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 31 October 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Ivan Gazidis (England), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member on the claim presented by the club, Club A, from country S as Claimant / Counter-Respondent against the player, Player C, from country K as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club O, from country J as intervening party regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties.

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2013-2014) - controversie di lavoro - ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2013-2014) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of theDispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 31 October 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Ivan Gazidis (England), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member on the claim presented by the club, Club A, from country S as Claimant / Counter-Respondent against the player, Player C, from country K as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club O, from country J as intervening party regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 12 July 2009, Player C, from country K (hereinafter: the Respondent / Counter-Claimant), and Club A, from country S (hereinafter: the Claimant / Counter-Respondent), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) for a period of one year from 15 July 2009 until 14 July 2010. 2. The contract provides for the following payments in favour of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant: - a net monthly salary of EUR 50,000 due at the end of each Gregorian month; - EUR 200,000 net due upon signature of the contract; - EUR 200,000 net due on 1 January 2010; 3. Article 23 of the contract stipulates that ‘’The professionalism Committee and Board of Administration of the federation shall be considered the only reference to solve all disputes may occur between clubs and professional players, such disputes shall not be forwarded to any non-sport or civil courts’’. 4. On 27 March 2010, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent lodged a claim against the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in front of FIFA for having allegedly breached the contract by not making himself available for the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and leaving the country. In this respect, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent asks for the payment of the following amounts: - EUR 500,000 corresponding to the transfer compensation paid by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s former club, Club F. - EUR 300,000 as compensation for breach of the contract without just cause, corresponding to the residual value of the contract. 5. In this respect, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent states the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was absent as from the beginning of March 2010 and left the country without its permission. Thereby, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent claims that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant breached the contract without just cause. 6. Moreover, by means of a correspondence dated 11 March 2010 remitted to FIFA, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent points out that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was informed of the decision to sanction him with a 15-day deduction from his salary for the month of February 2010, because of his failure to attend a friendly match on 1 March 2010. 7. Furthermore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent insists that it paid EUR 54,545 as monthly salary to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant up to the month of February 2010 as well as EUR 100,000 from the lump-sum due upon signature of the employment contract. In particular, by means of a bank statement provided to support its claim, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent maintains that it paid the amount of currency of country S 422,959 (i.e. EUR 83,386) to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant as salary for the months of January and February 2010, on 22 March 2010. 8. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent also states that it received a letter from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant on 18 March 2010 by means of which it was informed of the unilateral termination of the contract by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. 9. On 21 April 2010, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant lodged a counterclaim against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent requesting the payment of EUR 450,000, corresponding to outstanding payments as follows: - EUR 100,000 as part of the sign-on fee due upon signature; - EUR 150,000 as monthly salaries for January, February and March 2010; - EUR 200,000 as sign-on fee due on 1 January 2010. 10. In particular, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, by means of a letter dated 19 November 2009 and a reminder on 17 December 2009, states that he asked to be paid outstanding payments amounting to EUR 150,000 (EUR 100,000 as part of the sign-on fee due upon signature and salary of November 2009). Copies of both letters have been made available by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. 11. Then, by a letter dated 29 January 2010, which has been remitted to FIFA, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant asked for the payment of the outstanding amount of EUR 400,000 (EUR 100,000 as part of the sign-on fee due upon signature, plus EUR 200,000 as sign-on fee due on 1 January 2010 and monthly salary of December 2009 and January 2010). 12. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant maintains that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent never reacted to any of the aforementioned correspondences. In this respect, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant also declares that his monthly salary was due on the 15th of each month. 13. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant concludes by stating that the circumstances at the time justified a termination of the contract since his monthly salary had consistently been delayed and the proportion of the outstanding amounts gave the Respondent / Counter-Claimant no choice but to terminate the contract. Therefore, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant notified the Claimant / Counter-Respondent of the termination of the contract by means of a correspondence dated 15 March 2010, emphasising that the salaries for January, February and March 2010 as well EUR 100,000 of the lump-sum due upon signature of the contract as well as the entire lump-sum due on 1 January 2010 were outstanding. 14. In its replica, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent argues that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant left the club without its permission and terminated the contract without just cause. 15. In particular, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent maintains that it paid the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s monthly salary until February 2010 and that the salary for the month of March 2010 was not due at the time the Respondent / Counter-Claimant left country S, on 14 March 2010. Therefore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent claims that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had no right to leave the club at that moment in time. 16. In his duplica, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant claims that the aforementioned bank statement provided by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent with regard to the payment of his monthly salary for January and February 2010 does not allow to establish on which bank account the payment was remitted and can, therefore, not be considered. Furthermore, since his departure from country S, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant insists that he has not been aware of any payment made to his bank account in country S and the strict visa requirements prevent him from returning to the country to check the bank account. 17. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant amended his original claim, requesting - in addition to alleged outstanding payments requested previously – compensation in the amount of EUR 200,000, corresponding to the residual value of the contract, i.e. four monthly salaries. 18. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant further alleges that it was tricked into signing a document acknowledging that he had committed the infringement that led to the aforementioned sanction regarding his alleged absence from the friendly game on 1 March 2010. In fact, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had apparently told the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to sign a document in English – which the Respondent / Counter-Claimant neither reads nor speaks - in order for the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to be able to pay the outstanding salaries. 19. As regards the day of his departure from country S, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant alleges that he left the country on 16 March 2010. 20. When asked to provide its final comments in the matter at stake, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent repeated the argumentation outlined previously and referred to the same documentary evidence. 21. On 23 June 2010, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant signed an employment contract with Club O, from country J, valid from 15 July 2010 until 1 January 2011. This contract provides for a total net basic salary of currency of country J 12,000,000. According to the country J club, because the country S Football Federation had rejected the relevant request for delivery of the International Transfer Certificate (ITC), Club O and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had agreed to amend their employment contract. In accordance with the copy of the amendment provided by the country J club, dated 23 July 2010, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s total basic net salary was currency of country J 10,000,000 (i.e. EUR 89,019) and the contract entered into force on 11 August 2010. 22. In a first instance, the country S Football Federation rejected the request for delivery of the ITC submitted by the country J Football Association on 14 July 2010. Subsequently, the country S Football Federation informed FIFA that it no longer insisted on the rejection for delivery of the relevant ITC. Thereupon, FIFA authorised the country J Football Association to register the Respondent / Counter-Claimant with its affiliated club concerned on 6 August 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 case at hand. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 27 March 2010. Consequently, the 2008 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 2008 and 2012 editions 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 (hereinafter: the Regulations; editions 2009, 2010 and 2012), the DRC is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension, between a country S club and a country K player. 3. Notwithstanding the above, the DRC noted the competence clause stipulated in the above-mentioned article 23 of the contract, stating exclusive jurisdiction to “the professionalism Committee and Board of Administration of the federation to solve all disputes that may occur between clubs and players”. 4. In this respect and regardless of the fact that the relevant employment contract contains this specific jurisdiction clause, the Chamber referred to the well-established jurisprudence of the DRC according to which, in general, in employment-related disputes between a club and a player that have an international dimension, i.e. the parties do not belong to the same country, both parties were entitled to refer the dispute to FIFA’s bodies, unless an independent arbitration tribunal respecting the principle of equal representation of players and clubs with an independent chairman has been established at national level. 5. The members of the Chamber acknowledged that in the case at hand the Claimant / Counter-Respondent has not contested this point. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber confirmed that the DRC is competent to hear the dispute at stake. 6. Furthermore, the DRC 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 (editions 2009, 2010 and 2012) and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 27 March 2010, the 2009 edition of said Regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 7. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered the substance of the present matter. In doing so, the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant signed an employment contract on 12 July 2009, in accordance with which the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was entitled to receive, inter alia, the amount of EUR 50,000 as net monthly salary for a period of one year from 15 July 2009 to 14 July 2010, as well as lump-sums of EUR 200,000 due upon signature of the contract and on 1 January 2010. 8. In continuation, the Chamber also took note that it is uncontested by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant that the contractual relationship between the parties to the present dispute was terminated by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, by means of a termination notice from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant dated 15 March 2010. 9. In this regard, the Chamber took due note that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, on the one hand, argued that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had unilaterally terminated the contractual relationship without just cause, pointing out, inter alia, the fact that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was absent as from the beginning of March 2010 and left the country without the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s approval. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent also pointed out the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s failure to attend a friendly match on 1 March 2010, leading to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s decision to sanction him with a 15-day deduction from his salary of February 2010. In addition, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent claims that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant received his salary up to the month of February 2010 as well as half of the lump-sum payable upon signature of the contract. In this regard, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent particularly referred to the payment it made to the player on 22 March 2010 in the amount of currency of country S 422,959 (i.e. EUR 83,386). Finally, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent emphasizes that the salary for the month of March 2010 was not due at the time the Respondent / Counter-Claimant left the country (i.e. 14 March 2010 according to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent). 10. The Chamber further took note of the argumentation of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, who insists on the fact that the circumstances at the time justified a termination of the contract since his monthly salary had consistently been delayed and the alleged proportion of the amounts (i.e. his salary from January to March 2010 as well as half of the lump sum due upon signature of the contract and the sign-on fee payable on 1 January 2010) gave him no choice but to terminate the contract. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant also pointed out that he notified in writing the Claimant / Counter-Respondent of such termination on 15 March 2010, after having sent several reminders which remained unanswered. 11. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the claim and counterclaim respectively lodged by the parties, was to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, 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 was 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. 12. In view of the above, the Chamber subsequently went on to deliberate as to whether the delayed payments and the outstanding amounts, which are invoked by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in its defence, can be considered as a just cause for the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to have prematurely terminated the employment relationship. 13. In this context, whilst referring 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 burden of proof, the Chamber deemed it fit to highlight, on the one hand, that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had presented documentary evidence establishing that he had put the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in default on 19 November 2009, 17 December 2009 and 29 January 2010 before terminating the contract on 15 March 2010. In fact, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent did not contest the lack of payment of half of the lump-sum due upon signature and the entire lump-sum due on 1 January 2010. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent does not contest either that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s salary of January and February 2010 had not been paid on the date of termination since the proof of payment of currency of country S 422,959 is only dated 22 March 2010. On the other hand, the Chamber equally acknowledged that the player was apparently absent as from the beginning of March 2010 and left the country without the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s permission. In addition, the Chamber refers to the fine (i.e. 15-day deduction from his salary of February 2010) imposed on the Respondent / Counter-Claimant which appears to evidence his failure to attend a friendly match on 1 March 2010. Finally, as concerns the due date of the salary of March 2010, the DRC took note of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s argumentation, which has to be upheld since it is explicitly provided for in the contract that each monthly salary is due at the end of the month. 14. In view of all the above, it is established that at the time of the termination of the contract (i.e. on 15 March 2010), the salary of January and February 2010 was outstanding, the payment of half of the signing-on fee was unpaid and delayed by 8 months and the second lump-sum due on 1 January 2010 had not been paid either. Consequently, and considering only the established missing payments at the time of the termination, the Chamber was of the opinion that the objective circumstances at the time did provide the Respondent / Counter-Claimant with just cause to prematurely terminate the employment contract with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, in particular considering the considerable delay in certain payments and the importance of these payments which appear to have been at the basis of the termination of the employment relationship by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. 15. Overall, the Chamber decided that there was a just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship between the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and that, therefore, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had not breached the employment contract without just cause. 16. For all these reasons, the Chamber decided to reject the claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and to accept the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s argumentation according to which he had terminated the employment contract with just cause. 17. Having established that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequences of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is entitled to receive from the Claimant / Counter-Respondent an amount of money as compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding payments on the basis of the relevant employment contract. 18. First of all, the Chamber reverted to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s financial counterclaim, which includes outstanding amounts of EUR 100,000 relating to half of the sign-on fee due upon signature of the contract as well as EUR 200,000 relating to the sign-on fee due on 1 January 2010 and EUR 150,000 as salary for the months of January up to March 2010. 19. At this stage, the Chamber considered relevant to recall that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent does not dispute the outstanding amounts relating to both sign-on fees in the amount of EUR 300,000. However, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent maintains that it paid the amount of currency of country S 422,959 (i.e. EUR 83,386) on 22 March 2010 as salary for January and February 2010 and that the salary of March 2010 was not due at that time. 20. With regard to the aforementioned payment made by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent on 22 March 2010, the Chamber acknowledged such payment since it is evidenced, by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, by means of a bank statement. In particular, the DRC considered the relevant documentation as an appropriate proof of payment, considering that it indicates that the amount of currency of country S 422,959 was paid by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to a bank account in country S in the name of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and makes reference to salaries for January and February 2010. Thereby, the Chamber rejected the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s argumentation and acknowledged that EUR 83,386 had been paid to the player, albeit on 22 March 2010, with reference to his salary for January and February 2010. In this regard, the DRC also pointed out that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not explicitly contest that the relevant payment had been made into a bank account in his name in country S, but rather insisted that he had not personally received the money, alleging an incapacity to access it. 21. As concerns the monthly salary for March 2010, as stated above, the Chamber deemed that it was not yet due on the date of termination, since the contract stipulates that the player’s monthly salary is due at the end of each month. Thus, the salary for March 2010 was not to be considered as an outstanding payment. 22. The Chamber then reverted to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s argument according to which the fine imposed on the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, i.e. deduction of 15-days’ salary was to be set off from his salary of February 2010. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that the amount of EUR 16,614 was missing from his salary due for January and February 2010. Hence, the DRC inferred from this situation that when paying the relevant amount on 22 March 2010, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent omitted to pay the player’s full salary for January and February in consideration of the sanction it had decided to impose on the player. In this context, the Chamber pointed out that the imposition of a fine, or any other available financial sanction in general, shall not be used by clubs as a means to set off outstanding financial obligations towards players. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s argument in this connection. In other words, the DRC confirmed that in accordance with the contract, the player’s salary for February 2010 remained of EUR 50,000. 23. Consequently, taking into account the amounts which the parties acknowledge to have been outstanding at that time, the fact that the employment contract was considered terminated as of 15 March 2010 and the documentary evidence provided by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the Chamber decided that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is liable to pay the Respondent / Counter-Claimant the amount of EUR 316,614 as outstanding remuneration corresponding to the missing part of the salary for January and February 2010 (i.e. EUR 16,614) as well as the abovementioned sign-on fees due upon signature of the contract and on 1 January 2010. The Chamber also deemed it fit to highlight that no interest rate had been requested by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant relating to the outstanding remuneration. 24. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, 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 Respondent / Counter-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. 25. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained 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. In this regard, the Chamber established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake. 26. 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 compensation payable. 27. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant under the terms of the employment contract until 14 July 2010, taking into account that the player’s remuneration up until February 2010 is included in the calculation of the outstanding remuneration (cf. point II.23. above). Consequently the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 225,000 (i.e. salary as from March 2010 until 14 July 2010 under the contract) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 28. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Respondent / Counter-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. 29. The Chamber noted that according to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s declarations and the documentation submitted, he had not been able to sign an employment contract with another club within the period of time between the termination of the contract and its original date of expiry and, thus, had not been able to mitigate damages. In this context, the Chamber found it reasonable that the Claimant had not been able to find new employment within the relevant period of 4 months only and therefore declared that there is no remuneration to be taken into account in order to mitigate the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 30. In this respect and bearing in mind all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent must pay the amount of EUR 225,000 to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter, in addition to the amount of EUR 316,614 as outstanding remuneration (cf. point II.23. above). 31. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim filed by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Club A, is rejected. 2. The claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Player C, is partially accepted. 3. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Club A, has to pay to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Player C, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 316,614. 4. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Club A, has to pay to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 225,000 5. If the aforementioned amounts are not paid within the aforementioned deadlines, an interest rate of 5% per annum will apply as of expiry of the fixed time limits and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 6. Any further claims lodged by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Player C, are rejected. 7. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Player C, is directed to inform the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Club A, 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