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 18 December 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Philippe Piat (France), member on the claim presented by the player, Player P, from country I as Claimant against the club, Club T, from country A 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 theDispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 18 December 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Philippe Piat (France), member on the claim presented by the player, Player P, from country I as Claimant against the club, Club T, from country A as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 31 August 2012, Player P, from country I (hereinafter: the Claimant), and Club T, from country A (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 1 August 2012 until 1 August 2013. 2. According to art. 11 of the contract, the Claimant is entitled to 10 monthly salaries of EUR 3,000 gross, payable from August 2012 until May 2013, no later than the 15th day of the following month. 3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, art. 11 of the contract also provides the following: “Article 11. Duties of the Club. 1. The Player’s remuneration for the work done in favour of the Club will be: e) Depending on the organization during the football games and Superleague Championship, the Player will be rewarded with monthly remuneration as follows: I. When activated as a holder in formation, will be rewarded with 100% of the predetermined monthly amount; II. When activated as a substitute, he will be rewarded at the extent of 70% of predetermined monthly amount; III. In case of his not activating, he will be rewarded at the extent of 30% of predetermined monthly amount.” 4. On 24 February 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA requesting to be awarded the total amount of EUR 12,940.10 plus “relevant legal interests”, according to the following breakdown: - EUR 10,800 for four monthly outstanding salaries for August 2012, March, April and May 2013; - EUR 730 for the unpaid part of the salary of February 2013; - EUR 1,110.10 for legal interests until 28 January 2014 as per art. 120 of the country A Labour Code; - EUR 300 for legal fees. 5. In this regard, the Claimant explained that the Respondent did not pay his salary of August 2012 and his salaries from March until May 2013, in spite of having put the Respondent in default. Additionally, the Claimant asserts that the Respondent made in June 2013 a partial payment in connection with his salary of February 2013 and would still owe him EUR 730 for such month. 6. In its reply, the Respondent argues that, in accordance with art. 11.1.e) of the contract (cf. point I.3. above), the Claimant would be entitled, in principle, to EUR 7,650 gross in connection with the alleged unpaid salaries. The foregoing would be based, according to the Respondent, on its allegation that the Claimant would have not played any match on August 2012, February 2013 and May 2013. Therefore, the Claimant was entitled to EUR 900, i.e. 30% of EUR 3,000, for those months. Regarding April 2013, the Claimant would have been part of the starting line-up in all the official matches and, therefore, would be entitled to 100% of EUR 3,000. As regards to March 2013, the Respondent explains that because there were 4 official matches during that month and the Claimant was part of the starting line-up in only 2 of them, the Respondent divided EUR 3,000 by 4, so that for each match the Claimant would be entitled to EUR 750. However, since he did not play in two of them, the Claimant would be entitled only to 30% of EUR 750 for the two official matches he did not play, i.e. EUR 225 each. 7. Moreover, the Respondent asserts that since the salary was established on a gross basis, 21.2% needs to be discounted as income tax (i.e. 10%) and health insurance (i.e. 11.2%). Therefore, the net amount payable to the Claimant would be EUR 5,928.20. 8. Finally, the Respondent acknowledges a debt of EUR 4,645 in favour of the Claimant considering that it paid on 18 June 2013 currency of country A 278,851 to the Claimant on account of his salary of February 2013 (cf. point I.4. and I.5. above). It also claims that the interest rate that should be applied is 5% p.a. and that no legal expenses should be awarded as per FIFA’s procedural rules. 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 matter at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 24 February 2014. Consequently, the 2012 edition of the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is 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 and par. 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2012 and 2014) 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 I player and an country A 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 2014; hereinafter: the Regulations), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 24 February 2014, the 2012 edition of said 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 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. In this respect, the members of the DRC acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that, on 31 August 2012, they signed an employment contract, valid as from 1 August 2012 until 1 August 2013. 6. The DRC further noted that the parties also do not dispute the fact that the Claimant’s monthly salary amounts to EUR 3,000 gross, payable from August 2012 until May 2013, no later than the 15th day of the following month. 7. Finally, the Chamber acknowledged that it was equally undisputed by the parties that the Claimant had to pay country A income tax, which corresponds to 10% of his gross monthly salary. 8. Subsequently, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant maintains that the Respondent owes him EUR 11,530 for outstanding remuneration and EUR 1,110.10 for legal interests based on country A law. 9. Furthermore, the DRC noted that the Respondent acknowledges the existence of outstanding amounts in favour of the Claimant for each monthly salary claimed by him, stating an amount lower than the one requested by the Claimant as a consequence of applying art. 11.1.e) of the contract (cf. point I.3. above) and a 11.2% discount for health insurance contributions. 10. Likewise, the Chamber took into consideration the argument of the Respondent as to the inapplicability of art. 120 of the country A Labour Code for the calculation of interests on the outstanding amounts in favour of the Claimant. 11. Having established the aforementioned, the DRC deemed that the central issue in the matter at stake would be, thus, to determine the amount of outstanding remuneration owed by the Respondent to the Claimant. In order to do so, the DRC would first need to assess the validity and enforceability of art. 11.1.e) of the contract. 12. In this context, the Chamber recalled that according to art. 11.1.e) of the contract, the Respondent is entitled to unilaterally decrease the basic salary due to the Claimant if the latter does not appear in the starting line-up for the matches of the Respondent, which is a technical decision to be exclusively made by the Respondent. 13. Regardless of the question as to whether such measure as set out in the aforementioned contractual term would be applicable to the situation in the present matter, the Chamber agreed that a decrease in any payments to the Claimant by the Respondent is not validly applicable on the basis of the aforementioned art. 11.1.e) due to the unilateral and arbitrary character of such clause. 14. In addition, bearing in mind art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof, the Chamber deemed that the Respondent had not presented any documentation which would demonstrate that the discount to be applied as health insurance contribution corresponds to 11.2% of the gross monthly salary of the Claimant. 15. In view of the foregoing, the members of the Chamber agreed that art. 11 of the contract (cf. point I.2. above) unambiguously stipulates that the Respondent has to pay a monthly gross remuneration of EUR 3,000 to the Claimant, from which a 10% must be deducted as income tax. Therefore, the net monthly remuneration owed to the Claimant corresponds to EUR 2,700. 16. Furthermore, the Chamber highlighted that, although the Respondent did not submit any evidence in that regard, the Claimant acknowledged a partial payment of his monthly remuneration of February 2013. 17. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC established that the Respondent had failed to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 11,530, corresponding to his net monthly salaries of August 2012, part of February 2013 and March, April and May 2013. Consequently, the DRC concluded that, in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 11,530. 18. In addition, the DRC took into consideration art. 104 of the Swiss Code of Obligations, which sets forth that “a debtor in default on payment of a pecuniary debt must pay default interest of 5% per annum even where a lower rate of interest was stipulated by contract. Where the contract envisages a rate of interest higher than 5%, whether directly or by agreement of a periodic bank commission, such higher rate of interest may also be applied while the debtor remains in default.” 19. In this context, the members of the Chamber noted that the contract does not stipulate any rate of interest in case of default and that the one established in the country A Labour Code cannot be upheld because it was not included in any contractual clause signed between the parties. Thus, the DRC deemed that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as from the respective due dates until the date of effective payment. 20. Finally, as regards the claimed legal expenses, the Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as to its long-standing and well-established jurisprudence, in accordance with which no procedural compensation shall be awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject the Claimant’s request relating to legal expenses. 21. The DRC concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player P, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club T, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 11,530 plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows: a. 5% p.a. as of 16 September 2012 on the amount of EUR 2,700; b. 5% p.a. as of 16 March 2013 on the amount of EUR 730; c. 5% p.a. as of 16 April 2013 on the amount of EUR 2,700; d. 5% p.a. as of 16 May 2013 on the amount of EUR 2,700; e. 5% p.a. as of 16 June 2013 on the amount of EUR 2,700. 3. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant plus interest in accordance with the above-mentioned number 2. is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant are 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 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