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 theDispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 30 July 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Theodoros Giannikos (Greece), member on the claim presented by the player, Player R, from country E as Claimant/Counter-Respondent against the club, Club C, from country M as Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the club, Club W, from country G as Intervening Party regarding an employment-related dispute arisen 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 theDispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 30 July 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Theodoros Giannikos (Greece), member on the claim presented by the player, Player R, from country E as Claimant/Counter-Respondent against the club, Club C, from country M as Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the club, Club W, from country G as Intervening Party regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 23 July 2010, Player R, from country E (hereinafter: the Claimant/Counter-Respondent), and Club C, from country M (hereinafter: the Respondent/Counter-Claimant), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the first contract) valid as from the date of signature until 20 June 2013. 2. According to art. 4.1 of the first contract, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant undertook to provide the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, inter alia, with a monthly salary of currency of country M 2,500, payable until the 15th day of each month. 3. Art. 3.1 of the first contract sets forth the following: “The Player undertakes: g) to refrain from participating in other football competitions, other activities or potentially dangerous types of activities, prior not approved by the Club and uncovered by the Club insurance; t) not to play for other teams (clubs) without the written consent of the Club administration; u) not to enter into negotiations with third parties regarding the transfer to other club, as well as not to enter into any transfer agreements, individual employment agreements, with other clubs before the expiration of this agreement. Should the Player violate the terms of this paragraph, he undertakes to pay to the club, without the right of appeal, a fine in the amount of EUR 25,000 for each case of such violation.” 4. Art. 12.2 of the first contract stipulates that: “The failure to comply, or the partial fulfilment by the Club of its obligations under this agreement, brings about the early termination of the agreement, by payment of entitlements to the Player”. 5. Finally, art. 12.3 of the first contract establishes that: “The failure to comply, or the partial fulfilment by the Player of his obligations under this agreement, brings about the early termination of the agreement, with the full compensation of the expenses and costs related to his supply and insurance of the training process incurred by the Club”. 6. According to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, on 23 July 2010, the parties also signed an “individual employment agreement” (hereinafter: the second contract), valid “for a period of 2+1 year (season) to club options” as from 24 July 2010 until 20 June 2013. 7. According to art. 3.1 of the second contract, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant undertook to provide the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, inter alia, with: a) “USD 5,000 bonus”; b) “salary in the amount of USD 6,545 per month, for 11 months annually, until 15th of each month (in cash)”; c) “the sum of EUR 150 in month for the rent”. 8. Furthermore, arts. 11.2 and 11.3 of the second contract repeat the content of arts. 12.2 and 12.3 of the first contract (cf. points I.4. and I.5. above). 9. On 7 February 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent lodged a complaint against the Respondent/Counter-Claimant before FIFA, requesting, after amending his claim, the payment of the total amount of USD 204,855.12 plus 5% interest until the date of effective payment, broken down as follows: a) Remuneration under the first contract: Currency of country M 90,000 or currency of country E 7,657.90 (36 x currency of country M 2,500); b) 3 years’ remuneration under the second contract: USD 215,985 (33 x USD 6,545); c) 3 years’ rent expenses under the second contract: EUR 5,400 or USD 7,221.42 (36 x EUR 150); d) minus USD 26,009.20, corresponding to the amounts he received from his subsequent clubs, Club W (EUR 6,850) and Club S (EUR 12,750). 10. Alternatively, in case the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC) decides that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is not entitled to compensation for the third optional year of the second contract, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent requests compensation in the amount of USD 130,453 plus 5% interest until the date of effective payment, broken down as follows: a) Remuneration under the first contract: USD 7,657.92; b) 2 years’ remuneration under the second contract: USD 143,990 (22 x USD 6,545); c) 2 years’ rent expenses under the second contract: USD 4,814.28; d) minus USD 26,009.20, as detailed in point I.9.d) above. 11. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent also requests sporting sanctions on the club, legal costs and procedural costs. 12. In his claim, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent states to have signed 2 contracts with the club on 23 July 2010, the first one providing for a salary in currency of country M and the second one for a salary in USD. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims to have received from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant only the bonus of USD 5,000 (cf. point I.7.a) above) on 24 July 2010, but no salary at all. He argues that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not pay his first salary due to his low sporting performance. Additionally, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent states that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant told his agent to find a new club for him. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent further states that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not pay the salary of the second month of employment either and tried to convince him to sign a contract with a lower salary because his performance was allegedly not sufficient. 13. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims to have reminded the Respondent/Counter-Claimant of its salary arrears towards him, in writing, setting a deadline for the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to proceed with the payment of his outstanding remuneration until 7 October 2010. 14. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent affirms, in addition, that on 25 October 2010, a representative of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant notified him, in writing, that his services were not needed anymore and, at the same time, that he was offered to sign a release and a termination agreement; however, such document would have been taken away from the Claimant/Counter-Respondent before it was signed. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent asserts that he was also told that he would not receive his outstanding salaries until his agent had reimbursed USD 30,000 to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and that he was not allowed to train anymore. 15. Finally, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent explains that he was forced to leave the hotel where he was living and requested the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to issue a document stating he was free to sign with another club; however, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant would have rejected such request. Likewise, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent alleges to have reminded the Respondent/Counter-Claimant once again of his salary arrears towards him, in writing, setting a deadline for the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to proceed with such payments until 30 October 2010. 16. On 3 November 2010, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated the first contract and the second contract, in writing, on the basis of three overdue monthly salaries. On 5 November 2010, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent left country M. 17. In its reply, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant argues that the parties concluded only the first contract for a monthly salary of currency of country M 2,500. Accordingly, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant argues that the first contract, which was registered before the Football Association of country M, is the only valid employment contract executed between the parties and that the second contract is a forged document. 18. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant contests the factual basis of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim in full and argues to have paid USD 5,000 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in advance (cf. point I.12. above) and on account of his future participation in the activities of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant because the Claimant/Counter-Respondent requested such amount in order to pay for his father’s medical treatment. Moreover, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant affirms that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was not banned from the hotel and that it never received any of the reminders and the termination letter the Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims to have addressed to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 19. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant further claims that it authorized the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to go to country E in October 2010 because of his father’s illness but also that it was waiting for his return until 8 January 2011. However, he was absent on the first training day for the second half of the championship on 8 January 2011 and did not contact the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. After that, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant realized that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was training with Club W, from country G (hereinafter: the Intervening Party). The aforesaid situation was informed to Football Association of country M, in writing, on 17 January 2011. On 3 February 2011, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant requested Football Association of country M to reject the issuance of the relevant International Transfer Certificate (ITC) of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 20. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant lodged a counterclaim against the Claimant/Counter-Respondent based on an alleged breach of art. 3.1 g), t) and u) of the first contract (cf. point I.3. above) and requested: a) sporting sanctions on the Claimant/Counter-Respondent until 20 June 2013; b) reimbursement of all costs derived from the employment relationship in the amount of EUR 686 and USD 7,130; c) compensation for moral damage in the amount of USD 100,000. 21. In his replica, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent rejects the counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and provides a statement of his agent, corroborating his previous allegations, while declaring that the payment of USD 5,000 was made by the agent himself. 22. Additionally, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent emphasizes that it is a common practice of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to sign two different employment contracts with its players. 23. Moreover, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent clarifies that he received USD 5,000 as per art. 3.1 a) of the second contract (cf. point I.7. above). In this respect, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent rejects the argument of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant regarding his father’s illness because such illness did not exist and, even in the hypothetical case of an illness, he was not in need of such amount since the country E health system would have covered all treatment costs. Therefore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent reaffirms that the termination of the employment relationship with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on 3 November 2010 is due to the default of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant regarding the payment of his salaries since the beginning of the contractual relationship, as per both contracts. 24. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent further states that, from a salary standpoint, it makes no sense to have signed only the first contract because his weekly salary would have been only currency of country E 31.37, whereas the allowance for a job seeker in country E is currency of country E 67.50 per week. Also, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent notes that his salary with the Intervening Party was EUR 8,350 for 5 months, which is more than what he had earned under the whole 3-year validity period of the first contract. Furthermore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent earned with its subsequent club, Club S, in only two months more than in three years under the first contract. Moreover, if the USD 5,000 payment had actually been an advance, he would have received at the beginning of the contractual relationship virtually the whole remuneration he was entitled to earn in 3 years. Consequently, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent asserts that there are several reasons for presuming that his actual salary was the one agreed under the second contract. 25. Then, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent rejects the request of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for sporting sanctions and argues that the reimbursement petition of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant should also not be accepted because the amounts were paid while performing the second contract and the Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated both the first and the second contract with just cause (i.e. non-payment of salaries). As to the requested compensation, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent contends that there is no evidence as to USD 100,000 being the actual amount of moral damages the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is entitled to, or as to the nexus between the termination of the contract and those damages. 26. In its final position, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant reaffirms its arguments, while submitting different witness statements referring to the dishonest and unprofessional behaviour of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 27. In his final comments, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent noted that the burden of proof is on the Respondent/Counter-Claimant as to the forgery of the second contract. In this regard, he claims that the expert opinion provided by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant expresses that it is necessary to examine the original document in order to reach a definitive conclusion. Additionally, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant relies on the fact that the second contract bears the official stamp of the club, which is the same as shown in the first contract. 28. Regarding the witness statements submitted by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent disputes such statements for several reasons, for example, that they were given under duress from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant might have actually drafted those statements itself and that there is no certainty as to whether the signatures of those appearing in the statement actually belong to the persons they refer to as witnesses. 29. After being invited to comment on the present dispute, the Intervening Party confirmed it had a contract with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent valid as from 31 January 2011 until 30 June 2011 and stated that it was not involved in the dispute between the parties. 30. Finally, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent informed FIFA of his contractual situation as from the alleged breach, as follows: a) Club W, from country G, from 31 January 2011 until 30 June 2011 - Total gross remuneration: EUR 7,500 (5 x EUR 1,500) - Total net remuneration: EUR 4,100; b) Club S, from country I, from 31 August 2011 until 30 November 2011 - Total remuneration: EUR 9,000 (12 x EUR 750) - Total net remuneration: EUR 4,100; c) Club A, from country E, from 21 March 2012 until 30 April 2012, for a total net remuneration of USD 2,500; d) Club D, country I, from 1 September 2012 until 31 December 2012 - Total remuneration as per the termination agreement signed between the parties: USD 48,144.44 - Total net remuneration: USD 40,000 e) Club G, from 8 January 2013 until 20 June 2013 - Total remuneration: USD 40,000 - Total net remuneration: USD 38,000 II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber 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 7 February 2011. Consequently, the 2008 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 is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an country E player and a country M club. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which edition of the 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 7 February 2011, the 2010 edition of said Regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. 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. 5. The members of the Chamber acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that they were contractually bound by means of the first contract, valid as from 23 July 2010 until 20 June 2013. Likewise, the DRC also noted that the parties did not dispute the fact that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent left country M on 5 November 2010. 6. The Chamber further noted that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, on the one hand, lodged a claim for outstanding remuneration and breach of contract after having allegedly put the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in default on 1 October 2010 and 25 October 2010 and allegedly terminated the first contract and the second contract on 3 November 2010. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent argues that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to comply with its contractual obligations by ceasing the payment of his receivables under the first contract and the second contract and deems that he terminated such contracts with just cause based on three outstanding salaries. 7. The Chamber also noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, on the other hand, maintains that the parties only signed the first contract and that the second contract is a forged document. Thus, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant argues that it fulfilled all its payment obligations under the only valid employment contract, i.e. the first contract, and counterclaimed for breach of the first contract by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 8. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the allegations and counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, was to determine whether the employment relationship had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by one of the parties, 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 relationship 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 relationship. 9. In view of the above, the Chamber first of all would have to establish the contractual basis of the present dispute in view of the allegation of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant regarding the alleged forgery and consequent invalidity of the second contract. 10. At this stage, the DRC considered it appropriate to remark that, as a general rule, FIFA's deciding bodies are not competent to decide upon matters of criminal law, such as the ones of alleged falsified signature or document, and that such affairs fall into the jurisdiction of the competent national criminal authority. 11. In continuation, the DRC recalled that, according to art. 12 par. 6 of the Procedural Rules, all documentation remitted shall be considered with free discretion and, therefore, the Chamber focused its attention on the second contract as well as on the other documents containing the signature of the representative of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant provided by the parties in the context of the present dispute. In this regard, the DRC pointed out that the original version of the second contract was provided by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 12. After a thorough analysis of the aforementioned documents, in particular, comparing the relevant signatures of the representative of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the stamp of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in the various documents provided in the present affair, the Chamber had no other option but to conclude that, for a layman, the signatures and stamp on such documents appear to be the same. 13. In addition, the Chamber observed that, according to the parties and to Football Association of country M, an amount of USD 5,000 was paid to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent at the beginning of his contract. In spite of the parties’ disagreement as to what the aforementioned amount corresponded to –the Claimant/Counter-Respondent argues that it is the amount set forth in art. 3.1a) of the second contract (cf. point I.7. above); whereas the Respondent/Counter-Claimant sustains that it is only an advance of salaries as per the first contract–, it is a fact that the payment of such exact amount is established in the second contract and does not appear to correspond to an advance of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s salaries as per the first contract since it would correspond to an advance of more than two years of remuneration. Therefore, it had to consider the second contract also as a legal basis in the present dispute. 14. Subsequently, the Chamber observed that, since the parties did not dispute the fact that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent left country M on 5 November 2010 (cf. point II.5. above), the employment relationship between the parties was to be considered as terminated by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent on such date. 15. Having established the contractual basis of the present dispute, as well as the fact that the contractual relationship between the parties had been terminated by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent on 5 November 2010, the Chamber went on to analyse whether this termination had been with or without just cause. 16. In this regard, the Chamber started by analysing the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s allegation of the existence of outstanding amounts as per both contracts. 17. In accordance with point I.2. above, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was obliged to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent at the time the employment relationship terminated, i.e. 5 November 2010, the amount of currency of country M 2,500 due on 15 August 2010, the amount of currency of country M 2,500 due on 15 September 2010 and the amount of currency of country M 2,500 due on 15 October 2010, as salaries for the months of August 2010 until October 2010, as per the first contract. 18. Likewise, according to point I.7. above, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was obliged to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent by 5 November 2010, the amount of USD 6,545 due on 15 August 2010, the amount of USD 6,545 due on 15 September 2010 and the amount of USD 6,545 due on 15 October 2010, as salaries for the months of August 2010 until October 2010, in addition to the “USD 5,000 bonus” and EUR 450 for rent expenses for three months, as per the second contract. 19. At this point, 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”. 20. In view of the receipt for USD 5,000 signed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and submitted by both parties, the DRC established that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant fulfilled its obligation as per art. 3.1.a) of the second contract (cf. point I.7. above). 21. Likewise, according to a certificate submitted by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in connection with the accommodation of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in a hotel paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, which is also confirmed by the allegations of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the DRC acknowledged the fulfilment by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant of the obligation set forth in art. 3.1.c) of the second contract from July 2010 until October 2010 (cf. point I.7. above), regarding the provision of accommodation to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 22. However, the DRC observed that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to prove that it paid to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the relevant salaries under the first contract and the second contract, amounting to a total of currency of country M 7,500 and USD 19,635. 23. Consequently, and considering that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had repeatedly and for a significant period of time been in breach of its contractual obligations towards the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the Chamber decided that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had just cause to terminate the first contract and the second contract and that, as a result, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of such employment relationship with just cause by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 24. In continuation, prior to establishing the consequences of the breach of the first contract and the second contract without just cause by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber held that it had to address the issue of any unpaid remuneration. 25. At this point, the DRC recalled that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was entitled to 11 monthly salaries of USD 6,545 plus currency of country M 2,500, as well as to a 12th monthly salary of only currency of country M 2,500, per year and that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had not given any valid explanation or justification for the non-payment of the relevant salaries under the first contract and the second contract as referred to in point II.22. above. 26. Based on the foregoing, the DRC stressed that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant must fulfil its obligations as per the first contract and the second contract in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is liable to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the remuneration that was outstanding at the time of the early termination of the aforesaid contracts, i.e. the amount of currency of country M 7,500 and USD 19,635, corresponding to monthly salaries for three months as per both contracts. 27. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the members of the Chamber decided to award the Claimant/Counter-Respondent interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amount of currency of country M 7,500 and USD 19,635 as from 7 February 2011 until the date of effective payment. 28. Having established the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the calculation of the amount of compensation payable to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in the case at stake. 29. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is entitled to receive compensation from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for the termination of the first contract and the second contract without just cause, in addition to the aforementioned amounts of currency of country M 7,500 and USD 19,635, on the basis of both contracts. 30. 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. 31. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it, first of all, had to clarify as to whether the first contract and the second contract 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. 12.2 of the first contract and art. 11.2 of the second contract, “the failure to comply, or the partial fulfilment by the Club of its obligations under this agreement, brings about the early termination of the agreement, by payment of entitlements to the Player”. 32. The members of the Chamber agreed that this clause is not clear and, in case it refers to entitlements of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent up to the date of termination of the employment relationship, it would be to the benefit of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant only and, therefore, it cannot be taken into consideration in the determination of the amount of compensation. 33. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that such amount of compensation payable by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 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 article 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. 34. 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 highlight 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. 35. In accordance with the first contract, which was to run until 20 June 2013, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was to receive remuneration amounting to currency of country M 80,000 after the breach of contract, corresponding to 32 monthly salaries under such contract. 36. Likewise, in accordance with the second contract, which was to run also until 20 June 2013, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was to receive remuneration amounting to USD 196,350 after the breach of contract, corresponding to 30 monthly salaries under such contract. 37. At this point, the members of the Chamber emphasised that a validity clause like art. 1.2. of the second contract, which provides “for a period of 2+1 year (season) to club options”, is to the benefit of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant only and, therefore, it cannot be taken into consideration, especially in view of the fact that the parties expressly set forth the validity of such contract from 24 July 2010 until 20 June 2013 (cf. 1.6. above). 38. Furthermore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was to receive EUR 4,800, corresponding to 32 monthly payments for rent expenses from November 2010 until June 2013. 39. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 208,000 serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in accordance with the first contract and the second contract (cf. points I.2. and I.7. above). 40. 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 the first contract and the second contract in connection with the player's general obligation to mitigate his damages. 41. The Chamber recalled that the Claimant signed five employment contracts with five different clubs, including the Intervening Party, from 31 January 2011 until 20 June 2013, in accordance with which the Claimant was to receive a total remuneration of approximately USD 115,000. 42. The DRC stressed that, in order to calculate the aforementioned amount, it took into consideration the gross remuneration under the relevant employment contracts due to the fact that the remuneration under both the first contract and the second contract was agreed on a gross basis. 43. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand as well as the Claimant/Counter-Respondent's general obligation to mitigate his damage, the Chamber decided to partially accept the Claimant/Counter-Respondent's claim and that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant must pay the amount of USD 93,000 as compensation for breach of the first contract and the second contract in the case at hand. 44. In addition, taking into account the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s request, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant must pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of compensation as from the date of the claim, i.e. 7 February 2011, until the date of effective payment. 45. With regard to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim for the reimbursement of legal expenses and procedural compensation, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as to its long-standing and well-established jurisprudence, which clearly stipulates that no procedural compensation is awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Therefore, the members of the Chamber had no other alternative than to reject this part of the claim. 46. In conclusion, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to pay currency of country M 7,500 and USD 19,635 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent relating to outstanding remuneration as well as USD 93,000 as compensation for the unjustified breach of the first contract and the second contract by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 47. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further request filed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is rejected and that the counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is also rejected since the absence of the player as referred to in point I.19. above was a consequence of the breach of contract by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant as described in the foregoing considerations. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Player R, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club C, is ordered to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent outstanding remuneration in the amount of currency of country M 7,500 and USD 19,635, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 7 February 2011 until the date of effective payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant is ordered to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent compensation in the amount of USD 93,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 7 February 2011 until the date of effective payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 4. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in accordance with the above-mentioned numbers 2. and 3., plus interest, are not paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent are rejected. 6. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is rejected. 7. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent/Counter-Claimant 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