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 theDispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 9 May 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member on the claim presented by the player, Player B, from country S as Claimant against the club, Club L, from country C as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2013-2014) - controversie di lavoro - ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2013-2014) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of theDispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 9 May 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member on the claim presented by the player, Player B, from country S as Claimant against the club, Club L, from country C as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 26 June 2009, Player B, from country S (hereinafter: the Claimant), and Club L, from country C (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2014, including its renewal, i.e. 5 years and 1 month. 2. According to art. 3 of the contract, the Respondent undertook to provide the Claimant, inter alia, with the following gross amounts: a) EUR 40,000 as remuneration for the 2011/2012 season, payable in 10 instalments of EUR 4,000 each, as from 31 August 2011 until 31 May 2012; b) EUR 40,000 as remuneration for the 2012/2013 season, payable in 10 instalments of EUR 4,000 each, as from 31 August 2012 until 31 May 2013; c) EUR 50,000 as remuneration for the 2013/2014 season, payable in 10 instalments of EUR 5,000 each, as from 31 August 2013 until 31 May 2014. 3. In addition, the parties agreed upon the following clauses: a) Article 9.1: “The player will at all times have due regard for the necessity of his maintaining a high standard of physical fitness and agrees not to indulge in any sport activity or practice that might endanger such fitness or his health or safety”. b) Article 10.2: “This agreement may be terminated if any of the following applies and in such case the player shall not be entitled and hereby waives any right to claim compensation: (i) the player is guilty of gross misconduct; (ii) the player is unable to participate in any training or other official service of the team for more than two months, as a result of any injury that did not take place during his services in Club L as these are described into the internal regulations”. c) Article 12: “The present contract is governed by the rules and regulations of the country C Football Federation which is in accordance with FIFA/UEFA. Any dispute shall be dealt with according to the prescribed procedures thereof”. 4. On 27 June 2009, the parties signed an additional agreement (hereinafter: the agreement), valid for the same period of time as the contract, according to which the Respondent undertook to provide the Claimant, “over and above of the amounts that Club L will pay to the player for his services as the contract of employment”, with, inter alia, the following: a) EUR 50,000 as extra remuneration for the 2011/2012 season; b) EUR 60,000 as extra remuneration for the 2012/2013 season; c) EUR 70,000 as extra remuneration for the 2013/2014 season; d) EUR 10,000 of bonus in case the Claimant participates in 20 out of the first 26 matches of the season 2011/2012, payable in ten monthly instalments of EUR 1,000 gross, as from 31 August 2011; e) EUR 650 as monthly accommodation expenses as from 31 July 2009 until 31 May 2012; f) EUR 750 as monthly accommodation expenses as from 1 June 2012 until 31 May 2014; g) 2 round-trip tickets country C – country S – country C per year for the Claimant and his wife; h) EUR 700 bonus per point acquired in the championship, in case the Claimant is part of the starting 11, or EUR 350 in case he plays as a substitute. 5. According to art. 10 of the agreement, “In case of termination of the contract of employment dated 26 June 2009, the player is entitled the above benefits or bonuses as specified in the clause 1 to 9 above until the termination date”. 6. On 6 June 2012, the Respondent unilaterally terminated the contract with the Claimant based on art. 10.2(i) and (ii) and on the fact that the player “according to evidence supplied by certain witnesses […] participated in sport or other activities in the grounds of another team without the knowledge”, which resulted in a serious injury suffered by the Claimant on or about 17 May 2012 and in his consequent inability to participate in the Respondent’s activities for more than two months. 7. On 18 February 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim for breach of contract in front of FIFA against the Respondent, requesting the payment of the total amount of EUR 222,295, broken down as follows: a) outstanding salaries in the amount of EUR 24,735, plus interests of 5% p.a., as described as follows: • EUR 10,500 for match point bonuses, i.e. 6 x EUR 350 plus 15 x EUR 700; • EUR 10,000 for participation bonus; • EUR 3,585 for 3 round-trip tickets corresponding to the season 2011/2012; • EUR 650 for June 2012 as accommodation expenses. b) compensation in the amount of EUR 197,560, plus interests of 5% p.a. as from the decision delivery date; as described as follows: • EUR 90,000 as total remuneration for the seasons 2012/2013 (EUR 40,000) and 2013/2014 (EUR 50,000) under the contract; • EUR 130,000 as total remuneration for the seasons 2012/2013 (EUR 60,000) and 2013/2014 (EUR 70,000) under the agreement; • EUR 18,000 for accommodation expenses from June 2012 until May 2014 (24 x EUR 750); • EUR 9,560 for 8 round-trip tickets for the seasons 2012/2013 and 2013/2014; • minus EUR 50,000 of salary received from the Claimant’s new club for the seasons 2012/2013 and 2013/2014. c) sporting sanctions against the club. 8. According to the Claimant, in February 2012 he began to suffer from left-knee pain. He informed the Respondent about his injury and the Respondent’s doctor indicated physiotherapy as treatment as from 10 February 2012 until 18 May 2012. 9. The Claimant further affirms that, on 25 May 2012, an MRI revealed that he had a tear in his ligament, which was the result of an old trauma, and, consequently, he needed to undergo surgery. 10. On 29 May 2012, the Claimant addressed the Respondent in writing regarding his knee surgery. On 31 May 2012, the Respondent allegedly informed the Claimant during a meeting that it would only pay for the surgery in case he agreed to a reduction of his salary, which the Claimant rejected in writing on 5 June 2012. 11. In this context, the Claimant further states that the Respondent’s reaction was its letter dated 6 June 2012 by means of which it terminated the contract and consequently the agreement. The termination was rejected by the Claimant in writing on 22 June 2012 because no just cause would have authorized the Respondent to do so and the Claimant reminded the Respondent that his injury occurred in the past and the Respondent’s medical staff was aware of the injury before 17 May 2012, contrary to what the termination letter wrongly states. 12. In spite of having reminded the Respondent of its salary arrears towards him in the amount of EUR 54,650, by means of his letters dated 28 and 29 June 2012, the Claimant did not receive any payments from the Respondent. 13. In its extemporaneous response, the Respondent rejects FIFA’s jurisdiction over the present dispute in favour of the deciding body of the country C Football Association on the basis of art. 12 of the contract and provided a copy of the “Regulations for the registration and transfer of football players” of the country C Football Association (edition 2005). 14. With regard to the substance of the dispute, the Respondent explains that the contract was terminated with just cause due to the fact that the injury suffered by the Claimant was a consequence of a breach of his contractual obligations after the end of the season 2011/2012, consisting of his non-authorized participation in sporting activities not related to the Respondent’s activities. 15. Therefore, the Respondent alleges a breach by the Claimant of clause 9.1 of the contract and of its internal regulations and decided to terminate the contract as per art. 10.2. Additionally, the Respondent explains that, as per article 10.2 of the contract, the Claimant waived his right to request compensation. 16. In his replica, the Claimant requested to issue a decision based only on the documentation submitted until 21 March 2013, because the Respondent filed its answer to the claim after the deadline given to do so. Moreover, he affirmed the jurisdiction of FIFA over the present case and pointed out that the deciding body of the country C Football Association does not respect the principle of equal representation of players and clubs and that art. 12 of the contract does not exclude FIFA’s jurisdiction. 17. As to the substance, he argued that the unilateral termination by the Respondent did not follow the procedure established in the Respondent’s internal regulations, with regard to a fair proceeding and the right to be heard. Moreover, the Claimant objected to the validity of the witness statements filed by the Respondent upon which it based its termination letter and submitted two new witness statements confirming his physical ability as of 13 June 2012 to run, play and compete at a high level despite his injury. Finally, the Claimant rejected the new medical statement dated 3 April 2013 provided by the Respondent, and pointed out that such statement does not contain detailed information about his injury, but merely assumes that it must have occurred after 14 May 2012. 18. In its final position, the Respondent maintains its previous argumentation and claims that one of the statements submitted by the Claimant in his replica lacks impartiality since the witness has a dispute with the Respondent in front of the deciding body of the country C Football Association. 19. Finally, the Claimant provided a copy of his new employment contract with Club A, concluded on 11 June 2012 and valid until 31 May 2014, according to which a total remuneration of EUR 50,000 was due. 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 18 February 2013. Consequently, the 2012 edition of the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 1 and par. 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 would, in principle, be competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a country S player and a country C club. 3. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent contested the competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of art. 12 of the contract, highlighting that the parties to the contract had agreed that the “contract is governed by the rules and regulations of the country C Football Federation (…). Any dispute shall be dealt with according to the prescribed procedures thereof”. 4. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Claimant rejected such position and insisted that FIFA has jurisdiction to deal with the present matter. 5. In continuation, the DRC referred to the above-mentioned article of the contract, on the basis of which the Respondent contested FIFA's jurisdiction. According to said article, “any dispute shall be dealt with according to the prescribed procedures” contained in the “rules and regulations of the country C Football Federation”. Hence, the Chamber outlined that the content of the relevant article is rather vague and that said clause does not explicitly refer to a national dispute resolution chamber or any similar arbitration body in the sense of art. 22 lit. b) of the aforementioned Regulations. 6. Notwithstanding the above, the DRC 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 DRC referred to FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20 December 2005. In this regard, 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. In this context, the DRC wished to stress that the Respondent was unable to prove that, in fact, the “Regulations for the Registration and Transfer of Football Players” of the country C Football Association (edition 2005) meet the minimum procedural standards for independent arbitration tribunals as laid down in art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, in FIFA Circular no. 1010 as well as in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations. 8. In this respect, the Chamber referred to its jurisprudence, which already, on several occasions, established that the country C Football Association "Dispute Resolution Committee" does not meet the minimum procedural standards for independent arbitration tribunals as laid down in art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. In this regard, the DRC referred to the principle of equal representation of players and clubs and underlined that this principle was one of the very fundamental elements to be fulfilled, in order for a national dispute resolution chamber to be recognised as such. Indeed, this prerequisite is mentioned in the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, in the Circular no. 1010 as well as in art. 3 par. 1 of the NDRC Regulations, which illustrates the aforementioned principle as follows: "The NDRC shall be composed of the following members, who shall serve a four-year renewable mandate: a) a chairman and a deputy chairman chosen by consensus by the player and club representatives (…); b) between three and ten player representatives who are elected or appointed either on proposal of the players' associations affiliated to FIFPro, or, where no such associations exist, on the basis of a selection process agreed by FIFA and FIFPro; c) between three and ten club representatives (…)." In this respect, the FIFA Circular no. 1010 states the following: "The parties must have equal influence over the appointment of arbitrators. This means for example that every party shall have the right to appoint an arbitrator and the two appointed arbitrators appoint the chairman of the arbitration tribunal (…). Where arbitrators are to be selected from a predetermined list, every interest group that is represented must be able to exercise equal influence over the compilation of the arbitrator list." 9. In conformity with the well-established jurisprudence of the DRC, the Chamber decided that the country C Football Association's “Regulations for the Registration and Transfer of Football Players” (edition 2005), in accordance with which, inter alia, the chairman, vice-chairman and one member are elected by the Executive Committee of the country C Football Association and two members are elected by the country C Football Players' Association, do not meet the aforementioned principles. 10. In view of all the above, the DRC concluded that, in line with its constant jurisprudence, the Respondent'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. 11. In continuation, 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 on 18 February 2013, the 2012 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 12. 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. 13. The members of the Chamber acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that they were contractually bound by means of the contract and the agreement, both valid as from 26 June 2009 until 31 May 2014. Likewise, the DRC also noted that the parties did not dispute the fact that the contract and the agreement were terminated by the Respondent on 6 June 2012. 14. The Chamber further noted that the Claimant, on the one hand, lodged a claim for outstanding remuneration and breach of contract, arguing that the Respondent failed to comply with its contractual obligations by ceasing the payment of his receivables. The Claimant also deems that the Respondent terminated the contract and the agreement without just cause, based on an injury suffered several months before the termination date and the existence of which was known to the Respondent. 15. The Chamber also noted that the Respondent, on the other hand, maintains that the contract and the agreement were terminated with just cause due to an injury that the Claimant allegedly suffered after the end of the season 2011/2012, during a non-authorized participation in sporting activities not related to the Respondent’s activities. Thus, the Claimant would have breached his contractual obligations. 16. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the claim of the Claimant and the allegations of the Respondent, was to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by the Respondent, and which party was responsible for the early termination of the contractual relationship in question. The DRC also underlined that, subsequently, if it were found that the employment contract had been breached by one of the parties without just cause, it would be necessary to determine the consequences for the party that caused the unjust breach of the relevant employment contract. 17. In view of the above, the Chamber first focused its attention on the main reason at the basis of the termination of the contract and the agreement at hand by the Respondent, i.e. the player’s injury and his alleged inability to play for more than two months. In particular, the members of the Chamber focussed their attention in determining whether an injury may be considered as a just cause for terminating a contract between a professional player and a club. 18. In this context, the DRC was eager to refer the parties to its long-standing and well-established jurisprudence, according to which an injury or health condition of a player cannot be considered as a valid reason to cease the payment of a player’s remuneration and even less so to terminate an employment contract. 19. Based on the aforementioned, the DRC concluded that the argument of the Respondent in this regard cannot be upheld. 20. Without prejudice of the foregoing conclusion as to an injury being no just cause for terminating a contract, the Chamber went on to analyse whether the Respondent had submitted substantial evidence of its allegation, according to which the Claimant was injured because he “participated in sport or other activities in the grounds of another team” on or about 17 May 2012 without being authorized to do so, which would have resulted in his consequent inability to participate in the Respondent’s activities for more than two months, invoked by the Respondent as a reason to terminate the contract. 21. In this regard, the members of the Chamber deemed it appropriate to refer the parties to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which stipulates that “any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof”. 22. In respect of the aforesaid allegation, the Chamber noted that the only documentation provided by the Respondent in support of his allegation were several personal statements apparently issued by persons connected to the Respondent. 23. In this regard, the Chamber was also eager to emphasize that the information contained in a personal statement, not supported by any additional documentation whatsoever, is of mainly subjective perception and might be affected by diverse contextual factors; therefore, the credibility of such type of documentation is quite limited. Bearing in mind the aforementioned, the DRC highlighted that these personal statements presented by the Respondent were not consistent with the rest of the evidence found on file. 24. On the contrary, after a thorough analysis of the documentation provided by the parties, the DRC formed the belief that the Claimant was already injured before the end of the 2011/2012 season and that the Respondent was aware of such injury. In doing so, the Chamber relied on the medical statement dated 6 February 2013 issued by the Respondent’s medical staff, indicating that the Claimant underwent physiotherapy treatment as from 10 February 2012 until 18 May 2012 and also the medical certificate dated 6 February 2013 stating that an MRI revealed that on 25 May 2012 the Claimant had a tear in his ligament, which was the result of an old trauma, and, consequently, he needed to undergo surgery. 25. The Chamber, therefore, concluded that the Respondent did not provide substantial evidence to support the basis on which it terminated the contract and the agreement and decided that such argument as referred to in point II.20. above could also not be upheld. 26. On account of all of the above, the members of the Chamber unanimously decided that the Respondent terminated the contract and the agreement on 6 June 2012 without just cause. 27. In continuation, prior to establishing the consequences of the breach of contract without just cause by the Respondent in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber held that it had to address the issue of any unpaid remuneration at the moment the contract was terminated by the Respondent. 28. Indeed, in his claim, the Claimant alleges that outstanding salaries in the amount of EUR 24,735, corresponding to EUR 10,500 for match point bonuses, EUR 10,000 for participation bonus, EUR 3,585 for 3 round-trip tickets for the season 2011/2012 and EUR 650 for accommodation expenses of June 2012, were due at the time he lodged his claim. The Chamber drew its attention to the fact that the Claimant reminded the club of its salary arrears towards him, by means of his letters dated 28 and 29 June 2012, and that the Respondent confirmed in the termination letter dated 6 June 2012 that the Claimant “may collect from our Club any salaries or other sums due to you”. 29. In this regard, the Chamber highlighted that it is the club’s responsibility to secure the continuation of the payment of remuneration in cases of injured players, possibly by means of adequate insurance. In the case at stake, the topic of insurance was even explicitly included in article 5 of the contract. Furthermore, the Chamber took into account that the Respondent had ceased the payment of the Claimant’s remuneration as early as in February 2012. 30. Consequently, the DRC considered that the Respondent had not substantiated its defence regarding outstanding remuneration in favour of the Claimant, as it did not present any conclusive documentary evidence which could corroborate that it actually paid the amounts requested by the Claimant as outstanding remuneration. 31. In accordance with the principle pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to match point bonuses in the total amount of EUR 10,500 pursuant to the match sheet submitted by the Claimant. 32. Furthermore, the Claimant is entitled to a participation bonus of EUR 10,000 also according to the abovementioned match sheet and notwithstanding the fact that the Claimant did not participate in the first 9 matches of the season 2011/2012 and the 25th match of that season. In this respect, the DRC decided in favour of the Claimant since his non-participation was very likely due to the injury and his entitlement to such amount is in accordance with article 9 of the agreement. 33. The Chamber also found the Claimant to be entitled to the amount of EUR 1,195 he spent on the flight ticket for his wife, for which the Claimant provided evidence, consisting of a copy of the invoice of the last round-trip of his wife. 34. Finally, the DRC decided that the Claimant is entitled to his accommodation fee in the amount of EUR 650 for the month of June 2012 as per article 5 of the agreement. 35. In total, the outstanding remuneration that the Respondent owes to the Claimant amounts to EUR 22,345 plus 5% interest as from 18 February 2013, until the date of effective payment. 36. Having established the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the consequences of the unilateral termination of the contract and the agreement by the Respondent without just cause on 6 June 2012. 37. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive compensation from the Respondent for the termination of the contract and the agreement without just cause, in addition to the aforementioned amount of EUR 22,345 on the basis of the contract and the agreement. 38. The members of the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including, in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period. 39. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it, first of all, had to clarify as to whether the contract or the agreement contain a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. The members of the Chamber recalled that, according to art. 10 of the agreement, “in case of termination of the contract of employment dated 26 June 2009, the player is entitled the above benefits or bonuses as specified in the clause 1 to 9 above until the termination date”. 40. The members of the Chamber agreed that this clause is to the benefit of the Respondent only and, therefore, it cannot be taken into consideration in the determination of the amount of compensation. 41. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of payable compensation. Therefore, other objective criteria may be taken into account at the discretion of the deciding body. In this regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber emphasised beforehand that each request for compensation for contractual breach has to be assessed by the Chamber on a case-by-case basis taking into account all specific circumstances of the respective matter. 42. In order to estimate the amount of compensation due to the Claimant in the present case, the members of the Chamber first turned their attention to the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contract and/or the new contract, which criterion was considered by the Chamber to be essential. The members of the Chamber deemed it important to emphasise that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows the Chamber to take into account both the existing contract and the new contract, if any, in the calculation of the amount of compensation. 43. In accordance with the contract signed by the parties, which was to run for two more years, i.e. until 31 May 2014, after the breach of contract occurred, the Claimant was to receive remuneration amounting to EUR 238,000, corresponding to the Claimant’s remuneration for the seasons 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 under the contract and the agreement and the accommodation expenses from June 2012 until May 2014. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 238,000 serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 44. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been able to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player's general obligation to mitigate his damages. 45. The Chamber recalled that, on 11 June 2012, the Claimant signed an employment contract with the Club A, from country A, valid until 31 May 2014, in accordance with which the Claimant was to receive a total remuneration of EUR 50,000. 46. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand as well as the Claimant's general obligation to mitigate his damage, the Chamber decided to partially accept the Claimant's claim and that the Respondent must pay the amount of EUR 188,000 as compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand. 47. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of compensation as from the date of the decision, i.e. 9 May 2014, until the date of effective payment. 48. In conclusion, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that the Respondent has to pay EUR 22,345 to the Claimant relating to outstanding remuneration as well as EUR 188,000 as compensation for the unjustified breach of the contract by the Respondent. 49. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further request filed by the Claimant is rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player B, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted. 3. The Respondent, Club L, has to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 22,345 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 18 February 2013 until the date of effective payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 4. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 188,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 9 May 2014 until the date of effective payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 5. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant in accordance with the above-mentioned numbers 3. and 4. are not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limits, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 6. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 7. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances are to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received. ***** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 67 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS, a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives). The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following: Court of Arbitration for Sport Avenue de Beaumont 2 1012 Lausanne Switzerland Tel: +41 21 613 50 00 Fax: +41 21 613 50 01 e-mail: info@tas-cas.org www.tas-cas.org For the Dispute Resolution Chamber: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl.: CAS directives