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 Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member Ivan Gazidis (England), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member on the claim presented by the player, Player M, from country S as Claimant / Counter-Respondent against the club, Club V, from country R as Respondent / Counter-Claimant 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 Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member Ivan Gazidis (England), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member on the claim presented by the player, Player M, from country S as Claimant / Counter-Respondent against the club, Club V, from country R as Respondent / Counter-Claimant regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case Facts relating to the preliminary issue of the competence of the DRC: 1. On 1 February 2010, Player M, from country S (hereinafter player or Claimant / CounterRespondent) lodged a claim for breach of contract against the country R club, Club V (hereinafter club or Respondent / Counter-Claimant), in front of FIFA. 2. According to art. 16 par. 1 and par. 2 of the relevant employment contract, the contract is governed by country R law and the “sporting statute and regulations”. 3. According to art. 17 par. 2, disputes, controversies or misunderstandings that derive from or are related to the employment contract will be submitted “only to the sporting courts of jurisdiction of country R Football Federation or Professional Football League”. 4. In its reply to the player’s claim, and based on art. 16 and art. 17 of the employment contract, the club challenged the jurisdiction of FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC). 5. In this respect, the 2009 edition of the Statutes of the country R Football Federation and the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Football Players of the country R Football Federation were provided (hereinafter the RFF Regulations). 6. The player, for his part, insists that the FIFA DRC is competent. 7. In this respect, the player held that the clause at stake is too vague as it does not permit to know in front of which local decision-making body one has to lodge a claim. 8. Also, the player stressed that the DRC itself considered that the principle of equal representation in the composition of the country R local deciding bodies is not respected. Since the club did not submit any evidence invalidating the DRC jurisprudence, one has to conclude that the jurisdiction of the local bodies remains unacceptable and that the DRC is competent to pass a decision. 9. Finally, the player stated that by having lodged a counterclaim before FIFA against him, the club accepted the jurisdiction of the FIFA DRC. Facts relating to the substance of the matter: 10. On 26 June 2008, the player and the club signed an employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as from 1 July 2008 until 1 July 2011, i.e. for 3 years. 11. In addition to the aforementioned contract, the parties signed, on the same date and for the same duration, a financial addendum (hereinafter: addendum). According to the addendum, the player was entitled to receive the following amounts in EUR: Sporting seasons (1 July to 30 June) Down payments (first one after registration of the contract, other two on 15th day of July) Monthly salary (twelve payments, each due on the 15th day of each month) Season’s total 2008/2009 24,000 3,000 60,000 2009/2010 30,000 3,333 70,000 2010/2011 30,000 4,167 80,000 12. In accordance with art. 1 par. IV of the addendum “all the above mentioned sums are net and conditioned by the presence on the field at 60% of the matches (one match=60 minutes)”. 13. Furthermore, according to art. 1 par. VI of the addendum, the club shall pay to the player the following bonuses: EUR 60,000 if the club ranked 1st or 2nd in the Champion League in the season• 2008/09; EUR 30,000 if the club participates in the UEFA CUP or wins the country R Cup;• EUR 3,000 as victory bonus, either for home or away matches;• EUR 6,000 for victories against Club D, Club R, Club C, Club P;• EUR 12,000 for a victory against Club S.• 14. On an unspecified date, the player put the club in default of its contractual obligations and asked the club to provide him with proper work conditions, as stipulated in the contract. 15. Additionally, and via a second correspondence, the player put the club in default of payment of three monthly salaries in the amount of EUR 3,333 each (October, November, December 2009), EUR 543 related to the monthly salary of July 2009, and “arrears until 15 July 2009”, representing an amount of EUR 30,000. 16. In addition to the aforementioned, the player held that, on 21 January 2010, he wrote to the club to inter alia ask it to pay him EUR 44,428 within the following six months. 17. By means of a letter dated 27 January 2010, the player inter alia informed the club that considering his “humiliating conditions of work” and the “overall contractual debt”, he was left with no other option but to terminate the contract with immediate effect. 18. On 1 February 2010, the player lodged a claim for breach of contract against the club in front of FIFA, claiming that the club failed to comply with its contractual obligation to provide him with “elementary and decent training conditions”. 19. Additionally, the player asked to be awarded payment of the amount of EUR 142,334 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 12 January 2010, which was detailed as follows: EUR 2,608 as outstanding salaries and bonuses related to the sporting season• 2008/09 (out of a total contractual amount of EUR 69,000, which includes the three bonuses of EUR 3,000 each, the player declares having only received EUR 66,392); EUR 43,061 as outstanding salaries related to the sporting season 2009/10 and• calculated as from the beginning of said season until the contract termination, i.e. 27 January 2010 (out of EUR 53,331 that the player claims he should have been paid, the player declares having only received EUR 10,270); EUR 16,665 as compensation for breach of contract in relation to the sporting• season 2009/10, calculated as from the contract termination, i.e. 27 January 2010, and composed of five monthly salaries (February 2010 up to and including June 2010); EUR 80,000 as the whole contractual value of the entire sporting season 2010/11.• 20. In this respect, the player explained that, on 12 January 2010, the head coach of the club informed him without giving any further explanation that he, as well as two other players, would not be in the squad of players competing for the remaining half of the season. 21. Consequently, the player allegedly had, inter alia, to train under the guidance of the reserve team’s coach. 22. The following day, the player allegedly was denied the right to use the club’s equipment, the football pitch or the changing rooms. 23. According to the player, the reasons for the club’s refusal to pay him the amounts that were outstanding before the termination of the contract were never explained to him at the time, only afterwards the club would have informed him that the situation was caused by the fact that the player’s participation in matches never reached the 60% criterion set forth in the contract. 24. In view of this, the club considered that it did not have to pay the amounts at stake. In the player’s opinion, this clause consists of a “secret clause” which was never brought to his attention during the negotiations. 25. In this respect, the player pointed out that the contract he signed was drafted in country R and that he does not understand this language. 26. In addition to the arguments it submitted in relation to the competence of the DRC, the club presented its position as to the substance of the matter at hand. The club sustained that the player did not have any valid reason to lodge a claim for compensation against the club. 27. The club highlighted that the player accepted some “compulsory clauses in connection with his remuneration” and cannot claim all of a sudden that he did not understand them or that they were secret. 28. In addition, the club asserted that the player’s situation is different from his teammates’ situation, since, as opposed to his teammates, the player has only been sanctioned by the Disciplinary Committee of the Professional Football League and neither the DRC of the country R Football Federation nor the DRC of the Professional Football League have ever passed any decision on a dispute opposing the player and the club. 29. Additionally, the club considered that the player did not respect his contractual obligations towards the club and that he terminated the contract without having any “just (sports) cause”. Therefore, the club lodged a counterclaim against the player on 31 May 2010. 30. In this respect, the club stated that, according to art. 1 par. IV of the addendum, the payments of the relevant amounts are conditioned by the player’s participation in 60% of the matches, one match being validated provided the player played 60 minutes. 31. Considering that the player allegedly only participated in 7 out of 34 matches of the national championship league I during the season 2008/09, i.e. 20,58% of the 34 matches, according to the club, the player was only entitled to receive 20.58% of EUR 60,000, i.e. EUR 12,348. 32. In addition, the club held that considering that the player allegedly only participated in 2 out of 34 matches in the season 2009/10, he was only entitled to receive EUR 4,116, i.e. 5.88% of EUR 70,000. 33. In continuation, the club asserted that since it paid EUR 48,000 to the player as “advances on his financial rights”, the player received more money than what the club finally owed him and that the club is entitled to request a partial reimbursement. 34. In particular, the club claimed reimbursement by the player of the amount of EUR 31,536 (EUR 48,000 – [(EUR 4,116 + EUR 12,348]), which corresponds to the difference between the amounts the player allegedly received in advance and the amount he was finally entitled to receive based on his appearances in matches and up to the date on which the player terminated the contract with the club. 35. In addition to the aforementioned amount, the club claimed EUR 110,000 as compensation for the loss of the opportunity to use the player’s services, this amount being an estimation “which corresponds to half of the remuneration which would have been paid to the player would the services of the latter have been needed at least for the minimum number of matches as from which he was entitled to a full remuneration, namely EUR 30,000 for the remaining part of the season 2009/2010 and 80,000 for the season 2010/2011”. 36. In continuation, the club claimed EUR 100,000 for the lost opportunity to transfer the player to another club. This estimated amount was based on the “theoretical value of the player’s employment contract coupled with the current market conditions for a player of the [same] age”. 37. In reply to the club’s counterclaim, the player contested the club’s arguments, rejected the counterclaim and maintained his position in full. 38. Concerning the club’s counterclaim relating to the amount of EUR 31,536 as well as the club’s reference to art. 1 par. IV of the addendum, the player argued that such clause has to be qualified as null and void as it is abusive and potestative, the player’s presence on the field being subject to the club’s decision to field him or not. In case one would follow the club’s reasoning, it could be that a player would not receive any salary at all. 39. Also, the player stressed that the club itself never executed the contract the way it should have, if said clause had to be enforced or to be construed the way the club now interprets it. In this respect, the player highlighted that the club admitted having paid him about EUR 66,392 during the sporting season 2008/09, i.e. 96,22% of his yearly salary, whereas the club now holds that the player only took part in 20,58% of the club’s matches. Also, the club’s payments during the execution of the contract were never presented to him as being payments in advance. 40. In light of the above, the player concluded that it can be seen from the parties’ conduct that the clause at stake “never formed a part of the agreement in force between the player and the club” and that the club’s request that the player shall reimburse the amount of EUR 31,536 has to be rejected. 41. The player then addressed the club’s claim in the total amount of EUR 210,000 as compensation for breach of contract, which he considers as unjustified. In this respect, the player asserted that the club is claiming EUR 110,000 for the loss of the opportunity to use the player’s services, whereas, in the player’s opinion, the termination of the contract actually resulted in the club not having to pay his salaries. According to the player, there were, therefore, no damages for the club, but savings. 42. Secondly, the player stated that the amount requested by the club in relation to the loss of the opportunity to use the player’s services is ironic, since the club requested compensation on the basis of the full salaries due to the player, although the club states that the player’s salaries would depend on his reaching the quota of appearances indicated in art. 1 par. IV of the addendum, which he, according to the club, never reached during the execution of the contract. Anyhow, according to the player’s calculation, the amount theoretically due to the player after the contract termination and which is claimed by the club amounts to EUR 96,665 (EUR 16,665 + EUR 80,000) and not EUR 110,000. 43. In connection with the amount of EUR 100,000 claimed by the club in relation to the lost opportunity to transfer the player to another club, the player replied that the club did not present any evidence in relation to a plan or negotiations about a future transfer of the player. 44. Finally, the player argued that the club cannot claim compensation on both bases at the same time, since either the player would have played for the club, or he would have been transferred to another club. In this regard, the player rejected the club’s calculation of the player’s market value and stressed that it is not justified or evidenced in any way. 45. After the parties exchanged their respective positions, the player informed FIFA that, at the club’s initiative, the parties had entered into negotiations in view of an amicable settlement. 46. The player submitted a settlement agreement dated 27 March 2012 signed by the club and by means of which the club agreed to pay the player EUR 110,000 in full and final settlement of the matter at hand. Furthermore, should the club fail to pay the player EUR 110,000 in compliance with a detailed schedule, it would be liable to pay to the player the amount of EUR 142,334, i.e. the amount claimed by the player in front of the DRC, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 12 January 2010. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 1 February 2010. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012), the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall adjudicate on employment-related disputes between a club and a player with an international dimension. 3. Having said that, the DRC stated that it would, in principle, be the competent body to decide on the present litigation involving a country S player and a country R club regarding an employment-related dispute. 4. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant contested the competence of FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber to deal with the present case on the basis of art. 17 par. 2 of the employment contract, stating that any dispute arisen between the parties should be submitted to the deciding bodies of the country R Football Federation and of the country R Professional Football League. 5. The Chamber equally noted that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, for his part, rejected such position and insisted that FIFA has jurisdiction to deal with the present matter. 6. Taking into account the above, the Chamber emphasised that, in accordance with art. 22 lit. b) of the 2012 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. In this regard, the members of the Chamber further referred to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008. 7. While analysing whether it is 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 actually contains a clear and specific jurisdiction clause, which is one of the basic conditions that needs to be met in order to establish that another deciding body than the DRC is competent to deal with an employment-related dispute between a club and a player of an international dimension. 8. Having said this, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to art. 17 par. 2 of the contract, which stipulates that disputes, controversies or misunderstandings that derive from or are related to the employment contract signed by the parties will be submitted “only to the sporting courts of jurisdiction of country R Football Federation or Professional Football League”. 9. The members of the DRC were of the opinion that art. 17 par. 2 of the employment contract differs between different unspecified deciding bodies and does not explicitly or clearly refer to one specific national dispute resolution chamber in the sense of art. 22 lit. b) of the aforementioned Regulations. Therefore, the members of the Chamber concurred that said clause cannot be considered as a clear arbitration clause in favour of a specific national deciding body. In this regard, the Chamber pointed out that this lack of clarity is also reflected in the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s argumentation since it refers to the alleged competence of the deciding bodies of both the country R Football Federation and Professional Football Federation, without further precision. 10. Having established that the basic condition of the inclusion of a clear and specific jurisdiction clause in the relevant employment contract has not been fulfilled in the present matter, the Chamber deemed unnecessary to proceed with a detailed analysis of the question as to whether the national deciding bodies referred to in art. 17 par. 2 of the employment contract meet the standards and principles mentioned under number II./6. above. 11. Nonetheless, as a side note, the Chamber deemed it fit to point out that on previous occasions the DRC has established that the national deciding body under the 2009 regulations presented by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in support of its position does not meet the standards and principles mentioned under number II./6. above. 12. In view of the above, the Chamber established that the Respondent / CounterClaimant’s objection to the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected and that the DRC 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. 13. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations 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 (edition 2012) and considering that the claim in front of FIFA was lodged on 1 February 2010, the 2009 edition of said Regulations is applicable to the present matter as to the substance (hereinafter: Regulations). 14. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 15. In this respect, the members of the Chamber noted that the Claimant / CounterRespondent lodged a claim against the Respondent / Counter-Claimant maintaining that he terminated the employment contract with just cause after previously having put the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in default of payment of his remuneration. Consequently, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent asks to be awarded his outstanding dues as well as the payment of compensation for breach of the employment contract. 16. On the other hand, the Chamber noted that according to the Respondent / CounterClaimant, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had no just cause to unilaterally put an end to the employment contract, as a result of which it lodged a counterclaim against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent asking to be awarded reimbursement by the player of monies that he allegedly had received in excess of his entitlements as well as compensation. 17. In view of the above, the Chamber highlighted that the central issue in the matter at stake is to determine as to whether the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had just cause to terminate the employment contract and, in the affirmative, to determine the consequences thereof. 18. Having said this, the Chamber started its analysis of the matter by reverting to the financial aspect of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim and, by doing so, primarily reverted to the remuneration system stipulated in art. I par. IV of the addendum, which is invoked by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in support of its defence and counterclaim. In this respect, the DRC recalled that according to art. 1 par. IV of said addendum, the player would only be entitled to a monthly remuneration provided he participated during at least 60 minutes in 60% of the matches played by the club. 19. Furthermore, the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent deemed that said article was to be considered invalid as it was neither explained to him at the time of the signature of the contract in country R nor even implemented by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant itself during the execution of the contractual relation. 20. In addition, the Chamber noted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, for its part, held that such remuneration system was known to and accepted by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, who is not in a position to contend it in front of FIFA after having accepted it in writing. 21. With respect to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent ‘s allegation that the contents of the relevant addendum, which he concluded with the Respondent / Counter- Claimant, had not been explained to him, as a result of which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent appears to imply that he had no knowledge of the abovedescribed remuneration system, the Chamber deemed it relevant to emphasise that a party signing a document of legal importance without knowledge of its precise contents, as a general rule, does so on its own responsibility. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that such argument could not be upheld. 22. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber found that according to art. 1 par. IV of the addendum, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was, inter alia, able to unilaterally decrease any payments due to the player as, obviously, the decision on the lining-up of players in a match is normally left fully to the discretion of the club. 23. In light of the above, such clause appeared to be unilateral and to the benefit of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant only. 24. Considering its potestative character, the members of the Chamber concluded that art. 1 par. IV of the addendum was not acceptable and could not be validly invoked as a reason for the non-payment of the player’s remuneration. Accordingly, the DRC rejected the Respondent / Counter-Claimant line of defence based on art. 1 par. IV of the addendum. 25. Furthermore, and referring to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber wished to point out that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s argument that it paid EUR 48,000 to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent as an advance on his future salaries was not corroborated by any documentary evidence since, after a careful study of the documents at its disposal, the Chamber could verify that none of the payment receipts submitted by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in support of its contention bear the indication that the payment at stake was an advance payment. 26. Following its analysis, the Chamber found that in its submissions, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had not presented any other explanations or justification in connection with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim regarding the nonpayment of his remuneration. 27. In view of all the foregoing, the DRC held that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s argumentation was to be dismissed and concluded that in light of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s serious non-respect of its contractual obligations, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had just cause to unilaterally terminate the contract on 27 January 2010 and that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the contract with just cause by the Claimant / CounterRespondent. 28. Having established that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant /Counter-Respondent, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequences of such termination. 29. In doing so, the Dispute Resolution Chamber first of all referred to the provisions of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, in accordance with which the party in breach shall pay compensation. In this respect, the members of the Chamber recalled that in addition to his claim related to the payment of outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 45,669, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim of the total amount of EUR 142,334 includes a request for compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 96,665, which corresponds to his calculation of the residual value of the employment contract in the matter at stake. 30. On the other hand, the Chamber paid particular attention to the fact that during the proceedings in the matter at hand, by means of a document dated 27 March 2012 and duly signed by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant agreed to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent EUR 110,000 in full and final settlement of the matter. In addition, the Respondent / CounterClaimant agreed that should it fail to pay the aforesaid sum, it shall pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent the total amount of EUR 142,334 plus 5% interest on said amount calculated as from 12 January 2010, which fully corresponds to the total amount claimed by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in front of the DRC and which includes outstanding remuneration as well as compensation. 31. In view of all of the above, after having duly taken into account the specificities of the present case, the Chamber decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club V, has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Player M, the amount of EUR 142,334 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 12 January 2010 until the date of effective payment. 32. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by rejecting the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Player M, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is accepted. 3. The counter-claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club V, is rejected. 4. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 142,334 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 12 January 2010 until the date of effective payment. 5. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 6. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent / CounterClaimant immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received. ***** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 67 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS, a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives). The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following: Court of Arbitration for Sport Avenue de Beaumont 2 1012 Lausanne Switzerland Tel: +41 21 613 50 00 Fax: +41 21 613 50 01 e-mail: info@tas-cas.org www.tas-cas.org For the Dispute Resolution Chamber: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl: CAS directives