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 (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 14 August 2013, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player A, country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, country D as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute 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 (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 14 August 2013, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player A, country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, country D as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On an unspecified date, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: player or Claimant), and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: club or Respondent), signed an employment contract valid for three sporting seasons. 2. On 9 May 2012, the parties signed an “Account settlement affidavit” (hereinafter: agreement) by means of which the club recognized that “after subtraction of, the legal deductions, the probable fines imposed by disciplinary committee or other competent legal bodies, also calculation and deduction of previous payments paid to player up to the above-mentioned date (…)”, it still owed the player the net amount of USD 94,917. 3. On 1 March 2013, the player lodged a claim against the club before FIFA maintaining that the club had failed to comply with the financial obligation deriving from the above-mentioned agreement. 4. The player claims to have formally notified the club of its pending obligation but unfortunately to no avail. 5. In light of the aforementioned, the player is requesting to be awarded the stipulated net amount of USD 94,917 plus 5% interest p.a. “from the due date to the payment date for the due amount”. 6. In spite of having been invited by FIFA to do so, the club did not present any reply to the player´s claim. ***** II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the DRC judge took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 1 March 2013. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the 2012 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the 2012 edition of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 lit. i. in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012) the DRC judge is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment–related dispute with an international dimension between a player from country B and an club from country D. 3. In continuation, the DRC judge analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he 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 1 March 2013, the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. The DRC judge started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the documentation contained in the file. 5. In this respect, the DRC judge acknowledged that the parties had signed an employment contract on an unspecified date and an “Account settlement affidavit” on 9 May 2012, by means of which the Respondent recognised that it still owed the Claimant the net amount of USD 94,917. 6. In continuation, the DRC judge noted that the Claimant alleged that the Respondent had failed to pay the amount recognised by the latter in the abovementioned agreement. Consequently, the Claimant asked to be awarded the total net amount of USD 94,917 plus interest. 7. Subsequently, the DRC judge observed that the Respondent, for its part, in spite of having been invited to do so, failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant. In this way, the DRC judge deemed that the Respondent renounced to its right of defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 8. As a result, the DRC judge established that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, he shall take a decision upon the basis of the documents on file, in other words, upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant. 9. In view of all the above, the DRC judge concluded that it could be established that the Respondent had failed to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 94,917 as recognised by the parties in the agreement dated 9 May 2012. 10. As a consequence of the foregoing consideration, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent must fulfil its obligations as per the agreement and is to be held liable to pay the outstanding amount of USD 94,917 to the Claimant plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 1 March 2013 until the date of effective payment. ***** III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of USD 94,917 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 1 March 2013 until the date of effective payment. 3. If the aforementioned sum 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 decision4. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the DRC judge 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 DRC judge: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives