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 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 A, country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, 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 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 A, country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, country D as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 12 September 2011, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: player or Claimant) signed an employment contract with the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: club or Respondent) valid as from 10 October 2011 until 10 October 2012. 2. In accordance with said contract, the player was entitled to receive total income of 850,000,000 payable as follows: a. Signing-on fee of 425,000,000; b. Monthly salary of 35,410,000 payable “(The 1 s/d 10 Date of each Month)”. 3. The employment contract further entitles the player to receive reimbursement by the club of all expenses incurred on behalf of the club with the agreement of the club. In this connection, reference is made to air tickets. 4. On 17 July 2014, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA maintaining that the club failed to remit the following payments: a. USD 38,500 relating to 11 monthly salaries as from October 2011 until October 2012; b. USD 26,000 out of the 425,000,000 signing-on fee; c. USD 5,000 relating to an air ticket; d. USD 5,000 relating to immigration documents. 5. Therefore, the player asks that the club be ordered to pay the aforementioned amounts, in USD. 6. In addition, the player alleges that he has been blocked in country D since October 2012 causing him damages and, therefore, he asks to be awarded the additional amount of USD 75,500 as damages. 7. The player maintains having received 2 monthly salaries and part of the signing-on fee only. 8. In spite of having been invited to do so, the club has not replied to the claim. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First, 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 17 July 2014. Consequently, the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2012; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 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 (edition 2015) the Dispute Resolution Chamber would, in principle, be 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 an club from country D. 3. Subsequently, the Chamber stressed that in light of the fact that the employment contract at the basis of the present dispute was concluded on 12 September 2011 and that the Claimant had lodged his claim on 17 July 2014, the members of the Chamber should examine if the present claim, or part of it, should be considered as time-barred. 4. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, which, in completion to the general procedural terms outlined in the Procedural Rules, clearly establishes that the decision-making bodies of FIFA shall not hear any dispute if more than two years have elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute arose and that the application of this time limit shall be examined ex officio in each individual case. 5. In view of the above, the Chamber deemed it fundamental to underline that in order to determine whether it could hear the present matter, the Chamber should, first and foremost, establish which is “the event giving rise to the dispute”, i.e. which is the starting point of the time period of two years as set out in art. 25 par. 5 of the aforementioned Regulations. In this respect, the DRC referred to the claim of the Claimant, who requested outstanding salaries for the period of time between the signature of the contract and October 2012. 6. On account of the foregoing, recalling that the present claim was submitted to FIFA on 17 July 2014, the DRC concluded that the time limit of two years had elapsed for the remuneration payable as of the signature of the contract until 17 July 2014, i.e. the signing-on fee as well as salaries as of October 2011 until July 2012. Consequently, only part of the claim of the Claimant can be heard by the Dispute Resolution Chamber, i.e. the claim for the salaries as of August 2012 until October 2012 as well as the claimed air ticket, immigration costs and payment for damages. 7. Having said this, 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 2014 and 2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 17 July 2014, the 2012 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 8. 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. 9. In this respect, the DRC acknowledged that the parties to the dispute had signed a valid employment contract on 12 September 2011, in accordance with which the Respondent would pay the Claimant a total remuneration in the amount of 850,000,000 in, inter alia, 12 monthly payments in the time period between 10 October 2011 and 10 October 2012. 10. In this respect, the Chamber took into consideration that according to the Claimant, the Respondent had failed to pay his remuneration due as of August 2012 until October 2012 and to reimburse air ticket and immigration costs. In addition to the aforementioned elements, the Claimant asks to be awarded compensation for damages since he allegedly had remained blocked in country D. 11. Subsequently, the Chamber noted that the Respondent failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant, in spite of having been invited to do so. By not presenting its position to the claim, the DRC was of the opinion that the Respondent renounced its right of defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 12. Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the DRC concurred that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, it shall take a decision upon the basis of the documentation already on file; in other words, upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant. 13. Having said this, taking into account the documentation presented by the Claimant as well as 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, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant had duly substantiated his claim relating to outstanding salaries for August, September and October 2012 in the total amount of 106,230,000. 14. Therefore and in accordance with the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay outstanding remuneration in the amount of 106,230,000 to the Claimant. In this regard, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that, in accordance with its well-established jurisprudence in this respect, it cannot grant any outstanding amounts in USD, as the parties had agreed upon payment of the Claimant’s remuneration in. 15. The members of the Chamber then turned their attention to the Claimant’s claim pertaining to the amount of USD 5,000 for an air ticket. In this regard, the Chamber established that although the employment contract at the basis of the present dispute does appear to refer to an entitlement of the player to reimbursement of air ticket costs, the Claimant had omitted to present any documentary evidence for the amount of USD 5,000 claimed. Consequently, the members of the Chamber decided to reject this part of the Claimant’s claim. 16. In addition, with regard to the reimbursement of immigration costs allegedly borne by the Claimant, the Chamber noted that the relevant employment contract does not include any obligation for the Respondent to bear said costs. In addition, the Chamber highlighted that the Claimant had not presented any documentation corroborating such claim, which, therefore, had to be rejected. 17. Subsequently, the DRC analysed the request of the Claimant corresponding to compensation for damages in the amount of USD 75,500. In this regard, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to point out that the request for said compensation presented by the Claimant had no legal or regulatory basis and pointed out that no corroborating evidence had been submitted that demonstrated the damage suffered or its quantity. 18. The Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by deciding to reject any further claim lodged by the Claimant. 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 outstanding remuneration in the amount of 106,230,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, 5% interest p.a. falls due as of expiry of above-mentioned 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: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl.: CAS directives