamber to be essential. The members of the Chamber deemed it important to emphasise that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows the Chamber to take into account both the existing contract and the new contract, if any, in the calculation of the amount of compensation. 38. In accordance with the contract signed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, which was to run for two more seasons, i.e. until 30 June 2011, after the breach of contract occurred, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was to receive remuneration amounting to currency of country I 3,155,540, i.e. 24 monthly salaries of currency of country I 117,110 each as well as two signing-on fees of currency of country I 172,450 each. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of currency of country I 3,155,540 serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 39. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant/CounterRespondent had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages. 40. The Chamber recalled that as from 6 January 2010 until 30 November 2010 the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was contractually bound to Club A earning a monthly salary of currency of country B 10,000 (approx. currency of country I 21,609). The Claimant/Counter-Respondent signed a second employment contract with Club A valid as from 1 January 2011 until 10 December 2012, in accordance with which he received a monthly salary of currency of country R 17,500 (approx. currency of country I 36,998). These employment contracts thus enabled the Claimant/CounterRespondent to earn an income of approximately currency of country I 462,000 (i.e. 11 months x currency of country I 21,609 plus 6 months x currency of country I 36,998) and to mitigate damages accordingly during said period of time. 41. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand as well as the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s general obligation to mitigate his damage, the Chamber decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant must pay the amount of currency of country I 2,693,540 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent as compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.42. Furthermore, as regards the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim pertaining to a flight ticket, on the basis of the documentation presented by the player as well as the information provided by FIFA Travel and referring to the relevant terms of the employment contract, the Chamber decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant must pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the amount of currency of country I 2,474 for 1 air ticket after the termination of the employment without just cause by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 43. Subsequently, the DRC analysed the request of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent corresponding to compensation for moral and financial damages in the amount of USD 100,000. In this regard, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to point out that the request for said compensation presented by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent has no legal or regulatory basis and pointed out that no corroborating evidence had been submitted that demonstrated the damage suffered or its quantity. 44. In addition, as regards the claimed legal expenses, the Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as to its long-standing and well-established jurisprudence, in accordance with which no procedural compensation shall be awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s request relating to legal expenses. 45. The members of the Chamber further decided to reject the Claimant/CounterRespondent’s claim for 5% interest as of the day on which all claimed amounts fell due, since this particular claim was lodged after the closure of the investigation into the present matter. 46. In conclusion, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to pay the amount of currency of country I 2,693,540 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent as compensation for the unjustified breach of the contract by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant as well as the amount of currency of country B 2,474 related to 1 flight ticket. 47. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further request filed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is rejected. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Player N, is partially accepted. 2. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club H, is rejected. 3. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent compensation for breach of contract in the amount of currency of country I 2,693,540 and the amount of currency of country R 2,474 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 4. Any further request filed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is rejected. 5. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent are not paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the aforementioned time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 6. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent/CounterClaimant 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: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl.: CAS directives