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 7 February 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member John Bramhall (England), member Santiago Nebot (Spain), member on the claim presented by the player, D, from country P, as Claimant against the club, Club A, from country R, 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 passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 7 February 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member John Bramhall (England), member Santiago Nebot (Spain), member on the claim presented by the player, D, from country P, as Claimant against the club, Club A, from country R, as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 July 2008, the player D, from country P (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the Club A, from country R (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the date of signature until 1 July 2012. 2. In addition, the parties signed an undated financial appendix and a professional appendix to the contract, which form part of the latter, according to its art. 12.2 and 19.2. 3. According to art. 1 of the financial appendix, the Respondent undertakes to pay the Claimant the following amounts: - EUR 60,000, payable in four equal instalments of EUR 15,000 on 15 July 2008, 15 December 2008, 15 March 2009 and 30 June 2009; - EUR 72,000, payable in four equal instalments of EUR 18,000 on 15 July 2009, 15 December 2009, 15 March 2010 and 30 June 2010; - EUR 108,000, payable in four equal instalments of EUR 27,000 on 15 July 2010, 15 December 2010, 15 March 2011 and 30 June 2011; - EUR 120,000, payable in four equal instalments of EUR 30,000 on 15 July 2011, 15 December 2011, 15 March 2012 and 30 June 2012; - food and accommodation. 4. Furthermore, art. 1.4. of the financial appendix stipulates that “the payment of all the sums of money shall be made in the national currency at the country R National Bank’s rate of exchange that will be the day of the payment or in EUR”. 5. Finally, art. 17.2 of the contract establishes that “The parties shall in good faith make all efforts to amicably settle any dispute, controversy or misunderstanding that derives from or is related to this convention. Should this be impossible, the litigation will be submitted, for being settled, only to the country R’s and/or P’s sporting jurisdiction courts”. 6. On 7 and 18 April 2011, the Claimant reminded the Respondent, in writing, of its arrears pertaining to outstanding remuneration for December 2009, March, June, July and December 2010, and March 2011, in the total amount of EUR 117,000. 7. On 22 April 2011, having received no answer or payment from the Respondent, the Claimant terminated the employment contract, in writing, based on the Respondent’s outstanding financial obligations towards him. 8. On 6 May 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent for breach of contract, requesting the payment of the total amount of EUR 264,000, plus interest of 5% p.a., made up of: - EUR 117,000 as outstanding remuneration, corresponding to part of the instalment of 15 December 2009 (EUR 10,800), part of the instalment of 15 March 2010 (EUR 7,200), the instalment of 30 June 2010 in full (EUR 18,000), the instalments of 15 July 2010, 15 December 2010 and 15 March 2011 in full (3 x EUR 27,000); - EUR 147,000 as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to the instalment of EUR 27,000 due on 30 June 2011 and EUR 120,000 as the entire amount due for the 2011/2012 season. 9. In addition, the Claimant requests that sporting sanctions be imposed on the Respondent. 10. In his arguments, the Claimant argues having played his last official match with the first team on 11 December 2009, having subsequently been transferred to the second team. 11. On 5 January 2010, taking into account the fact that he had been training with the second team in the third league and that the Respondent had allegedly not kept its promise – made orally – of paying higher bonuses in exchange of a 10% reduction to all players’ salaries, the Claimant proposed to the Respondent, in writing, the amicable termination of the contract so that he could search for new employment and the Respondent could cut costs by releasing an expensive player. In its reply, dated 20 January 2010, the Respondent evaluated the sportive performance of the Claimant as unsatisfactory and accepted the termination only in case a concrete offer for the Claimant would be made by another club. 12. The Claimant further claims that he fell ill and was, therefore, unable to take part in training from 11 until 13 January 2010. The Respondent, however, allegedly accused him of having been absent as from 11 to 15 January 2010, as well as having arrived one day late after the Christmas holidays; thus the Respondent imposed a fine on the Claimant amounting to 15% of the yearly value of the contract, i.e. EUR 10,800, deducted from his salary. 13. The Claimant, however, states having been authorized by the coach to arrive one day after the end of the Christmas holidays and having been present on 14 and 15 January 2010. In this respect, he presents a declaration of other members of the team, in which the latter state that “[…] player D was present in trainings at days 14 and 15 of January. We confirm that he was visibly sick and weak with fever and made training in gym just after speaking with coach […]”. 14. According to a medical statement, dated 23 February 2010, the Claimant fell sick again, being diagnosed with a respiratory virus, fever and lung infection and advised to rest for five to seven days. Another medical statement, dated 10 March 2010, indicated that the Claimant also suffered a partial rupture of the muscle of the posterior right thigh and, thus, should rest for three weeks before progressively restarting training. 15. The Respondent, however, allegedly accused the Claimant of simulating the injury and did not provide him with the indicated treatment. In addition, it imposed on him a second fine amounting to 10% of his yearly income, i.e. EUR 7,200, allegedly based on his unauthorized absence from training and an unauthorized visit to the hospital. This amount was apparently deducted from his salary of March 2010. 16. On 23 April 2010, the Claimant proposed to the Respondent to amicably terminate the contract, upon payment of EUR 48,000 to him. In its response, dated 4 May 2010, the Respondent stated that it would accept the termination in case the Claimant pays compensation in the amount of EUR 250,000. The Claimant, though, considered the Respondent’s proposal unfeasible. 17. The Claimant claims not having received the instalment due on 30 June 2010 or the one due on 15 July 2010, for a third fine amounting to 25% of the yearly value of the contract, i.e. EUR 27,000, was imposed on him. This fine was apparently based on his alleged absence from a specific individual training camp, as well as from the team’s training, for three weeks. 18. The instalments due on 15 December 2010 and 15 March 2011 were also not paid by the Respondent, according to the bank statements provided by the Claimant. 19. Furthermore, the Claimant states always having complied with his contractual obligations and rejects the fines imposed on him by the Respondent and confirmed by the country R Football League, which he considers disproportionate to the alleged breach. Moreover, the Claimant states never having received any warnings whatsoever from the Respondent regarding his alleged non-compliance with the contract, or having been informed of or participated in a procedure in front of the country R Football Federation. He was just informed by the Respondent of the imposition of the disciplinary fines against him and their ratification by the country R Football Federation. In addition, he claims that the latter allegedly does not comply with the minimum procedural standards for the independent arbitration courts and, thus, fair proceedings cannot be guaranteed. 20. In view of the fact that the Respondent did not reply to his reminders on 7 and 18 April 2011, on 22 April 2011, the Claimant terminated the employment contract in writing. 21. In its response, the Respondent argues that the Claimant did not comply with the contract, by not showing discipline and not meeting the sporting expectations of the club. Therefore, the Respondent imposed on him three fines, ratified by the Disciplinary Commission of the country R Football Federation on 18 February 2010, 21 April 2010 and 15 September 2010, respectively amounting to 15%, 10% and 25% of the value of his contractual rights. The Respondent argues that such decisions have respected the due process of law for the ratification by the country R Football Federation and, therefore, should be taken into account by the DRC. 22. In addition, the Respondent, on 3 June 2011, lodged a request at the country R Football Federation for the termination of the contract with the Claimant with effect as of 20 April 2011, based on the fact that the Claimant missed training sessions and matches without authorization between 20 April 2011 and 3 June 2011, and that during the 2010/2011 season he allegedly did not participate in any official match due to his poor performance. 23. The Respondent claims having duly informed the Claimant of the aforementioned request on 27 July 2011, but the later refused to acknowledge receipt of such correspondence. 24. According to the Respondent, the country R Football Federation, on 9 August 2011, based on the fact that the Claimant had missed training between 20 April 2011 and 3 June 2011 and did not participate in any official match during the 2010/2011 season, decided that “the contractual relations between the parties has ceased […], starting with 09.08.2011”. 25. In addition, the Respondent states that it has paid the Claimant his entire remuneration for the 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 seasons, having deducted from the instalment due in March 2010 the amount of EUR 10,800 corresponding to the first fine and the amount of EUR 7,200 corresponding to the second fine. Concerning the 2010/2011 season, the Respondent considers that the Claimant is not entitled to any remuneration, since he left the club and since another fine in the amount of EUR 27,000 is pending against him. 26. In March 2012, the parties tried to reach an amicable settlement to the present dispute. The Respondent offered to pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 117,000 in exchange of the withdrawal of the claim before FIFA, which the Claimant rejected. 27. Even though an amicable settlement could not be reached by the parties, the Claimant informed FIFA, on 2 April 2012, that the amount of EUR 78,600 referring to outstanding remuneration had been paid by the Respondent. However, the amount of EUR 38,400 remains outstanding. 28. Finally, the Claimant claims not having signed any new employment contract between the alleged breached and 1 July 2012. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC or the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 21 par. 1 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules). The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 6 May 2011. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the edition 2008 of the Procedural Rules was applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 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 and 2 in combination with art. 22 b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010 and 2012; hereinafter: the Regulations), the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall adjudicate on an employment-related dispute with an international dimension, between a player and a 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 par. 2 of the Regulations (editions 2010 and 2012), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 6 May 2011, the 2010 edition of said regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, 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 this respect, the members of the DRC acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that, on 1 July 2008, they signed an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 1 July 2012. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that it was also undisputed by the parties that they signed an undated financial appendix and a professional appendix to the contract, according to which the Claimant was entitled to receive the remuneration detailed in point I.3. above. 6. The DRC noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant claims that the Respondent failed to pay him several contractual instalments from December 2009 to March 2011. The Claimant further states that several fines in the amounts of 10%, 15% and 25% of his annual earnings were imposed on him by the Respondent, due to allegedly unjustified absences, and ratified by the country R Football Federation. The Claimant states, however, never having taken part in these procedures or been warned by the Respondent of any contractual violations allegedly committed by him. Furthermore, he maintains that his absences were either authorized by the Respondent or justified by medical statements. 7. The Chamber further noted that the Claimant, taking into account the Club’s failure in paying his remuneration, as well as the fact that he had been excluded from the first team and that the Respondent had been relegated to the third league, proposed on two occasions the amicable termination of the contract. The DRC observed that, as per the Claimant, no amicable solution was reached, since the Respondent would only accept the termination in case of a concrete offer or of the payment of compensation by the Claimant. 8. In view of the foregoing and after having reminded the Respondent of its arrears, on 7 and 18 April 2011, the Claimant terminated the contract, in writing, on 22 April 2011. On 6 May 2011, he lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, requesting the payment of outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract, as detailed in point I.8. above. 9. Subsequently, the DRC noted that, on the other hand, the Respondent claims that the Claimant violated his contractual obligations, in particular, by lacking discipline and not meeting the sporting expectations of the Respondent. Therefore, he was imposed the three fines detailed in point I.21. above. 10. The DRC further noted that the Respondent, based on the Claimant’s allegedly nonauthorized absence at training sessions and matches, filed a request for the termination of the contract on 3 June 2011 in front of the country R Football Federation, which was approved by the latter on 9 August 2011. Thus, the Respondent deems that the Claimant’s claim should be rejected. 11. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber 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 employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by the Claimant, and which party was responsible for the early termination of the contractual relationship in question. The DRC also underlined that, subsequently, if it were found that the employment contract had been breached by one of the parties without just cause, it would be necessary to determine the consequences for the party that caused the unjust breach of the relevant employment contract. 12. In view of the above, the Chamber first focused its attention on the claim of the Claimant, according to which the Respondent has failed to pay part of the instalment due on 15 December 2009, part of the instalment due on 15 March 2010, as well as the instalments due on 30 June 2010, 15 July 2010, 15 December 2010 and 15 March 2011 in full, in the total amount of EUR 117,000, leading to the termination of the contract by the player on 22 April 2011. 13. Subsequently, the Chamber took into account that the Respondent, in response to the Claimant’s claim, maintains having paid him all remuneration due for the 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 seasons. The Respondent further claims that the amounts of EUR 10,800 and EUR 7,200 were duly deducted from the instalment of March 2010, corresponding to the fines imposed on the Claimant on 18 February and on 21 April 2010. In addition, the DRC noted that the Respondent deems that the amount of EUR 27,000 should still be deducted from any amounts due to the Claimant, corresponding to the third fine imposed on him on 15 September 2010, which has not yet been executed. 14. At this point and for the sake of good order, the Chamber 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. In this context, the Chamber deemed that the Respondent bore the burden of proof regarding either the fulfilment of all its financial obligations towards the Claimant, as per the contract, or to justify the non-payment based on substantial documentary evidence. 15. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Claimant, on the one hand, provided a copy of his personal bank statements indicating the amounts received from the Respondent, as well as of the two reminders addressed to the Respondent on 7 and 18 April 2011, by means of which he put the club in default in relation to his unpaid remuneration as indicated in point II.13. above. 16. The Chamber also observed that the Respondent, on the other hand, was not able to provide the DRC with any type of substantial evidence regarding the alleged payment of the Claimant’s entire remuneration for the 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 seasons, as it claims, or to justify the failure in complying with its contractual obligations. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Respondent did not provide any receipts proving that the amounts claimed by the Claimant have been paid and, what is more, it even acknowledges having deducted the total amount of EUR 18,000 from the Claimant’s remuneration for March 2010, based on the fines allegedly imposed on him on 18 February and on 21 April 2010 (cf. point I.25 above). 17. In relation to the above-mentioned fines, the Chamber noted that the only documentation provided by the Respondent in this regard were English translations of decisions dated 18 February, 21 April and 15 September 2010, allegedly issued by the club and ratified by the country R Football Federation. Equally, the DRC noted that the Respondent was unable to provide any type of evidence regarding the Claimant’s due participation in the proceedings leading to the imposition of said fines or of the disciplinary infringements allegedly committed by him. 18. At this point, the Chamber first reminded the parties that, in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 lit. e) of the Procedural Rules, all documentation provided in the context of a dispute in front of FIFA should be presented in the original version and, if applicable, translated into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, Spanish and German). Bearing in mind the wording of the aforementioned provision, the Chamber concluded that the translations of the decisions provided by the Respondent without the original version could not be taken into account. Consequently, the members of the DRC deemed that no substantial evidence was provided by the Respondent’s with regard to the existence of the alleged fines, of the Claimant’s participation in such proceedings or of any disciplinary infringement on his part. 19. Subsequently, the DRC noted that the Claimant, in turn, provided a copy of two medical statements dated 23 February 2010 and 10 March 2010, which confirm, respectively, that he had been ill or injured and, consequently, unable to participate in the team’s training for a certain period of time. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the fine allegedly imposed on the Claimant on 21 April 2010, due to his allegedly non-authorized absence from training and unauthorized visit to the hospital, as per the Respondent, appears to have been unjustified. 20. The Chamber further wished to point out that, in any case, the fines imposed on the Claimant for alleged wrongdoing in relation to his behaviour and performance, not supported by substantial evidence in this regard, and amounting to 15%, 10% and 25% of his earnings for an entire season must be considered disproportionate and therefore not applicable. 21. In this context, and irrespective of the foregoing consideration, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that the imposition of a fine, or any other available financial sanction in general, shall not be used by clubs as a means to set off outstanding financial obligations towards players. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject the Respondent’s argument in this regard. 22. In continuation, the DRC noted that, according to the documentation on file, the Claimant, in view of the non-payment of his remuneration, his exclusion from the main squad – which is not disputed by the Respondent – and the club’s relegation to the third league, proposed the amicable termination of the contract in exchange of the payment of his outstanding remuneration on two different occasions. The Chamber, however, noted that the Respondent would only accept the termination in exchange of a concrete offer for the Claimant or the payment of compensation. In view of the foregoing, the DRC deemed that the Respondent no longer appeared to be interested in the Claimant’s services, but in obtaining financial advantage from the situation. 23. Bearing in mind the aforementioned considerations, the member of the DRC concluded that, by the time the contract was terminated by the Claimant, i.e. on 22 April 2011, the total amount of EUR 117,000, corresponding to the instalments due on 15 December 2009, on 15 March 2010, on 30 June 2010, on 15 July 2010, on 15 December 2010 and on 15 March 2011 were either entirely or partially outstanding. In spite of his reminders of 7 and 18 April 2011, no payment was made by the Respondent. In view of the foregoing as well as of the fact that the Claimant had been excluded from the main squad and that his alleged disciplinary failures could not be proven by the Respondent, the Chamber decided that the Respondent was to be held responsible for the breach of contract without just cause and that, consequently, the contract was terminated by the Claimant with just cause on 22 April 2011. 24. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequences of the breach of contract without just cause on the part of the Respondent. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent an amount of money as compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding payments on the basis of the relevant contract. 25. Prior to establishing the amount of compensation for breach of contract due to the Claimant by the Respondent, the DRC proceeded with the calculation of the outstanding monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the employment contract until the date of termination, i.e. on 22 April 2011. 26. In this regard, the DRC noted that, during the course of the present proceedings, the Respondent proceeded with the payment of a relevant part of the amount claimed as outstanding remuneration by the Claimant. According to the information provided to FIFA by the Claimant, EUR 78,600 out of EUR 117,000 were paid by the Respondent and, consequently, only the amount of EUR 38,400 remained unpaid, in relation to outstanding remuneration. 27. Thus, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as the reasons previously exposed, the DRC concluded that, 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 due to the latter in the total amount of EUR 38,400. 28. The Chamber further established that an interest rate of 5% p.a. would apply over the aforementioned amount, as from 6 May 2011, as per the Claimant’s claim. 29. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, 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. 30. 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. 31. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the employment contract as from the date of termination until 1 July 2012. The Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 147,000, corresponding to the instalment due on 30 June 2011 and to the Claimant’s global remuneration for the 2011/2012 season, serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 32. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber, 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. 33. In this regard, the Chamber noted that, as per the Claimant’s declaration and as confirmed by the Transfer Matching System (TMS), no new employment contract was signed by the Claimant between the 22 April 2011, i.e. the date of termination, and 1 July 2012, the expiry date of the contract. Therefore, no deductions shall be made to the basic amount of compensation calculated in point II.31. above. 34. For all the above reasons, the DRC decided to accept the claim of the Claimant and to hold the Respondent liable to pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 38,400, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 May 2011 until the date of effective payment, as outstanding remuneration, as well as the amount of EUR 147,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 May 2011 until the date of effective payment, as compensation for breach of contract. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player D, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club A, is ordered to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 38,400, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 May 2011 until the date of effective payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. The Respondent is ordered to pay to the Claimant compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 147,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 May 2011 until the date of effective payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 4. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant in accordance with the abovementioned numbers 2. and 3., plus interests, are not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limits, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances are 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: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives