F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2014-2015) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2014-2015) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber(DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 20 August 2014, by DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player M, from country R as Claimant against the club, Club S, from country Z as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2014-2015) - controversie di lavoro - ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2014-2015) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber(DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 20 August 2014, by DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player M, from country R as Claimant against the club, Club S, from country Z as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. According to the player M from country R (hereinafter: the Claimant), on 22 July 2013, he and the club S from country Z (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded an employment contract valid as from its date of signature until 31 December 2013, under which the Respondent allegedly undertook to pay the Claimant a monthly salary of USD 4,000. 2. The Claimant indicated that he was not in possession of the above-mentioned employment contract, but, in order to prove that an employment contract existed between the parties, he provided an extract of the Transfer Matching System (TMS). According to the Claimant it could be proven by means of said extract that, on 29 July 2013, the Respondent uploaded the relevant employment contract into TMS and requested the issuance of the International Transfer Certificate (ITC). 3. On 22 July 2013, the Claimant travelled to country W where the Respondent was holding its pre-season training camp and on 7 August 2013 he returned to country R, anticipating the issuance of his work permit. 4. On 7 September 2013, the Claimant was apparently paid USD 1,900 by the Respondent. 5. On 12 September 2013, the Claimant received an email from the Respondent stating that: “due to the impossibility to issue an entry visa to our country, we prematurely terminate the contract with [the Claimant]. We paid the salary for August.” This stance was further ratified by a letter dated 1 September 2013 attached to the aforementioned email, which reads as follows: “By virtue of the present, we inform you that [the Respondent], country Z, terminates the contract with [the Claimant] concluded on 22 July 2013. [The Respondent] has no claim against [the Claimant]”. 6. On 18 September 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA maintaining that the latter unilaterally terminated the employment contract without just cause. 7. The Claimant emphasised that the responsibility to obtain the necessary visa prior to the signing of the employment contract or during the period of its validity is the sole responsibility of the Respondent. Hence, the Respondent had no valid reason to terminate the employment contract on 12 September 2013. 8. On account of the above-mentioned circumstances, the Claimant claimed the following amounts as well as sporting sanctions to be imposed on the Respondent: 1) Outstanding salary: USD 4,990 net plus 5% interest p.a. as of 13 September 2013. - USD 1,290 pro rata for the July 2013 salary; - USD 2,100 for the August 2013 salary (4,000 - 1,900 already paid); - USD 1,600 pro rata for September 2013 salary. 2) Compensation: “USD 28,400” net plus 5% interest p.a. as of 13 September 2013. - USD 2,400 pro rata for the remaining part of the September 2013 salary; - USD 12,000 for the October to December 2013 salaries; - USD 12,000 as additional compensation. 9. In spite of having been invited to do so, the Respondent did not present its reply to the claim of the Claimant. 10. Upon FIFA´s request, the Claimant stated that he had not concluded an employment contract with any other club between September 2013 and January 2014. 11. The employment contract uploaded by the Respondent into TMS is dated 22 July 2013, signed by both parties and valid until 31 December 2013. Said employment contract provides for a monthly salary “from 840 to 1000 currency of country Z (COZ).” II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First of all, the 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 18 September 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 and 2014 edition of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 lit. i. in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2014), the DRC judge is competent to decide on the present matter, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player M and a club S. 3. Furthermore, 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 2014) and considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 18 September 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 as well as the documentation contained in the file. However, the DRC judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. In this respect and first of all, the DRC judge acknowledged that according to the Claimant, he and the Respondent had signed an employment contract providing for a monthly salary of USD 4,000. However, the Claimant indicated that he was not in possession of the relevant employment contract. 6. What is more, the DRC judge duly observed that the Claimant held that the Respondent had terminated the contractual relationship without just cause on 12 September 2013 by means of an email. 7. Furthermore, the DRC judge noted that, despite having been given the opportunity to reply to the claim lodged against it by the Claimant, the Respondent failed to present its response to the claim. In this way, the DRC judge deemed that the Respondent renounced its right of defence. 8. As a consequence of the preceding consideration, the DRC judge established that, in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules as well as art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, he shall take a decision upon the basis of the documents on file and upon the documentation contained into TMS. 9. Turning his attention to the claim of the Claimant and the allegations contained therein, the DRC judge stressed that in accordance with the legal principle of the burden of proof as contained in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. In view of the foregoing and considering the claim of the Claimant, the DRC judge ruled that it was for the Claimant to prove that he was indeed entitled to a monthly salary of USD 4,000. 10. In this respect, the DRC judge took note that by means of the various documents provided by the Claimant, it could only be established that the parties had concluded an employment contract, but that there had been no documentation made available from which the DRC judge could reasonably assume that the parties had agreed upon a monthly salary amounting to USD 4,000. In this respect, the DRC judge emphasised that the apparent payment of USD 1,900, which was however not supported by any documentary evidence, did not suffice to prove that the parties had agreed upon a monthly salary of USD 4,000. 11. The DRC judge further pointed out that in accordance with the employment contract uploaded into TMS, which was the only document available duly signed by both parties, the parties had agreed upon a monthly salary “from 840 to 1000 COZ.” 12. As a result, considering the documentation at his disposal as well as taking into account the information contained in TMS, the DRC judge considered that it could only be established that the parties to the employment contract had agreed upon a monthly salary amounting to, at the most, currency of country Z (COZ) 1,000. 13. Consequently, and taking into account that the payment of 5 salaries of COZ 1,000 corresponds to an amount lower than the amount of USD 1,900, i.e. the amount apparently already received by the Claimant, the DRC judge had, on the basis of the documentation on file, no alternative than to reject the claim of the Claimant. ***** III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player M, is rejected. 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