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 28 March 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Jon Newman (USA), member Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member on the claim presented by the player, Player D, from country M as Claimant against the club, Club S, from country B 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 28 March 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Jon Newman (USA), member Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member on the claim presented by the player, Player D, from country M as Claimant against the club, Club S, from country B as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 11 February 2012, Player D, from country M (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the Club S, from country B (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as of the date of signature until 30 June 2013. 2. Article 3 of the contract stipulated that the Claimant was entitled to receive a monthly remuneration of currency of country B 32,850 due on the 15th of the following month. 3. On 11 September 2012, the parties put an end to the contract by signing a termination agreement (hereinafter: the agreement). 4. The agreement established that the Respondent had to pay the amount of EUR 45,000 to the Claimant, broken down into three instalments as follows: - EUR 15,000 due on 25 September 2012; - EUR 15,000 due on 15 December 2012,“deducted EUR 1,304 for the Claimant’s charges”, which corresponds to “the unpaid bill for the Claimant’s mobile phone after sending the relevant documents to the Claimant’s lawyer”; - EUR 15,000 due on 30 January 2013. 5. Article 2 par. 4 of the agreement states that “in the event the Respondent fails to pay off any of the abovementioned instalments within the envisaged deadlines, an interest of 5% p.a. applied on the remaining amounts shall be due”. 6. Article 3 of the agreement stipulates that “all financial, employment and any other of kind relationships based on the terminated employment relationship arisen from the contract […] are entirely and conclusively settled and that they have and shall have no further claims towards each other, except those which may arise with the non-payment of the amounts under the present agreement”. 7. On 27 March 2013, the Claimant addressed a default notice to the Respondent, requesting the payment of unpaid remuneration based on the agreement, by no later than 15 April 2013. The Respondent apparently never executed. 8. On 30 May 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA against the Respondent, requesting the amount of EUR 270,000 composed as follows: - Currency of country B 394,200, corresponding to approximately EUR 200,000, as the alleged value of the contract for the season 2012-2013, minus EUR 30,000 which the Claimant acknowledges having received; - EUR 100,000 as damages for “loss of chance and missed earnings”. 9. As an alternative claim, the Claimant requested: - EUR 15,000 as remaining amounts based on the agreement (i.e. EUR 45,000 as total value of the agreement minus EUR 28,696 as paid amounts); - sporting sanctions to be imposed on the Respondent. 10. The Claimant maintained that the Respondent did not comply with the agreement. It apparently paid him late and only the amount of EUR 28,696 (i.e. EUR 15,000 on 3 October 2012, EUR 6,000 on 27 December 2012 and EUR 7,696 on 25 March 2013). 11. The Claimant also contested the validity of the agreement since it had been signed out of necessity considering the fact that he had not received his salary for several months at that time and could not participate in the activities of the club’s team. In particular, at the end of the season 2011-2012, upon the Respondent’s decision, the Claimant was apparently kept apart from the club’s team for two months. He also held that said agreement was signed in violation of his inalienable rights. In continuation, he claimed that some clauses are to be considered as null and void because they restrict abusively the rights of the Claimant. 12. In its defence, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim which is to be considered as groundless. It underlined that the agreement did not violate any legal provisions. In any case, with reference to article 3 of the agreement, the Respondent maintains that by signing the agreement and accepting the payment of the first two instalments provided for in the agreement, the Claimant recognised the validity of said agreement and accepted to settle his financial claims which resulted from the terminated contract. 13. Besides, the Respondent pointed out that in the event of a delayed payment regarding the amounts due under the agreement, both parties agreed, as outlined in article 2 par. 4 of the agreement, that the only compensation due shall be an interest of 5% p.a. as of the date on which the respective instalment fell due. Therefore, according to the Respondent, the Claimant is not entitled to unpaid amounts under the terminated contract. Nevertheless, in the event the Claimant would be entitled to such amounts, he should only receive the amount of EUR 150,000 instead of EUR 200,000 as estimated by the Claimant. 14. Subsequently, the Respondent held that the Claimant breached his contractual obligations by showing a lack of commitment and discipline as well as disrespect towards the coach. The Claimant apparently did not take part in several training sessions with the team. The Respondent provided statements of records dated 27 and 28 August 2012, reporting the Claimant’s refusal to train, as well as a notice letter dated 29 August 2012 requesting the Claimant to comply with his contractual obligations. 15. Lastly, the Respondent recognised its delay in the payment of the third instalment provided for in the agreement. In this context, it accepted to execute such payment only if the Claimant withdraws its whole claim and confirms the validity of said agreement as well as its consequences with regard to the delayed payment of the last instalment. The Respondent finally requested the amount of EUR 6,000, corresponding to legal costs, to be borne by the Claimant. 16. Upon FIFA’s request, the Claimant confirmed that he had remained without a contract until 1 October 2013, date on which he registered with Club L for the season 2013-2014 as an amateur and agreed to a total remuneration of EUR 10,000 gross. 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 case at hand. In this respect, the DRC took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 30 May 2013. Consequently, the DRC concluded that 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 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC referred to art. 3 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012) the DRC is competent to decide on the present matter, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a country M player and a country B club. 3. Furthermore, the DRC analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 30 May 2013, 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. 4. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. The DRC started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file. 5. In this respect and in a first instance, the DRC acknowledged that, on 11 February 2012, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2013. 6. Equally, the DRC took note that, on 11 September 2012, the parties had concluded an agreement regarding the termination of the contract and, in particular, agreed upon the payment of the amount of EUR 45,000 in three instalments of EUR 15,000, respectively due on 25 September, 15 December 2012 and 30 January 2013. 7. Referring to said agreement, the DRC drew its attention to the fact that, on the one hand, the Claimant challenged its validity considering that it had been signed out of necessity and that it abusively restricted his rights. Hence he firstly requested the amount of EUR 170,000 as the alleged remaining value of the contract for the season 2012-2013. 8. On the other hand, the Chamber deemed it fit to recall that the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim relating to the said amount of EUR 170,000, pursuant to art. 3 of the agreement. 9. According to art. 3 of the agreement, “all financial, employment and any other of kind relationships based on the terminated employment relationship arisen from the contract […] are entirely and conclusively settled and that they have and shall have no further claims towards each other, except those which may arise with the non-payment of the amounts under the present agreement”. 10. On account of the above, the Chamber was eager to underline that the above-mentioned agreement bears the signature of both parties. In this respect, the DRC stressed that the Claimant was fully aware of the content of the agreement at the time of the signature and should not have agreed to sign a document should it restrict his rights. In other words, the DRC deemed that the Claimant could not, after having concluded the agreement, contest the content of said agreement. 11. Equally, taking into account art. 3 of the agreement, the Chamber readily accepted that the parties had indeed agreed upon the termination of the contract by means of the document signed on 11 September 2012. Therefore, the Chamber rejected the claimed amount of EUR 170,000 on the basis of the contract since said amount had been settled by the signature of the above-mentioned agreement which thus put an end to the contract and its financial obligations. 12. On account of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant was only entitled to the unpaid amounts due under the agreement. The DRC observed that the Claimant acknowledged the payment of the first two instalments and that the Respondent explicitly admitted that the third instalment had not been paid since it stated being willing to pay the relevant amount. 13. Consequently, the DRC decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 15,000 and thereby fully accepted the Claimant’s alternative financial request. 14. Furthermore, as regards the Claimant’s claim pertaining to damages for “loss of chance and missed earnings”, which was not at all specified by the Claimant, the Chamber agreed that such claim is to be rejected due to a lack of legal basis. 15. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 16. Finally, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided to reject the Respondent’s claim pertaining to legal costs in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the Chamber’s respective longstanding jurisprudence in this regard. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 15,000. 3. In the event that the aforementioned amount is not paid by the Respondent 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 FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent 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: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives