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 24 April 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Philippe Diallo (France), member Todd Durbin (USA), 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 24 April 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Philippe Diallo (France), member Todd Durbin (USA), 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 23 July 2007, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded an employment contract valid as of 10 January 2008 until 10 December 2011. 2. On 2 December 2011, the Respondent submitted a letter to the Claimant (hereinafter: the recognition of debt) stating that “[the Respondent] undertakes to pay [the Claimant] the amount of USD 200,000 net regarding the (contract) year of 2009, until February 2012”. 3. On 26 February 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA claiming the amount contained in the recognition of debt, i.e. USD 200,000 plus 5% interest p.a. “as from the respective due date, i.e. February 2012…” 4. In particular, the Claimant explained that the recognition of debt was signed in view of the failure of the Respondent to pay “part of the bonus for the access to the First Division (Country D-League) as well as part of the remuneration regarding season 2009”. 5. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent argued that “we are surprised at the sudden inquiry from [the Claimant]” and that “In fact, under the consent of him, there was delaying the payment of compensation. However, as of the Agreement (exhibit 1 by country D), he has agreed to complete the payment with us”. In this respect, the Respondent enclosed an “Agreement” in the language of country D dated 20 August 2012 (hereinafter: the settlement agreement) signed by both parties which, according to the translation provided by the Respondent, reads as follows: “[The parties have] agreed that all the payment has completely ended by payment of September 2012 (hereinafter called the layer payment). [the Claimant] will receive the last payment within 7 days from the date of sign of this agreement as is not allowed to claim extra payment at all. The agreement in the language of country D is admitted as formal document”. 6. In view of the above, according to the Respondent, the Claimant accepted having received all his remuneration thus, the claim must be rejected. 7. In his replica, the Claimant “vehemently sustains that he has never signed the referenced agreement” and argued that said settlement agreement was created by the Respondent. In this respect, the Claimant presented a report (hereinafter: the expert report) issued by Mr T, “a Certified Forensic Document Expert, specialised in signature identification, handwriting and hand printing records”, who determined that the Claimant’s signature contained in the settlement agreement “was not produced by the same author of the paradigm exemplars, therefore, I conclude it is a forgery”. 8. Furthermore, the Claimant stressed that on 26 February 2012, the player entered into a new employment contract with the club from country E, Club F valid until 31 October 2012. Consequently, according to the Claimant, “in date in which the club alleges the agreement was signed (…), the player was in country E” and that therefore, it seems quite improbable that he would travel to country D in order to sign an agreement waiving the right to receive USD 200,000 without any apparent reason. 9. In view of the foregoing, the Claimant sustained that he never signed the agreement and thus, ratified his claim. 10. In its duplica, the Respondent sustained that the Claimant did sign the settlement agreement and argued that “[the Claimant] himself sent me e-mail on 5 September 2012 3:41 p.m. (…) with the attachment of the agreement which was signed only by him in advance (…) for the purpose of smooth procedure of signature of our club.” 11. In addition, the Respondent held that “the last payment from us to his bank account have been completed on 31 August 2012, which was recorded with bank certification”. In this regard, the Respondent enclosed an “Application for Remittance” dated 31 August 2012 for the amount of USD 40,000. 12. After having been requested by FIFA to provide his comments on the Respondent’s latest submission, the Claimant firstly stressed that the Respondent “confirms having signed” the recognition of debt and that by ignoring the expert report and not providing “any word or comment about it”, the Respondent “confirms that the agreement was forged”. 13. As to the alleged e-mail sent by him, the Claimant sustained that he never addressed any e-mail to the club on 5 September 2012. Moreover, the player made the following remarks: a. It is not clear if the e-mail enclosed by the Respondent corresponds to one e-mail or to two since “there is a transcription which seems to be one email at the top of the page (in the language of country D) and another one, below it, (in the language of country B)”; b. The e-mail is written in the language of country D and the language of country B, i.e. not in a FIFA official language hence, it cannot be taken into consideration by the Chamber; c. The contents of the e-mail “detains very unusual words and grammar mistakes which clearly dismiss any possibility of having being written by a native speaker of the language of country B”; d. The e-mail in “the language of country B” does not appear to have any document attached; e. The e-mail in “the language of country D” seems to have a document attached but there is neither any indication nor confirmation that such attachment was the agreement; f. It appears that the sender and the date were “purposely occulted”. 14. As to the payment of USD 40,000 apparently made by the Respondent, the Claimant argued that the said payment “has no connection whatsoever with the statement of admission of debt dated 2 December 2011, as neither as may be considered as evidence that [the player] accepted to waive the right to receive overdue amount”. 15. Furthermore, the Claimant reiterated the arguments of his previous positions. 16. Despite having been asked to do so, the club did not provide FIFA with any further comments. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as DRC or Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 26 February 2014. Consequently, the 2012 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 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 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 Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015), and considering that the claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 26 February 2014, the 2012 edition of the aforementioned 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, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file. 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. First of all, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that on 23 July 2007, the parties entered into an employment contract valid as of 10 January 2008 until 10 December 2011. Moreover, the Chamber took note that on 2 December 2011, the Respondent submitted the recognition of debt to the Claimant, undertaking to pay to the latter the amount of USD 200,000 “until February 2012”. 6. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber noted that, according to the Respondent, on 20 August 2012, the parties concluded the settlement agreement whereby, apparently, the Claimant declared “that all the payment has completely ended by payment of September 2012” and that “[it] is not allowed to extra payment at all”. 7. Conversely, the members of the Chamber took note that the Claimant denied having signed the settlement agreement and stressed that such was created by the Respondent. In this respect, the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant provided an expert report which concluded that the Claimant’s signature on the settlement agreement had been forged. 8. At this point, the DRC deemed it appropriate to remind the parties of the legal principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right from an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. 9. Having said this, the DRC, first of all, held that the alleged e-mail of 5 September 2012 could not be considered as it was not submitted with a translation into one of the four FIFA official languages, despite the Respondent being duly informed by the FIFA administration that failure to provide the necessary translation of a document into one of the official languages, could result in the document in question being disregarded. What is more, the members of the Chamber were eager to emphasise that the Respondent did not challenge neither the validity of the expert report presented by the Claimant nor its conclusion, i.e. that the Claimant’s signature was forged, thereby, in the Chamber’s opinion, accepting the arguments of the Claimant in this regard. 10. On account of the above, and in the absence of an original document, the DRC was of the unanimous opinion that the Respondent was unable to prove, to the Chamber’s satisfaction, that the Claimant actually signed the settlement agreement. 11. In view of the foregoing, the members of the Chamber decided not to take into consideration the settlement agreement. 12. In continuation, the DRC highlighted that the Respondent did not dispute the validity of the recognition of debt. Therefore, the DRC concluded that on 2 December 2011, the Respondent agreed to pay to the Claimant USD 200,000 “until February 2012”. 13. Having said this, the DRC turned its attention to the “Application for Remittance” for USD 40,000 submitted by the Respondent and observed that, in this regard, the Claimant only argued that said payment “has no connection whatsoever with the statement of admission of debt dated 2 December 2011”. Nevertheless, the DRC highlighted that i) the application for remittance was dated 31 August 2012, i.e. after the recognition of debt was concluded and ii) the Claimant did not deny having received the amount stated therein. As such, the DRC concluded that the Respondent paid to the Claimant USD 40,000 on 31 August 2012, amount which shall be deducted from the USD 200,000 stipulated in the recognition of debt. 14. As a consequence of the above-mentioned considerations and while referring to the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the members of the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 160,000 in accordance with the recognition of debt. 15. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 160,000 as from 1 March 2012 until the date of effective payment. 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, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of USD 160,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 1 March 2012 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest are not paid within the stipulated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s 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 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