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 12 March 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member Santiago Nebot (Spain), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member on the claim presented by the player, Player J, from country F as Claimant against the club, Club S, from country B 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 12 March 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member Santiago Nebot (Spain), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member on the claim presented by the player, Player J, from country F as Claimant against the club, Club S, from country B as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 23 July 2012, the player from country F, Player J (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the club from country B, Club S (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2014, i.e. 2 years. 2. According to art. III and X of the contract, the Respondent undertakes to provide the Claimant, inter alia, with: - EUR 6,400 as monthly salary until 30 June 2013, payable before the 25th day of the following month; - EUR 7,400 as monthly salary payable as from 1 July 2013; - EUR 5,000 payable until 1 August 2012; - EUR 5,000 payable until 1 August 2013; - EUR 500 as match bonus in case he is part of the starting 11 in an official match; - a middle-class car; - 4 air tickets per season. 3. In addition, art. VII of the contract establishes that “The player is entitled to 20 days of annual paid leave. The annual paid leave may be taken whenever there are no official matches of the club scheduled […]” (note: free translation from the language of country F). 4. On 28 January 2013, after putting the Respondent in default (cf. point I.13. below) the Claimant terminated the contract in writing, based on the existence of outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 20,230 and on the Respondent’s alleged “repeated pressure to terminate the contract for cause faults to the player”. 5. On 25 March 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, requesting the payment of the total amount of EUR 177,930, broken down as follows: - EUR 19,200 as outstanding salaries from 1 November 2012 to 31 January 2013 (3 x EUR 6,400); - EUR 120,800 as compensation for breach, corresponding to his salaries from 1 February 2013 to 30 June 2013 (5 x EUR 6,400 = EUR 32,000) and from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014 (12 x EUR 7,400 = EUR 88,800); - EUR 10,000 as 2 “sign-on bonuses”; - EUR 500 as unpaid match bonus; - EUR 430 as the reimbursement of an air ticket; - EUR 2,000 as reimbursement of costs with an annual car rental; - EUR 15,000 as “complementary damages and interest” for abusive attitude towards the player; - EUR 10,000 as attorney fees. 6. In his claim, the Claimant states that as from December 2012 the Respondent began to pressure him to terminate the contract amicably, which he refused. 7. By means of its letter of 17 December 2012, the Respondent had allegedly authorized the Claimant to go on holidays from 17 December 2012 until 5 January 2013. 8. Subsequently, by means of another letter dated also 17 December 2012, the Respondent informed the Claimant’s legal representative that the Claimant “needs to proceed with the training activities” and is “obliged to be tomorrow 18 December 2012 […] at the […] stadium for training”. 9. The Claimant, also on 17 December 2012, replied to the aforementioned letter of the Respondent stating that his refusal to terminate the contract amicably does not allow the Respondent to deny him his right to profit from the team’s official holidays. Finally, the Claimant requested that he should be allowed to go on holidays “at the same time of the entire professional staff from tomorrow 18 December 2012 until 4 January 2013 […]”. 10. The Claimant further provided a copy of the Respondent’s letter dated 27 December 2012, by means of which it stated that he had been absent since 18 December 2012, without any justification, and that he refused to sign the documents related to his annual paid leave. Thus, the Respondent would start disciplinary proceedings against him. 11. On 28 December 2012, the Claimant replied to such letter, referring to his correspondence of 17 December 2012 (cf. point I.9. above), denying all the Respondent’s accusations and pointing out its bad faith. 12. On 3 January 2013, the Respondent insisted on the Claimant’s need to participate in “special training sessions” as his “functional and physical condition is not satisfying”. In addition, due to the Respondent’s bad financial situation, some players might by invited to re-negotiate the terms of their contracts. 13. The Claimant claims that, as he intended to resume training on 5 January 2013, he was not authorized to undergo medical tests, he was not provided any equipment and he was prohibited to join the training. By means of his letters dated 2, 3, 5, 8 and 14 January 2013, the Claimant insisted on his right to train and claimed the payment of outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR 20,230, corresponding to his salaries for November and December 2012 (2 x EUR 6,400), his sign-on bonus (EUR 5,000), a match bonus of EUR 500, one air ticket in the amount of EUR 430 and the costs of a car rental from August to December 2012 (EUR 2,000). As his issues were not solved, the Claimant terminated the contract on 28 January 2013 (cf. point I.4. above). 14. In spite of having been invited to do so, the Respondent did not reply to the Claimant’s claim during the investigation phase. 15. After the closure of investigation, the Claimant, by means of his correspondence received on 14 November 2014, amended his claim, requesting from the Respondent the payment of the total amount of “EUR 163,000”, broken down as follows: - EUR 100,000 as partially outstanding amount as per the settlement agreement, i.e. EUR 150,000 due minus EUR 50,000 actually received (cf. points I.16., I.21. and I.22. below); - EUR 27,800 as penalty for the delay in payment (cf. point I.18. below); - EUR 15,000 as “complementary damages and interest” for abusive attitude towards the player; - EUR 10,000 as “complementary damages and interest” for repeated contractual disrespect; - EUR 10,000 as attorney fees. 16. In his amended claim, the Claimant states that, on 30 June 2014, the parties signed a settlement agreement, according to which the Respondent undertook to pay him the total amount of EUR 150,000, in the following manner: - EUR 40,000 upon signature of the agreement and before 30 July 2014; - EUR 40,000 before 1 September 2014; - EUR 40,000 before 1 November 2014; - EUR 30,000 before 1 January 2015. 17. Article 3 of the agreement stipulates that “In the case of no respecting this schedule and by simple observation of the non-payment of one payment term within this period, the full amount of the allowance for transaction becomes immediately payable without prejudice to the application of the penalty provided for in article 4 next. Player J may then file the settlement act before the board of FIFA to see the payment obligation of the Club S force the club to pay the full settlement fee in addition to the penalty clause moratorium”. 18. Furthermore, art. 4 of the agreement establishes that “In case of non-compliance by the Club S its payment obligation and without prejudice to the cassation clause causing the loss of the overall payment of compensation, the Club S will be forced to pay in excess of the amount the compensation transaction amount of 1% of the deadline expired (contractual settlement date + 10 days) per day of delay as a penalty worth the call-grading deadlines agreed”. 19. In addition, art. 5 of the agreement stipulated that: “Player J is committed to stay the proceedings pending before the FIFA until final settlement of the transaction total compensation during the last deadline of January 2015, when he shall confirm the withdrawal in writing to the Chamber dispute resolution”. 20. As per the Claimant, the Respondent failed to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement, even after he put it in default, on 7 and 21 August 2014 and on 1 September 2014. 21. On 30 September 2014, the parties signed an annex to the settlement agreement, by means of which they agreed that: a) the amount of EUR 30,000 was paid by the Respondent to the Claimant; b) the amount of EUR 50,000 should be paid as follows: EUR 20,000 until 14 October 2014 and EUR 30,000 until 31 October 2014. This amount corresponds to a re-schedule of the payments due until 1 September 2014 (cf. point I.16. above); c) the Respondent should pay the Claimant EUR 5,000 as penalty for delay in payments until 31 October 2014; d) all other articles of the settlement agreement remain unchanged. 22. The Claimant claims that the Respondent paid the amount of EUR 20,000 due until 14 October 2014, but failed to make the payment of the second instalment of EUR 30,000 (cf. point I.21. b) above). In spite of having put the Respondent in default on 6 November 2014, the Claimant did not receive his outstanding monies and, thus, amended his claim, as detailed in point I.15. above. 23. In spite of having been invited by FIFA to do so, the Respondent also did not provide its position on the Claimant’s amended claim, during the investigation phase. Only after the closure of investigation, the Respondent sent new correspondence, providing its position. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 25 March 2013 and amended, based on a new legal document signed by the parties on 14 November 2014. Consequently, the 2014 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. article 21 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 (editions 2012, 2014 and 2015) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player from country F and a club from country B. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which 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 (editions 2012, 2014 and 2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 25 March 2013 and amended on 14 November 2014, the 2014 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 DRC entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, it acknowledged that the parties to the dispute had signed an employment contract, on 23 July 2012, valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2014. The Chamber equally noted that, on 30 June 2014, the parties signed a settlement agreement, according to which the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant the total amount of EUR 150,000, as detailed in point I.16. above. Subsequently, the Chamber noted that, on 30 September 2014, the parties signed an annex to the settlement agreement, with a view to confirm the payment of EUR 30,000 by the Respondent and to re-schedule the payments due until 1 September 2014, all other clauses having remained unaltered. 5. In continuation, the DRC observed that the Respondent, for its part, in spite of having been invited twice to do so, failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant and to its amendment within the relevant time-limit. In fact, the reply of the Respondent was only received after the investigation-phase of the matter had already been concluded. As a result, the Chamber decided not to take into account the reply of the Respondent and established that, in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, it shall take a decision upon the basis of those documents on file that were provided prior to the closure of the investigation-phase, in casu, upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant. 6. In continuation, the DRC took into consideration that, according to the Claimant, from the amount of EUR 150,000 agreed upon in the settlement agreement and its annex, the Respondent had paid him the total of EUR 50,000, i.e. EUR 30,000 as confirmed in the annex to the settlement agreement (cf. point I.21.a. above) and EUR 20,000 on 14 October 2014. Thus, the amount of EUR 100,000 still remains outstanding. 7. Taking into account the documentation presented by the Claimant in support of his claim, the DRC concluded that the Claimant had substantiated his claim pertaining to outstanding payments arising from the settlement agreement of 30 June 2014 and the annex to it concluded on 30 September 2014. In particular, the Chamber noted that, in spite of the Claimant’s reminders sent to the Respondent on 7 and 21 August 2014 and on 1 September 2014, as well as the subsequent re-scheduling of the payment plan, the Respondent failed to pay the Claimant the outstanding amount of EUR 100,000. 8. Consequently, the DRC established that the Respondent failed to remit the Claimant the entire amount agreed between the parties in the settlement agreement and its annex and, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, it should be held liable to pay to the Claimant the outstanding amount of EUR 100,000. 9. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request for EUR 27,800 as a penalty for delay in payment in accordance with art. 4 of the settlement agreement of 30 June 2014 (cf. points I.15. and I.18. above), the DRC analysed the content of the aforementioned article in detail. In this respect, the DRC deemed that art. 4 of the settlement agreement was drafted in an extremely unclear manner, hindering the understanding or the interpretation of its content. Therefore, the DRC decided that it could not apply such clause in the present case. 10. In this context, the Chamber, however, took note of the content of the provision of the annex to the settlement agreement, mentioned in point I.21.c. above, which establishes that the Respondent should pay the Claimant the fixed amount of EUR 5,000 as a penalty for delay in payments until 31 October 2014. Consequently, the DRC decided that, in addition to the amount of EUR 100,000 stipulated in point II.8. above, the Claimant was also entitled to receive from the Respondent the amount of EUR 5,000, corresponding to a penalty for delay in payments, as established in the annex to the settlement agreement. 11. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed the Claimant’s claims for “complementary damages and interest” (cf. point I.15. above) and decided that they had to be rejected, due to their lack of contractual basis. As for the Claimant’s claim for attorney fees, such claim is rejected in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules 12. Finally, the DRC concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and that the Respondent should pay the Claimant the total amount of EUR 105,000. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player J, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club S, is ordered to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 105,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. If the aforementioned amount is not paid within the above-mentioned 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 its 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