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 passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 20 August 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Taku Nomiya (Japan), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, from country D as Respondent 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 the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 20 August 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Taku Nomiya (Japan), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, from country D as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 March 2010, 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 (hereinafter: contract) valid until 2 March 2012. 2. According to art. 3 par. 1 of the contract, the player was to receive a monthly amount of 2,110,837, payable at the latest on the 10th day of the month following the relevant month. 3. Art. 2 par. 3 lit. 1 of the contract inter alia stipulates that the club is entitled to terminate the contract for the reasons stipulated in the labour code of country D or in the contract. 4. Art. 4 par. 2 of the contract inter alia stipulates that in case the player would be guilty of disciplinary breaches, the club is entitled to sanction the player via different sanctions (remark, reprimand, warning) and ultimately, can put an end to the contract provided the labour code of country D provides for such sanction in response to the offence at stake. 5. On the same day, the player and the club signed a document entitled “Annex” (hereinafter: Annex). 6. According to art. 4 of the Annex, at the end of the sporting season 2010, the parties will mutually review the contract existing between them and in particular the financial terms of their cooperation for the sporting season 2011. 7. According to art. 1 of the Annex, and for the sporting season 2010, the player was entitled to receive a lump amount of 7,036,125 payable in two equal installments, i.e. 3,518,125 payable on 15 April 2010 and on 15 October 2010. 8. The Annex further provides that the player’s travel to the club as well as two yearly flights will be paid by the club upon presentation of the travel documents and provided the club’s income permits such payment. 9. Art. 5 of the Annex stipulates that in case of termination of the contractual relationship by either of the parties, the rest of the player’s salaries until the end of the contractual period will not be paid. 10. On 22 June 2011, the player lodged a claim against the club before FIFA, asserting that the club terminated the contractual relationship with the player without any just cause. The player claimed payment of the total amount of EUR 204,213, composed as follows: • EUR 5,700 as the outstanding part of the player’s salary for December 2010; • EUR 1,500 as the outstanding part of the player’s salary for January 2011; • EUR 3,300 corresponding to flight tickets bought by the player; • EUR 193,713 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause by the club. This amount corresponds to the residual value of the contact as from February 2011 until February 2012, i.e. 13 multiplied by 2,110,837, plus the signing-on fees due on 15 April 2011 and 15 October 2011 in their unrevised amounts, i.e. 3,518,125 each, plus a lump amount of EUR 30,000 aiming at compensating the player’s moral and professional prejudice. 11. According to the player, on 5 February 2011, the club would have asked him to sign various documents drafted in English that he could not understand. 12. As he refused to sign said documents, the club would have expelled him from the team’s training camp taking place in country E and asked him to return to country F, which the player allegedly did, at his own expenses. 13. On the same day, and via his representative, the player reportedly put the club in default to pay him EUR 15,200, composed of an outstanding part of his salary of December 2010 in the amount of EUR 5,700 and the entire monthly salary of January 2011, i.e. EUR 9,500. 14. Additionally, the player’s representative asked the club to explain why it expelled the player from the training camp and asked it to transmit copies of the documents it wanted the player to sign. 15. Allegedly, the club neither transmitted any documents nor did it answer to any of the points contained in the player’s default notice. 16. On 8 February 2011, the club would have written to the player to ask him to come back to the club in order to have a meeting. 17. According to the player, the club would not have addressed any of the player’s requests for explanations or communication of documents. 18. On 9 February 2011, the player inter alia put the club in default of the payment of EUR 15,200. According to the player, the club did not reply to this correspondence. 19. Allegedly on 14 February 2011, the player received the club’s correspondence dated 28 January 2011 by means of which the club reproached the player his absence during trainings between 17 and 26 December 2010 as well as his arrival five days late to the training camp organised by the club in country E, in January 2011. 20. On 23 February 2011, the player answered that he did not breach any of his contractual obligations and that the club has to pay him his dues. 21. The player declared having received further correspondence dated 14 February 2011 from the club, informing him that the club had decided to put an end to the contract on the basis of the information contained in its previous correspondence dated 28 January 2011, which he allegedly received on 14 February 2011. 22. In reaction to the club’s termination of the contract, on 8 March 2011 and 1 April 2011, the player wrote a third and fourth default notice to the club in order to reject the club’s arguments and to inform it of his intention to lodge a claim against it before FIFA in relation to the club’s unlawful termination of the contract. 23. In relation to his absence from training between 17 and 26 December 2010, the player reported that after the final match of the season on 6 November 2010, he was allowed to go on holidays as from 8 November 2010 and asked, like the other players of the club, to return to the club on 24 December 2010. 24. In continuation, the player would have been called by the club on 17 December 2010 and asked to renew his passport so that the club may extend his visa for country D for a year. 25. The player then explained that after having started the formalities on 18 December 2010, he could send his renewed passport to the club via email on 20 December 2010. 26. However, on 21 December 2010, the club informed the player that he should have been back to the club to attend the trainings as from 17 December 2010. 27. As to his absence during five days from the training camp in country E, the player explained that while he was on his way from country F, to join the club on 4 January 2011, the consulate of the country E denied him the visa he needed to fly to country E as he was not in possession of an invitation issued by the club. 28. The player then explained that, on 5 January 2011, he received an email from the club asking him to get to the club’s hotel in country E on 6 January 2011. 29. The player explained that he finally obtained his visa on 10 January 2011 and could travel to country E on 11 January 2011. 30. In this respect, the player stressed that when he signed the contract with the club, and in line with the general practice, it was the club that took care of all the visa questions. 31. In the player’s opinion, he did not breach his contractual obligations and the club’s termination of the contract consists of a maneuver to hide its incapacity to pay the player’s salaries. 32. In its reply to the claim, the club firstly rejected the player’s assertion that the club would have expelled him from the club’s training in country E on 5 January 2011 as the player was allegedly not in country E on said date. 33. According to the club, said information can be seen from the player’s passport, which shows that the player’s entry visa in country E bears the date 11 January 2011. 34. In continuation, the club explained that as stipulated in art. 2 par. 2 lit. 3 of the contract, the player had to “follow the working labour discipline, including training routine, competitions, training sessions (…)”. 35. In this context, and considering the player’s repeated breaches of his contractual obligations, the club decided to terminate the contract and claimed it did so in accordance with the contractual terms and the procedures pertaining to the Labour Code of country D. 36. In particular, the club stressed that after the end of the season, all players were on holidays as from 8 November 2010 until 16 December 2010 and had to resume duty on 17 December 2010. 37. However, since the player did not return to the club on time, the team coach reported the player’s unauthorised absence to the club. Additionally, the club submitted a report issued by one of its managers in which the latter explains that he spoke with the player and inter alia reminded him that he had to renew his passport for visa purposes. 38. Additionally, and as a result of the player’s unjustified absence between 17 and 26 December 2010, the club decided to warn the player and allegedly sent him an “order” dated 31 December 2010 to inform him accordingly. 39. In continuation, the club explained that the player also missed the five first days of the club’s training camp in country E, which lasted between 6 January 2011 and 19 January 2011, and that this unauthorised absence was also reported on documents. 40. In the club’s opinion, the player’s explanations that he could not travel because of visa issues are not true and the club held that the player simply turned his phone off between the end of the season in November and January 2011 in order to avoid the club’s attempts to talk with him. 41. As the club would have left a message to the player on 7 January 2011 that he would be dismissed in case he would not join the club, the player arrived to the training camp with 5 days’ delay. 42. On 14 January 2011, and following the coach’s report dated 11 January 2011, the club imposed the player a “reprimand” resulting of the player’s absence from the training camp scheduled in country E between 6 and 19 January 2011. 43. In continuation, the club explained that it sent a correspondence dated 15 January 2011 to the player by email, by means of which it inter alia recalled the player of the past disciplinary sanctions taken against him, indicated that he mandatorily had to attend a training on 26 January 2011 and that based on art. 2 par. 3 lit. 1 of the contract, renegotiation talks between the two parties would take place. 44. Furthermore, the club wrote that should the player not appear to said training, the club would put an end to the contract in accordance with the Labour code of country D. 45. The club then explained that on 28 January 2011, the player refused to sign documents consisting of the recognition of the disciplinary sanctions and “the Addition to the Labour Contract”, claiming that he would not sign any documents without his representative’s presence. 46. The player’s behaviour was reported in a document issued by the club dated 28 January 2011. 47. During a meeting dated 1 February 2011, the player would have refused once more to be handed over documents or to sign the club’s documents, which is reported in a statement dated 1 February 2011 issued by the club. 48. In view of the player’s repeated absences from training, including another unauthorised absence on 16 February 2011, and reported behaviour, the club decided, after having taken two disciplinary sanctions, and based on art. 4 par. 2 of the contract, to put an end to the contract, insisting that under labour law of country D, the player’s unjustified absences are a valid cause to terminate the contract. 49. The club concludes that the player, who was repeatedly absent without authorisation, is not in a position to claim the payment of his salaries related to the period of time during which he did not work. 50. Likewise, according to art. 5 of the Annex, the player is not entitled to any compensation. 51. In his replica, the player rejected the club’s position and held that the club had no just cause to take disciplinary sanctions against him or to put an end to the contract. 52. In particular, the player maintained his explanations in relation to his absences and late arrival to the club’s trainings in country D and country E. 53. In this respect, the player reiterated that according to the practice, it is the clubs’ obligation to take care of the visa-related formalities for their players. 54. More generally, the player deems that it is only since he started to complain about delays in the payment of his dues that the club started to build a case against him in order to put an end to the contract at a later stage. 55. In this respect, the player stressed that he never received any notification in relation to the imposition of disciplinary sanctions or about meetings with the club, which constitutes, in the player’s opinion, a violation of his right to be heard or to challenge the club’s decision. 56. In continuation, the player referred to the club’s allegation that he would have refused to enter into negotiations with the club in relation to a modification of his salary. 57. In this regard, the player stressed that if the club wanted to terminate the contract, it had no reason to ask the player to renegotiate his salary. 58. In this respect, the player explained that the club’s unilateral termination of the contract in February 2011 caused him, as well as to his family, a great prejudice and that he remained unemployed for two years. 59. As a conclusion, the player stressed that it is because the club was unable to continue to pay him that the club decided to put an end to the contact under fallacious reasons. 60. In its duplica, the club maintained that it had just cause to terminate the contract with the player and that said termination is justified under both the FIFA Regulations and the labour regulations of country D. 61. Furthermore, the club rejected the player’s arguments in relation to outstanding remuneration. 62. In this respect, the club firstly explained that the player’s remuneration is due prorata temporis and that out of 21 days of work in December 2010, the player only worked 11 days. 63. As a result of the above, the club asserted that out of a monthly salary of 2,110,837, and before taxes, the player was to receive 1,105,676 and 995,108 after the alleged application of the taxes on incomes. 64. The club further explained that as it paid 164,136 in advance to the player, whereas the remaining part, i.e. 830,675, was reportedly paid to the player. 65. The club presented the same position in relation to the player’s claim for EUR 1,500. In this respect, the club held that the remuneration due to the player for January 2011 corresponded to 18 working days out of which the player worked 15 days. 66. The player, who was entitled to 1,759,030 for 15 days, and 1,583,127 after tax payment, received such amount on his account. 67. In continuation, the club rejected the player’s claim of EUR 3,300 in relation with reimbursement of flight tickets. 68. In this respect, it held that such expenses are not proven by the player and that the player was traveling without authorisation, which is a breach of contract. Accordingly, such request shall be rejected. 69. As to the player’s claim for compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 194,713, the club considers that the prejudice referred to by the player is not justified. 70. Also, the club referred to the contract as well as to the FIFA Regulations and held that in case a contract is terminated with just cause, no compensation is due. 71. With respect to the visa issue, the club stressed that when the player signed the two years contract with the club on 1 March 2010, he knew that his passport was valid until 10 July 2011 and that his visa, granted until 1 December 2010, can only be renewed on the basis of valid travel documents. 72. However, and in spite of having been reminded by the club that he had to renew his passport, the player did not take any steps in this respect. 73. Furthermore, the club explained that when it finally managed to contact the player, who was on holidays and reportedly abstaining from answering the club’s calls until 10 December, the player would have told the club that it was its duty to take care of these formalities. 74. This behaviour, according to the club, shows the player’s lack of responsibility, diligence and discipline. 75. Yet, the player would have told the club that he would proceed to renew his passport “in the nearest time”. 76. In this respect, the club also pointed out that the player’s statement that he was to return to the club on 24 December 2010 is untrue as the club had issued an order dated 8 November 2010 for its staff and players holding that said individuals would be on “compensatory holidays” between “8 November to 16 December 2014”. 77. In view of this, the club insisted that whereas the player knew the dates of the holidays granted by the club, he did not take any step to renew his passport, which deprived the club of the possibility to renew his visa. 78. It is the result of the player’s fault if he was unable to join the club for the training, which is, according to the club, a breach of contract, as art. 2 par. 2 lit. 3 of the contract stipulates that the players have to respect “the labor discipline, including training schedule”. 79. The club continued by explaining that it also had sent invitations to the embassy of country E in country F in order to inter alia permit the player to get a visa for country E to join the training held in, however it did not manage to contact the player between 30 December and 5 January. 80. In view of the aforementioned, the club concluded that the player preferred to stay in country B for the New Year celebrations, which impacted on the renewal of his visa and caused his absence during five days at the training organised by the club. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, the DRC took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 22 June 2011. Consequently, the DRC concluded that 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 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 lit. i. in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012) the DRC 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 a club from country D. 3. Furthermore, the DRC 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, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations (editions 2010 and 2012) and considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 22 June 2011, the 2010 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 and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC entered into the substance of the matter. The DRC started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the documentation contained in the file. However, the Chamber emphasized 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. First of all, the Chamber acknowledged that, on 1 March 2010, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 2 March 2012 and in accordance with which the Respondent would pay the Claimant a monthly salary of 2,110,837. 6. The Chamber also noted that the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an Annex, which provides that for the sporting season 2010, the Claimant would receive a lump amount of 7,036,125 payable in two installments. 7. Additionally, the members of the Chamber noted that in accordance with art. 4 of said Annex, and at the end of the sporting season 2010, the parties agreed to mutually renegotiate the contract signed by and between them, in particular its financial terms. 8. The DRC further observed that on 22 June 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent in which he asserted that the latter terminated the Contract and the Annex without just cause. 9. The DRC then noted that, on account of the above, the Claimant is seeking payment of the amount of EUR 204,213, corresponding to i) outstanding salaries for the months of December 2010 and January 2011, ii) the reimbursement of flight tickets in the amount of EUR 3,300 and iii) compensation for the Respondent’s unjustified termination of the contractual relationship in the equivalent amount of EUR 193,713. 10. In this respect, the members of the Chamber further noted that besides the Claimant’s arguments related to the Respondent’s alleged breach of its financial obligations, the Claimant had underlined that on 5 February 2011, the Respondent would have expelled him from a team training camp organised by the Respondent in country E. 11. Furthermore, the Claimant asserted that the Respondent’s failure to secure him a visa made him unable to join the team before 11 January 2011 following the winter holidays. 12. On the other hand, the DRC members duly noted that the Respondent acknowledged having terminated the contractual relationship with the Claimant and had held in this respect that said termination was effected in conformity with the contractual stipulations, the FIFA regulations as well as the rules of the from country D labour Code. 13. In continuation, the DRC noted that the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim and particularly denied having expelled him from the above-mentioned training camp. 14. Likewise, the Chamber duly noted the Respondent’s position in accordance with which the Claimant had repeatedly been returning late or having been absent from the club, without authorisation and that as a result thereof, the Respondent took two disciplinary sanctions against the Claimant, which were communicated to him via correspondence dated 31 December 2010 and 14 January 2011, respectively. In this respect, the members yet noted that the Claimant denied having ever received said Respondent’s disciplinary-related notifications. 15. Finally, the Chamber also took due note of the Respondent’s position in relation to the Claimant’s financial claim. 16. In view of the allegations and arguments presented by the parties involved in the present matter, the Chamber underlined that in order to be able to establish as to whether, as claimed by Claimant, and contested by the Respondent, the Respondent’s termination of the contractual relationship was deprived of just cause, it should focus its attention on the circumstances surrounding the execution of the contract as from the month of December 2010 up and until 16 February 2011. 17. In this respect, the Chamber firstly referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Rules which sets forth that any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. 18. In this regard, the members of the Chamber stressed that based on the Respondent’s submissions, and if one sets aside a reported single-day absence on 16 February 2011, the two reasons which the Respondent relied on for having unilaterally terminated the contractual relationship with the Claimant were the Claimant’s reported late returns in December 2010 and in January 2011, for which the Claimant already appears to have been imposed disciplinary sanctions by the Respondent, consisting of a warning and a reprimand, respectively. 19. In this context, however, the Chamber found, after a careful analysis of the information and evidence available on file, that the Respondent’s position that it had duly informed the Claimant in a clear and timely manner of the dates when the Claimant was expected to return to the club to resume his duties was not corroborated by satisfactory evidence. 20. What is more, the DRC referred to the well-established jurisprudence of the DRC and emphasised that, as a general rule, it is the club´s duty and responsibility to act accordingly in order to obtain, if necessary, a work permit or a visa for its players prior to the signing of an employment contract or during its period of validity, in order for players to be able to legally enter a particular country and be in a position to render their services to the club 21. In continuation, the Chamber found that as at the date of the termination of the contractual relationship, i.e. 16 February 2011, the Respondent had failed to fully comply with its financial obligations as it had failed to pay the Claimant’s salaries for December 2010 and January 2011 in full on their respective due dates. 22. Indeed, the Chamber stressed that the document submitted by the Respondent in support of its explanations of the amounts it claims it paid to the Claimant was not showing any actual payments of the amounts contained therein to the Claimant. 23. Additionally, the Chamber wished to point out that the Respondent’s argument in accordance with which the Claimant was to receive his monthly remuneration on a prorata temporis basis was not justified by any contractual basis. 24. On account of the above, the DRC established that the Respondent had terminated the contractual relationship with the Claimant without just cause on 16 February 2011. 25. Bearing in mind the previous considerations, the DRC went on to deal with the consequences of the early termination of the employment contract without just cause by the Respondent. 26. First of all, the DRC reverted to the Claimant’s request regarding the partial non-payment of two of his monthly salaries at the time of the unilateral termination of the contract and recalled in this regard that the Respondent had not given any valid explanations or justifications for the partial non-payment of these two monthly salaries. 27. In view of the above, the members stressed that the Respondent must fulfill its obligations as per employment contract in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda. 28. Consequently, the DRC decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the remuneration that was outstanding at the time of the early termination of the employment contract by the Claimant, i.e. the amount of 1,600,014. 29. In continuation, the DRC turned its attention to the Claimant’s request that he be reimbursed an amount of EUR 3,300 in connection with flight tickets. 30. In this respect, the Chamber once more referred to the principle of the burden of proof and, considering that said request is unsubstantiated, it decided to reject this claim of the Claimant. 31. In continuation, the DRC decided that, taking into consideration the Claimant’s respective claim and art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Claimant would, in principle, be entitled to receive from the Respondent compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding salaries on the basis of the relevant employment contract. 32. In this context, the DRC outlined that, in accordance with said provision, 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. 33. In application of the relevant provision, the DRC held that it first of all had to clarify whether the pertinent employment contract contained any clause, by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon a compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. 34. In this regard, the DRC established that no such compensation clause was included in the contract or the annex at the basis of the matter at hand. 35. Subsequently, the DRC noted that the Claimant’s claim for compensation for breach of contract in the total amount of EUR 193,713 was three folds. In particular, the Chamber noted that the Claimant claimed that he be granted 27,440,881, corresponding to his calculation of the residual value of the contract, 7,036,250 corresponding to two signing-on fees and an unspecified lump amount of EUR 30,000 as compensation for the Claimant’s moral and professional prejudice. 36. In this context, the Chamber firstly wished to recall that in line with its long and well established jurisprudence, it was not in a position to grant the Claimant’s request related to his alleged moral and professional prejudice as said claim is deprived of contractual basis and on the basis of the lack of evidence in this respect. 37. The Chamber hence decided to reject said request. 38. In continuation, the Chamber found that the Claimant’s claim in the amount of 7,036,250 allegedly corresponding to two signing-on fees related to the sporting season 2011 contractual basis. 39. As a result, the members of the Chamber agreed that such claim is also to be rejected. 40. Finally, the Chamber turned its attention to the Claimant’s claim for compensation based on his calculation of the residual value of the contract. 41. Indeed, the DRC recalled its well-established practice in accordance with which the residual value of the contract, i.e. the remuneration which the player would have earned as from the date of the termination of the relevant contract until its normal expiry, usually serves as a basis for the calculation of the compensation for breach of contract. 42. In this respect, the members of the Chamber noted that the amount set forth by the Claimant corresponds to thirteen times the amount of 2,110,837, i.e. the monthly salary due by the Respondent to the Claimant on the basis of the contract for the sporting season 2010 (cf. point I.2. above). 43. However, the Chamber also noted that according to art. 4 of the Annex (cf. point I.6. above), the parties had agreed to mutually review the contract signed by and between them and in particular its financial terms for the sporting season 2011, which corresponds to the period of time encompassed by the Claimant’s claim for compensation for breach of contract. 44. Considering the fact that no amount was mutually agreed upon between the two parties in relation to the Claimant’s monthly remuneration for the sporting season 2011, the Chamber concluded that in the absence of identified contractual amount, it cannot establish an amount of compensation due to the Claimant. 45. Consequently, the Claimant’s claim for compensation for breach of contract based on his calculation of the residual value of the contract must be rejected. 46. In light of all the above considerations, the DRC decided to partially accept the Claimant’s claim and held that the Respondent is liable to pay the total amount of 1,600,014 to the Claimant, consisting of the Claimant’s outstanding remuneration at the time of the unilateral termination of the contract without just cause by the Respondent. 47. The DRC concluded his deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim of the Claimant is rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of 1,600,014, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. In the event that the above-mentioned amount due to the Claimant is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the aforementioned time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 5. 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received. ***** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to article 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