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 claim presented by the club, Club C, from country I as Claimant / Counter-Respondent against the player, Player N, from country S as Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club W, from country U as Respondent 2 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 claim presented by the club, Club C, from country I as Claimant / Counter-Respondent against the player, Player N, from country S as Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club W, from country U as Respondent 2 regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 9 August 2011, Player N, from country S (hereinafter: the Respondent 1 / CounterClaimant), and Club A, from country I (hereinafter: the Claimant / Counter-Respondent), signed an employment agreement (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2012. 2. According to article 2 of the contract, “the player [the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant] grants to the club a right of option to extend this agreement up to 30/06/2014 – right to be exercised via certified mail with return receipt to be send to both the player [the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant] and the Serie B League within the 25/06/2012”. 3. The contract provides for the following remuneration due to the Respondent 1 / CounterClaimant: Season 2011-2012: - EUR 90,000 net as salary; - EUR 10,000 for travel benefits; - EUR 10,000 net as bonus for the “6th goal scored by the player [the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant] in the division or in the XY cup”; - further EUR 20,000 net as bonus for the “10th goal scored by the player [the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant] in the division or in the XY cup”; - further EUR 20,000 net as bonus for the “13th goal scored by the player [the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant] in the division or in the XY cup”; - further EUR 20,000 net as bonus for the “17th goal scored by the player [the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant] in the division or in the XY cup”. Seasons 2012-2013 and 2013-2014: - EUR 240,000 net, plus EUR 10,000 for travel benefits, in the event the Claimant / Counter-Respondent competes in the country I Serie B League; - EUR 490,000 net, plus EUR 10,000 for travel benefits, in the event the Claimant / Counter-Respondent competes in the country I Serie A League. 4. In accordance with article 5 of the collective bargaining agreement concluded between the country I Football Federation, the country I Serie B League and the country I Footballers Association (hereinafter: the collective agreement), “the fixed remuneration shall be paid in deferred monthly instalments of equal amount, each of them within the 20th day of the following month and cannot be unilaterally reduced or suspended, save when provided for under this agreement. The variable remunerations shall be paid according to the terms and conditions provided for under this agreement or in the Supplementary Agreements. Without prejudice to any different arrangements between the parties, the variable remunerations accrued during the first half of the championship shall be paid together with the first monthly instalment that is due after the end of the first half of the championship; the variable remunerations accrued during the second half of the championship shall be paid together with the June monthly instalment”. 5. On 16 May 2013, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent lodged a claim before FIFA against the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant for breach of contract and against the UAE club, Club W (hereinafter: the Respondent 2), for inducement to the contractual breach, requesting: - the imposition of sporting sanctions on both the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant and the Respondent 2; - the payment of EUR 1,500,000 as compensation, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the respective due dates of payment, by both the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant and the Respondent 2. The requested amount is made up of EUR 1,000,000 corresponding to “the remaining value of the contract, the value of the new contract with Club W [the Respondent 2] and the costs sustained by the club [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] to replace the player [the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant]”; plus EUR 500,000 corresponding to “the financial and sporting damages suffered by the club [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent], the unfair conduct of both parties, the specificity of sport and the fact that the breach occurred during the protected period”). - the payment of legal costs by both the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant and the Respondent 2. 6. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent claims that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant did not respect the principle of contractual stability in so far as he put an end to the contract in July 2012 and signed an employment contract with the Respondent 2 valid as of 1 August 2012 until 30 June 2014. 7. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent maintains that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant had no just cause to unilaterally terminate the contract. The Claimant / CounterRespondent alleges having duly notified the exercise of its right to extend the contract. As a consequence, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant was contractually bound until 30 June 2014. The Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant had even acknowledged such extension by signing the relevant written notice. In this regard, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent provided the copy of a document dated 30 May 2012 bearing the signature of the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent also makes reference to public statements to the press on 23 July 2012 in which the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant acknowledged the extended contractual relationship. 8. In addition, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent argues that the breach of contract occurred during the protected period since the contract was signed when the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant was 27 years old and terminated after one season. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent thus deems that this should be considered as an aggravating circumstance when assessing the compensation due. 9. In his response, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant states that he had not been duly notified by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt regarding said extension of the contract. The Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant even denies having signed the written notice dated 30 May 2012 and insists that his signature contained on the document in question is forged. As a result, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant deems the contract to have ended on 30 June 2012. The Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant also underlines that the press interview to which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent makes reference and its content are not his expression and accordingly should be rejected. 10. Subsequently, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant anyhow insists that he had just cause to terminate the contract at that time since the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had not paid his salaries for April and May 2012, or his bonuses which are to be considered as a substantial part of his annual income. 11. In addition, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant pointed to the lack of interest from the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to genuinely retain his services. The Claimant / CounterRespondent had apparently issued a mandate to a “FIFA agent” in order to sell the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant to clubs in Qatar and the UAE region. Moreover, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant underlines the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s failure to provide the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter: the Single Judge) with its position in relation to the delivery of the ITC within the scope of the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant’s registration process with the Respondent 2. According to the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant, such failure demonstrates that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had no genuine interest to keep the player. 12. In this regard, on 4 July 2013, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant lodged a counterclaim before FIFA against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, requesting the amount of EUR 66,788.42 as outstanding remuneration, broken down as follows: - EUR 16,788.42 corresponding to unpaid salaries for April and May 2012, plus “legal interest from the due date till full and final settlement”; - EUR 50,000 as bonuses for scoring 15 goals in the country I Serie B League, plus “legal interest from the due date till full and final settlement”. In this respect, the Claimant / Counter- Respondent provided internet extracts indicating that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant had scored 15 goals during the 2011-2012 Serie B. The Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant also requests legal costs to be borne by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 13. As to the Respondent 2, in its defence, it holds that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant was free from any contract when he signed the employment contract with it on 7 July 2012, considering that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant had not been notified with the exercise of the relevant option by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, and that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent has not corroborated its allegation according to which the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant is under contract until 30 June 2014. 14. Therefore, the Respondent 2 considers that the contract between the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant and the Claimant / Counter-Respondent expired on 30 June 2012 and that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant was free of any contractual obligation on 1 July 2012. Consequently, the Respondent 2 requests to be discharged of any liability as to the allegation that it instigated the transfer of the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant and induced the alleged breach of contract. 15. In its replica, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent exclusively addresses the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant’s argumentation. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent asserts its interest in the sporting performances of the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent holds that it appointed the FIFA Agent in order to satisfy the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant’s desire to leave country I. 16. Regarding the notification of the option to extend the contract exercised by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the latter alleges that the written notice which had been signed by the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant was sent to him on 31 May 2012 by registered letter to the address in Florence indicated in the contract as his permanent address. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent however admits that said registered letter was not collected by the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent alleges that since nobody was authorised to collect the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant’s mail, this should be considered as a contravention of the terms of the contract and, thus, the delivery must be regarded as duly made by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 17. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent reiterates that the extension of the contract was confirmed by the content of press articles as well as by a correspondence between the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant’s agent the content of which allegedly indicates that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant was aware of the duration of the contract until June 2014. In continuation, the Claimant / CounterRespondent adds that the unilateral right to extend the contract is commonly used in country I by the parties of a contract, pursuant to article 2 of the collective agreement. 18. Furthermore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent emphasises that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant had no just cause to unilaterally terminate the contract. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent asserts having paid the salary for April 2012 on 4 June 2012 and the salary for May 2012 on 6 July 2012. In this regard, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent provides receipts of payment dated 4 June and 6 July 2012 indicating the payment of EUR 8,959 as “monthly instalment of April 2012” and the payment of EUR 8,769 as “monthly instalment of May 2012”. As for the salary of June 2012 and the claimed bonuses, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent refers to article 5 of the collective agreement in order to justify that said amounts would be due on 20 July 2012. However, as the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant had already left the Claimant / Counter-Respondent at that date, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent deemed it legitimate not to pay these amounts. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent also stresses that it paid the debts left by the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant, amounting to EUR 5,994. Finally, the Claimant / CounterRespondent emphasises on the damages that it suffered due to the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant’s departure, since it suffered relegation to a lower division at the end of the 2012-2013 season. 19. In his duplica, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant maintains that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had no interest to see him return since it did not react to the request of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee for position within the scope of the procedure of his provisional registration with the Respondent 2. Moreover, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant emphasises on the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s bad faith by highlighting that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent lodged a claim only one year after the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant had left the club. 20. As regards the notification of the extension of the contract exercised by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant denies once again having signed the written notice dated 30 May 2012 which apparently neither bears his signature nor his hand writing. The Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant also denies having collected the registered letter containing said written notice, sent on 31 May 2012, and this even being indicated by the return receipt provided by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 21. The Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant reiterates that in the event the extension is recognised, in any case, he considers having had just cause to put an end to the contract as the Claimant / Counter-Respondent failed to fulfil its contractual obligations of paying his salaries for two months and his bonuses which represent half of his annual income, despite being legally notified. According to the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant, the bonuses should have been paid at the end of the championship and not on 20 July 2012. As to the salaries of April and May 2012, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant holds that the documents provided by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent as proof of payment are post-dated since most of them are issued in July 2012, i.e. after the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant had left and had signed with the Respondent 2. In any event, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant considers that these documents should not change the fact that when he left the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, his salaries for two months, i.e. April and May 2012, and his bonuses were outstanding, hence there was just cause for him to terminate his contractual relationship with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 22. The Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant therefore maintains that the salary for June 2012 has not been paid and thus, requests the payment of “unpaid salaries till the end of the contractual period” as well as the payment of his bonuses amounting to EUR 50,000. 23. In its duplica, the Respondent 2 purely reiterates its position. 24. Upon the request from the country U Football Association, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee authorised the country U Football Association to provisionally register the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant with its affiliated club, the Respondent 2, referring inter alia to the fact that the country I Football Association did not provide its position within the scope of the procedure. 25. Upon FIFA’s request, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant provided a copy of the contract signed with the Respondent 2 on 7 July 2012, valid as of 1 July 2012 until 30 June 2014. The contract states that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant was entitled to a monthly salary of USD 45,000, as well as a signing-on fee of USD 360,000 for the season 2012/13 and USD 360,000 for the season 2013/14. On 30 June 2013, the Respondent 2 and the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant mutually agreed upon the termination of their contract. 26. Subsequently, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant concluded a contract with a new club, Club E, valid from 15 July 2013 until 15 May 2014. Pursuant to article 19 of said contract, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant is entitled to the amount of USD 30,000 as monthly salary, as well as other allowances and compensation amounting to USD 300,000. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 16 May 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) are applicable to the matter at stake (cf. art. 21 par. 1 and 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. a) 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 a dispute between a club and a player as well as his new club in relation to the maintenance of contractual stability where there has been an ITC request and a claim from an interested party regarding the payment of compensation for breach of contract and the imposition of sporting sanctions. 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 in front of FIFA on 16 May 2013, the 2012 edition of said Regulations (hereinafter: 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 the substance of the present 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. In doing so, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant, signed a contract on 9 August 2011, originally valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2012. 5. The DRC further acknowledged that, according to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the parties agreed upon the extension of the contractual relationship until 30 June 2014, based on an extension option contained in the contract (cf. point I.2 above). The Claimant / Counter-Respondent claims having exercised the said extension option by means of a written notice dated 30 May 2012 which was allegedly signed by the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant and subsequently notified to him via registered letter sent on 31 May 2012. In this regard, the Chamber equally noted that the said registered letter was sent to the address of the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant indicated in the contract and therefore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent deems having duly exercised the option to extend the contract in compliance with the formal requirements stipulated in article 2 of the contract. 6. The Dispute Resolution Chamber equally took due note of the fact that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant, on his part, categorically denied having consented to the extension of the term of the contract and, in particular, denied having signed the written notice dated 30 May 2012 which, in any event, was allegedly not notified to him by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt as foreseen in art. 2 of the contract which is even substantiated by the fact that the postal receipt indicates that the letter was returned to the sender. As a result, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant deems the contract to have ended on 30 June 2012. 7. The Dispute Resolution Chamber also gave due consideration to the arguments of the Respondent 2. First of all, its assessment that the Respondent 2 did not instigate the transfer of the player and, therefore, did not induce to breach the contract. Secondly, its assertion that the claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent should be rejected because the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant was free of any contractual relationship when he concluded his contract with the Respondent 2 in July 2012 since he allegedly never signed the relevant notice to extend the term of the contract and the Claimant / CounterRespondent failed to corroborate its allegation according to which the player was under contract until 30 June 2014. 8. In view of aforementioned dissent between the parties with respect to the exercise of the extension option and, particularly, the signature of the notice dated 30 May 2012, the members of the Chamber determined that it would first of all have to establish whether the parties to the contract agreed to extend the term of the contract until 30 June 2014. In this regard, the Chamber deemed that in order to assess said issue, it would have to determine whether the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant accepted the relevant extension of the contract which was apparently proposed by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. The application of the said principle in the present matter led the members of the Dispute Resolution Chamber to conclude that it was up to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to prove the veracity of the acknowledgement of the written notice aiming at extending the term of the contract on the basis of which compensation for breach of contract by the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant is claimed. 9. Having stated the above, after comparing the signature on the relevant document with other signatures of the player on other documents that were signed by him, the members present emphasised the fact that neither do they have the necessary expertise and knowledge to establish if a contested signature is genuine or not, nor is the Chamber competent to deal with and decide on matters of criminal or penal nature. However, by looking at the various signatures, it was concluded that in the signature contested by the player and the signatures borne on the other documents is not identical, which led the Chamber to conclude that it is not in a position to take the relevant document into consideration and further examine whether other documents or circumstances could prove that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant had acknowledged the exercise of the option. 10. The Chamber also deemed that, in view of the entire circumstances of the affair, it could not be concluded that the notification of wish to extend the duration of the contract by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had been done in compliance with the contractual stipulations, in particular, since both parties acknowledged this fact. Equally, the Chamber could not identify any cogent indications for the player to have deliberately abused his position in relation to the apparent failure to remit him the registered letter which was apparently addressed to him on 31 May 2012. 11. As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that, since the Claimant / Counter-Respondent has not been able to prove beyond doubt that the written notice extending the term of the contract had validly been signed by the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant and duly notified to him, there was no possibility for the Chamber to enter into the question whether or not the contract had been breached by the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant. 12. All of the above led the DRC to conclude that the contract between the parties terminated upon expiry of its term, i.e. on 30 June 2012, and thus, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant was free to sign with the Respondent 2 in July 2012. Therefore, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that the claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent has to be rejected. 13. Having said that, the Chamber further observed that the Respondent 1 / CounterClaimant lodged a counter-claim in front of FIFA against the Claimant / CounterRespondent seeking payment of alleged outstanding amounts totalling EUR 66,788.42. In particular, the DRC conceded that the Claimant claimed an amount of EUR 16,788.42 as unpaid salaries for April and May 2012, as well as EUR 7,500 as salary for June 2012 and an amount of EUR 50,000 as outstanding bonuses for having scored 15 goals during the 2011-2012 season. 14. Turning its attention to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s position, the DRC noted that the latter sustained that, pertaining to the alleged unpaid salaries, it apparently paid the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant’s salary for April 2012 and May 2012. The Chamber further observed that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent acknowledged that the salary for June 2012 as well as the claimed bonuses were due but only by 20 July 2012 and considering the fact that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant had left the Claimant / Counter-Respondent at that time, the latter deemed it legitimate no to pay these amounts. 15. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the counter-claim of the Respondent 1 / Couter-Claimant and the allegations of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, was to determine whether the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant’s request for outstanding salaries and bonuses could be upheld. In this regard, the Chamber emphasised that the amounts to be taken into consideration at this stage were all amounts for the period during which the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant offered his services to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. The Chamber also determined that art. 5 of the collective agreement was to be applied in order to determine when the claimed amounts fell due insofar as it is deemed to be part of the contract. 16. At this point, and for the sake of good order, the DRC deemed it appropriate to remind the parties of 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 on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Bearing in mind the aforementioned principle, the DRC noted that in the present dispute, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent bore the burden of proof regarding the payment of the Respondent 1 / CounterClaimant’s remuneration. 17. The Chamber first of all focused its attention on the bonuses for scoring 15 goals claimed by the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant. In order to do so, the members of the Chamber analysed the wording of the contract according to which, EUR 10,000 net is to be paid to the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant as bonus for the “6th goal scored by the player [the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant] in the division or in the TIM cup”; further EUR 20,000 net for the “10th goal scored by the player [the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant] in the division or in the XY cup”; and further EUR 20,000 net for the “13th goal scored by the player [the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant] in the division or in the XY cup”. In this respect, and in accordance with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber determined that the documentation provided by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in its claim as well as its statement in this regard evidenced that the Respondent 1 / Counter- Claimant was entitled to receive the amount of EUR 50,000 as outstanding bonuses for having scored 15 goals during the 2011-2012 season. In addition, the fact that the requirements for the pertinent bonus had been fulfilled was not at all contested by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 18. The Chamber also pointed to the fact that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant appears to have offered his services for the entire season 2011-2012 and therefore, even though the claimed amount as bonuses for scoring 15 goals during the season 2011-2012 fell due on 20 July 2012 pursuant to art. 5 of the collective agreement, it nonetheless remains true that the said amount is to be paid to the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant in accordance with the general principle of pacta sunt servanda. 19. As to the alleged outstanding salaries, and in particular the amount of EUR 16,788.42 for April and May 2012, the Chamber noted that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent provided conclusive evidence that the amount claimed by the Respondent 1 / CounterClaimant was effectively paid since it submitted bank statements in this respect indicating that the payment of the salary for April 2012 was paid on 4 June 2012 and the salary for May 2012 on 6 July 2012. Thus, the Chamber deemed that the documentation provided proved that the said amount had been paid by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant. As to the salary for June 2012, which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent argues that it was not due because it fell due after the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant’s departure, the DRC duly noted that the Claimant / CounterRespondent never stated that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant had been absent prior to the end of the 2011-2012 season and therefore, concluded that all monthly salaries related to the said season were due to the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant. Therefore, and in spite of the fact that such amount fell due on 20 July 2012 pursuant to art. 5 of the collective agreement, the Chamber was of the opinion that the Respondent 1 / CounterClaimant was entitled to the amount of EUR 7,500 as salary for June 2012. 20. In view of the foregoing, the DRC decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is liable to pay to the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR 57,500. 21. In addition, taking into account the constant practice of the DRC and referring to art. 5 of the collective agreement (cf. point I.5 above), the Chamber decided that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent must pay to the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 57,500 as from 21 July 2012 until the date of effective payment. 22. Regarding the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant’s request pertaining to legal costs, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided to reject such claim in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the Chamber’s respective longstanding jurisprudence in this regard. 23. Finally, the DRC concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant is rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected. 2. The claim of the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant is partially accepted. 3. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent has to pay to the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision the amount of EUR 57,500 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 21 July 2012 until the date of effective payment. 4. In the event that the abovementioned amount plus interest is not paid within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. Any further claim lodged by the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant is rejected. 6. The Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant is directed to inform the Claimant / CounterRespondent 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