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 25 April 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Ivan Gazidis (England), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member on the matter between the player, Player S, from country M as Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the club, Club V, from country U as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club G, from country U 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 25 April 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Ivan Gazidis (England), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member on the matter between the player, Player S, from country M as Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the club, Club V, from country U as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club G, from country U as Intervening Party regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 20 February 2012, the player S, from country M (hereinafter: the Claimant / Counter-Respondent or the player), and Club V, from country U (hereinafter: the Respondent / Counter-Claimant or the club), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from 20 February 2012 until 31 August 2014, as well as three annexes. 2. According to Annexe No. 3 of the contract, the player was entitled to a monthly remuneration as follows: - USD 23,500 as from 29 February 2012 until 31 August 2012; - USD 28,500 as from 1 September 2012 until 31 August 2014. 3. Art. 1. par. 2 of the contract reads as follows: “The present Contract is a fixed-date labour agreement and is concluded in accordance with Labour Code of country U, the country U Law “On physical culture and sports”, Order of the Cabinet of Ministers “On the order of the contract form of labour agreement”, FIFA and UEFA legal documents, Regulations of the country U football competitions among the professional teams, the Club Statute and other applicable country U law.” 4. Art. 2 par. 1 of the contract stipulates: Labour relationship and mutual obligations between the parties should be regulated by the present Contract, the current country U legislation, the Club Statute and Internal Code of labour conduct, Collective Agreement and other Statutory documents of the Club, by FIFA, UEFA, country U Football Federation, PLU legal documents, and particularly, by the country U Football Federation -PLU Regulations.” 5. Art. 7 par. 4 of the contract states: “In the event of early termination of the Contract initiated by player or by his guilty or negligent action to footballers sanctioned by a fine in the amount of 5 million (five million U.S. Dollars), and the Footballer should reimburse to the club of the amounts paid by it to the Footballer, losses (Art. 22 of the Civil Code of country U), including those that were carried by the Club for acquisition and payment for services if other footballer, connected with non-fulfillment by the Footballer of his obligations according to this Contract in result of his termination.” 6. Art. 7 par. 6 of the contract stipulates: “The Parties undertake to settle by negotiations and agreements any disputes and disagreements, that may arise in the process of the present Contract obligations fulfilment. If they fail to come to agreement between the Footballer and the Club, the final decision is taken by the Club Board and may be appealed against according to the norms of country U Football Federation/PLU Regulations.” 7. Art. 7 par. 7 of the contract stipulates: “The parties declare that they accept the exclusive jurisdiction of country U Football Federation.” 8. Art. 8 par. 4 of the contract reads as follows: “It is agreed upon that only the country U legislation is applicable to the provisions of the present Contract.” 9. Art. 9 of Annexe No. 2 and art. 8 of Annexe 3 state: “In all other cases that not provided by this Annex, the Parties guide with Contract and its annexes, legislation of the country U, regulations of country U Football Federation, PL, UEFA and FIFA (as they defined in the Contract)”. 10. On 12 June 2013, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA explaining that the club had not paid him his salaries for the months of January, February, March and April 2013. In this respect, the player outlined the following timeline: - 8 May 2013; the player sent a letter to the club, via the country U Football Federation, asking payment of the amount of USD 114,000 by no later than 15 May 2013; - 16 May 2013; the club only paid the amount due for January 2013, still leaving a balance of USD 85,500; - 20 May 2013; the player sent a notice to the club by means of which he terminated the contract invoking just cause. 11. As a consequence, the player is claiming the total amount of USD 541,500 from the club, calculated as follows: - USD 101,608.70 as outstanding remuneration for the months of February 2013 to April 2013 as well as 19 days of May 2013; - USD 439,891.30 as compensation for breach of contract. 12. Equally, the player is claiming 5% interest as from each respective due date. 13. In reply to the claim lodged against it, the club first contested FIFA’s competence invoking art. 7 paras. 6 and 7 of the contract, asserting that the parties had agreed upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) of the country U Football Federation. In this respect, the club holds that the country U Football Federation NDRC guarantees fair proceedings and respects the principle of equal representation between players and club. 14. In this context, the club provided a copy of the country U Football Federation NDRC Regulations, which were approved by the Executive Committee of the country U Football Federation on 3 September 2012 and establish that: - the country U Football Federation NDRC has exclusive jurisdiction to resolve disputes between clubs and players relating to issues of employment and contractual disputes arising from labour relationships. Composition - Art. 3. par. 1: The DRC of the country U Football Federation consists of individuals elected for a term of four years, as follows: a) Chairman and Deputy Chairman – shall be elected from a list of at least five persons proposed by the Executive Committee of the country U Football Federation with the consent of the representatives of the clubs/leagues and footballers; b) From three to ten representatives of the footballers – shall be elected or appointed by the Presidium of the All country U Trade Union “Football of country U” and the Association of Professional Footballers of country U; c) From three to ten representatives of the clubs/leagues – shall be elected or appointed on the proposal of the General Meeting of members of the Premier League, the Association of Futsal Clubs of country U and the Central Council of the Professional Football League of country U from among the candidate proposed by the clubs. - Art. 3 par. 4: Among the proposed, in the manner provided for by paragraph 1 of this article, candidates, create a list of members of the DRC of the country U Football Federation, which shall be approved by the Executive Committee of the country U Football Federation, except for the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the DRC of the country U Football Federation, who shall be elected at the first session of the DRC of the country U Football Federation. - Art. 32: Proceedings before the DRC of the country U Football Federation are free of charge. They shall not incur any procedural costs except where provided for under article 21 par. 7 of these Regulations. - Art. 34. As a last resort, DRC’s decisions may be the subject of an appeal before the International Court of Arbitration for Sport. 15. Furthermore, the club provided a copy of “DECISION No. 8” of the Executive Committee of the country U Football Federation, dated 3 September 2012, which establishes the creation of the country U Football Federation NDRC and stipulates the detailed composition of said body (i.e. the names of the members of the NDRC country U Football Federation and their functions). Moreover, in accordance with art. 3 par. 4 of said decision, the various members of the NDRC are approved by the Executive Committee of the country U Football Federation. Also, art. 3 par. 9 provides that “The DRC of the country U Football Federation shall start its activities from September 4, 2012.” 16. Alternatively, and as to the substance, the club denies that the player terminated the contract in a proper manner. Since, according to the club, the contract remains silent on this issue, it considers that country U labour law should apply. In accordance with art. 38 of the Labour Code of country U, an employee may terminate the contract with a two-week notice. However, the player’s notice was sent on 20 May 2013 only and, at that time, the player was already absent from the club’s training camp, thus, not observing the prescribed procedure of termination. The club insists on the application of country U law, referring to art. 25 par. 6 and art 17. par. 1 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. 17. What is more, the club states that the player was absent as from 20 May 2013 until 24 May 2013, this being a major violation of the labour code, which states that a 3-hour absence from work may already constitute grounds for dismissal. 18. Therefore, on 3 June 2013, the club issued an “order 22-OD on non-payment to the player of his salary for the period of his absence from work” and submitted a copy of said order by means of which the “Accounting Department” of the club was ordered to “not charge salary for the absence of the player from 20 to 24 May 2013” and to “not accrue salary for the period of absence from work.” Equally, the club contacted the country U Football Federation, the League as well as the Union to report the player’s absence. 19. Finally, and without prejudice, the club lodged a counter-claim against the player requesting payment of the amount of USD 5,000,000 on the basis of art. 7 par. 4 of the contract. 20. In his replica, the player contests that there is a valid and exclusive arbitration clause in favour of the country U Football Federation NDRC. Equally, the player contests that there exists an independent NDRC in country U, stating that the relevant body does not comply with the principle of equal representation. In particular, the player refers to art. 3 par. 4 of “DECISION No.8” and stresses that “said Decision rules that all of the five footballer’s representatives are chosen, approved and appointed by the Executive Committee of the country U Football Federation”. The player adds that also the club representatives are elected by the country U Football Federation’s Executive Committee and that the country U Football Federation NDRC cannot guarantee that “the interests of the player as foreigner will be treated fair and impartial”. Finally, the player states that there is no explicit establishment of the number of representatives of player or clubs and the NDRC country U Football Federation is not a body of the country U Football Federation, but rather an arbitration court established in compliance with the civil legislation of country U. 21. Furthermore, the player claimed that on 20 February 2012, i.e. when he signed the contract, the country U Football Federation DRC did not yet exist. 22. In the alternative, should the country U Football Federation NDRC be recognised, the player stresses that the Statutes of the country U Football Federation “does not regulate the existence of a national dispute resolution chamber or its competence. It is only provided that the Control and Disciplinary Committee and the Appeal Committee are entrusted with applying football justice”. In sum, the player holds that there is no evidence that the country U Football Federation NDRC is a legitimate body within the framework of the country U Football Federation. 23. As to the substance, the player rejects the application of country U labour law as well as the application of the Regulations of the country U Football Federation. 24. Moreover, the player points out that: a) The club does not contest the debts towards him; b) The termination of the contract was properly done. On 8 May 2013 the club was notified of its debt and on 20 May 2013 the contract was terminated; c) The documents related to his absence in May 2013 are false and untrue and explicitly created for the purposes of the present procedure. The player stresses that all evidence submitted by the club pertains to dates after the date of the termination, i.e. after 20 May 2013. Also, all statements are made by people connected to the club and are contradicting; the club holds that that the player was absent as from different dates; d) The club contacted the player in September 2013 to settle the matter amicably. However, the club only sent a document which stated that the contract was terminated and that the debts were settled, without any stipulations regarding the payment of the outstanding debts. 25. As to the counterclaim, the player deems that it is groundless, unjustified and unproven. 26. In its duplica dated 2 December 2013, the club states that, in accordance with art. 27 in conjunction with art. 48 of the country U Football Federation Statutes, the player should have first lodged a claim in front of the competent football authorities of the country U Football Federation. 27. On 17 December 2013, the club sent an unsolicited correspondence outlining why the NDRC of the country U Football Federation is competent and duly constituted. Amongst others, the club states that: a) The country U Football Federation NDRC was established according to the decision of the country U Football Federation Executive Committee of 3 September 2012. “Taking into account that at the moment of country U Football Federation DRC establishment, the Contract in which the Parties recognized the exclusive jurisdiction of country U Football Federation, remained valid, the parties de facto have agreed to respect country U Football Federation DRC jurisdiction”. b) The country U Football Federation NDRC is independent; country U Football Federation NDRC members may not be a member of the country U Football Federation Executive Committee or Presidium. c) In accordance with art. 53 of the country U Football Federation Disciplinary Rules, a decision of the country U Football Federation NDRC can be appealed to CAS. d) The NDRC country U Football Federation has equal representation between players and clubs; 3 to 10 representatives are elected by the Presidium of the All-country U Professional Association country U Football and the country U Association of Professional Football Players, and 3 to 10 representatives from clubs and leagues. The representatives of the players and clubs shall appoint the Head and the Deputy Head of country U Football Federation DRC. 28. Also, the club once more challenged the termination of the contract by the player, referring to country U labour law, in particular art. 44 of the Labour Code of country U, according to which “lawful to apply the basic discharge allowance rate (…) the size of the compensation shall be fixed at the amount of the Claimant’s three-month average salary.” 29. Upon request of FIFA, the player indicated he was unemployed between May and October 2013. He signed an employment contract with the Club G, from country U on 10 September 2013, valid as from 10 September 2013 until 31 May 2014, in accordance with which the player was entitled to a monthly salary of USD 15,000 and USD 500 per month for accommodation. On 10 December 2013, the club and player agreed upon the termination of the contract. On 3 March 2014, the player signed a new contract with the Club K valid until 30 November 2014, where he was entitled to a monthly salary of currency of country Y 2,750,000. 30. In view of the club’s counter-claim and considering art. 17 par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, Club G was invited to provide its comments in relation to the present matter; however it failed to do so. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as DRC or Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 12 June 2013. Consequently, the 2012 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the 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 shall adjudicate on employment-related disputes between a club and a player that have an international dimension. 3. As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber would, in principle, be competent to decide on the present litigation which involves a player from the country M and a country U club regarding an employment-related dispute. 4. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the club contested the competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of art. 7 paras. 6 and 7 of the contract, asserting that the parties had agreed upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the NDRC of the country U Football Federation. 5. On the other hand, the Chamber noted that the player insisted on the competence of the FIFA DRC to adjudicate on the claim lodged by him against the club. 6. Taking into account all the above, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 22 lit. b) of the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players it is competent to deal with a matter such as the one at hand, unless an independent arbitration tribunal, guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of players and clubs, has been established at national level within the framework of the association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. With regard to the standards to be imposed on an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings, the Chamber referred to the FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20 December 2005. Equally, the members of the Chamber referred to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations, which were issued on 1 January 2008. 7. In relation to the above, the Chamber also deemed it vital to outline that one of the basic conditions that needs to be met in order to establish that another organ than the DRC is competent to settle an employment-related dispute between a club and a player of an international dimension, is that the jurisdiction of the relevant national arbitration tribunal or national court derives from a clear reference in the employment contract. 8. Therefore, while analysing whether it was competent to hear the present matter, the Dispute Resolution Chamber considered that it should, first and foremost, analyse whether the employment contract at the basis of the present dispute contained a clear jurisdiction clause. 9. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that art. 7 par. 6 of the contract stipulates: “The Parties undertake to settle by negotiations and agreements any disputes and disagreements, that may arise in the process of the present Contract obligations fulfilment. If they fail to come to agreement between the Footballer and the Club, the final decision is taken by the Club Board and may be appealed against according to the norms of country U Football Federation/PLU Regulations.” 10. Equally, the Chamber recalled that art. 7 par. 7 of the contract stipulates: “The parties declare that they accept the exclusive jurisdiction of country U Football Federation.” 11. Having examined the relevant provisions, the Chamber came to the unanimous conclusion that the aforementioned two provisions do not constitute a clear jurisdiction clause in favour of one specific court or arbitration tribunal in country U Football Federation, since they only refer to the “norms” and “jurisdiction” of the country U Football Federation. 12. Furthermore, the Chamber wished to emphasise that the country U Football Federation Regulations provided by the club came into force in September 2012 only, whereas the contract at the centre of the present dispute was already signed on 20 February 2012. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that, on 20 February 2012, the parties to the contract could simply not have agreed to submit their potential disputes to the arbitration body of the country U Football Federation which only started its activity in September 2012. 13. On account of all the above, the Chamber established that the club’s objection towards the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected and that the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent, on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, to consider the present matter as to the substance. 14. In continuation, the Chamber 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 referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012) and, on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged on 12 June 2013. Therefore, the Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded that the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 15. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber continued by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file. 16. First of all, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that, on 20 February 2012, the player and the club had concluded an employment contract valid as from 20 February 2012 until 31 August 2014 in accordance with which the player was entitled to a monthly salary of USD 23,500 as from 29 February 2012 until 31 August 2012 and a monthly salary of USD 28,500 as from 1 September 2012 until 31 August 2014. 17. The Chamber further observed that the player unilaterally terminated the contract in writing on 20 May 2013 invoking just cause, and that he subsequently lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the club seeking payment of the amount of USD 541,500. 18. The Chamber acknowledged that the player held that his salaries had not been paid as from January 2013 until April 2013 and that, as a result, he had put the club in default in writing on 8 May 2013. Following said default letter, the club only proceeded with the payment of the player’s salary for January 2013. Therefore, the player argued that he had terminated the contract with just cause on 20 May 2013. 19. Furthermore, the Chamber observed that the club, for its part, was of the opinion that the player did not terminate the contract in accordance with country U law, which it considers to be the governing law of the contract. More particularly, the club held that, in accordance with art. 38 of the Labour Code of country U, an employee may only terminate the contract with a two-week notice. However, since the player’s notice was sent on 20 May 2013 only and since he was, at the time, already absent from the club, the player did not observe the prescribed procedure of termination. 20. The Chamber equally noted that the club stated that the player was absent as from 20 May 2013 until 24 May 2013, this being a major violation of the labour code, which states that a 3-hour absence from work may already constitute grounds for dismissal. As a consequence, the club lodged a counter-claim against the player in the amount of USD 5,000,000 as per art. 7 par. 4 of the contract. 21. Having duly considered the submissions of both parties, the Chamber started with addressing the club’s argument that the termination of the contract by the player had not been done in accordance with country U law. In this context, the DRC wished to point out that when deciding on a dispute before the DRC, FIFA’s regulations prevail over any national law chosen by the parties. In this regard, the Chamber emphasized that the main objective of the FIFA regulations is to create a standard set of rules to which all the actors within the football community are subject to and can rely on. This objective would not be achievable if the DRC would have to apply the national law of a specific party on every dispute brought to it. This should apply, in particular, also to the termination of a contract. In this respect, the DRC wished to point out that it is in the interest of football that the termination of contract is based on uniform criteria rather than on provisions of national law that may vary considerable from country to country. Therefore, the Chamber deems that it is not appropriate to apply the principles of a particular national law to the termination of the contract but rather the Regulations, general principles of law and, where existing, the Chamber’s well-established jurisprudence. The Chamber also wished to stress that both art. 1 par. 2 and art. 2 par. 1 of the contract refer to the rules and regulations of FIFA. Therefore, the Chamber decided that the aforementioned argument of the club has to be rejected. 22. Having established the above, the Chamber stressed that the club did not contest that, at the time of the termination of the contract, i) the salaries for February to April 2013 had not been paid, and ii) that it had received the player’s default notice letter. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber established that on 20 May 2013, the following payments were outstanding: i) USD 28,500 for the salary of February 2013, ii) USD 28,500 for the salary of March 2013, and iii) USD 28,500 for the salary of April 2013. Furthermore, the Chamber determined that the club, on 8 May 2013, was put in default by the player for the aforementioned salaries. 23. In this context, the Chamber deemed it essential to point out that all the events that occurred after 20 May 2013 and that were brought up by the club in its defense are irrelevant for the question whether the player had terminated the contract with or without just cause, since on 20 May 2013, the player had already informed the club of his decision to terminate the contract. Hence, the Chamber, when examining whether the player had a just cause to terminate the contract, decided to take into account only those facts that occurred prior to 20 May 2013. 24. Having taken into consideration the previous considerations, the Chamber considered that the club had seriously neglected its contractual obligations towards the player in a continuous and constant manner, i.e. the club had failed to remunerate the player for a substantial period of time. Therefore, the Chamber considered that the club was found to be in breach of the employment contract and that the breach was of such seriousness that, in line with the Chamber’s longstanding and well-established jurisprudence, the player had a just cause to unilaterally terminate the contractual relationship with the club on 20 May 2013, having previously put the club in default of the outstanding amounts. 25. On account of all the above, the Chamber established that the player had terminated the employment contract with just cause on 20 May 2013 and that, consequently, the club is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contact with just cause by the player. 26. Bearing in mind the previous considerations, the Chamber went on to deal with the consequences of the early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the player. 27. First of all, the members of the Chamber decided to reject the counter-claim lodged by the club against the player. 28. Secondly, the Chamber concurred that the club must fulfill its obligations as per employment contract in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the club is liable to pay to the player the remuneration that was outstanding at the time of the termination i.e. the amount of USD 85,500, consisting of the monthly salaries of February, March and April 2013. 29. Furthermore, and considering the player’s claim for interest, the Chamber determined that the club must pay 5% interest on the amount of USD 85,500 as from the respective due dates. 30. In continuation, the Chamber decided that, taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the player is entitled to receive from the club compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding remuneration on the basis of the relevant employment contract. 31. In this context, the Chamber outlined that, in accordance with said provision, 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 player 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. 32. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify whether the pertinent employment contract contained any clause, by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon a 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 which would be applicable in the situation where the player had a just cause to terminate the contract. 33. Having recalled the aforementioned, and in order to evaluate the compensation to be paid by the club, the members of the Chamber took into account the remuneration due to the player in accordance with the employment contract as well as the time remaining on the same contract, along with the professional situation of the player after the early termination occurred. In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that at the time of the termination of the employment contract, the contract would run for another 16 months. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the remaining value of the contract as from its early termination by the player until the regular expiry of the contract amounts to USD 456,000 and that such amount shall serve as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 34. In continuation, the Chamber remarked that the player had found new employment with Club G, valid as from 10 September 2013 until 31 May 2014, in accordance with which the player was entitled to a monthly salary of USD 15,000 and USD 500 per month for accommodation. Since the contract with Club G was terminated before its original expiry, on 3 March 2014, the player signed a new contract with the Club K valid until 30 November 2014, where he was entitled to a monthly salary of currency of country K 2,750,000 which corresponds to approximately USD 15,000. In its calculation, the Chamber decided to also take into account the period between 10 December 2013 and 3 March 2014 in which the player could have been able to mitigate his damages would he not have agreed upon the mutual termination of the contract with Club G. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 183,000 should be considered as the total value of his new employment contracts. 35. Consequently, in accordance with the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber and the general obligation of the player to mitigate his damages, such remuneration under the new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 36. In view of all of the above, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount of USD 273,000 to the player, which is considered by the Chamber to be a reasonable and justified amount as compensation for breach of contract. 37. In addition, taking into account the player’s request, the Chamber decided that the club must pay to the player interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of compensation as of the date on which the claim was lodged, i.e. 12 June 2013, until the date of effective payment. 38. As a consequence, the DRC concluded that the club is liable to pay the total amount of USD 358,500 to the player, consisting of the amount of USD 85,500 corresponding to the player’s outstanding remuneration and the amount of USD 273,000 corresponding to compensation for breach of contract. 39. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the player is rejected. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Player S, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is partially accepted. 3. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club V, has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 85,500, plus 5% interest until the date of effective payment as follows: a. 5% p.a. as of 1 March 2013 on the amount of USD 28,500; b. 5% p.a. as of 1 April 2013 on the amount of USD 28,500; c. 5% p.a. as of 1 May 2013 on the amount of USD 28,500. 4. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 273,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 12 June 2013 until the date of effective payment. 5. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in accordance with the above-mentioned numbers 3. and 4. are not paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant within the stated time limits, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 6. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected. 7. The counter-claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected. 8. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent / Counter-Claimant 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