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(DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 12 May 2015, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, 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 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(DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 12 May 2015, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, 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 between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 April 2014, 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 (hereinafter: the contract), valid from the date of the signature until 31 October 2014. 2. Clause 2.1 of the contract established that the Claimant is entitled to a salary in accordance with “Schedule A” “at the end of each month”. 3. “Schedule A” established a salary of USD 8,000 per month to be paid “no later than the 7th of the following month”. 4. On 4 February 2015, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent before FIFA, requesting the total amount of USD 27,200 plus 5% interest as from the respective due dates, as follows: • USD 8,000 regarding the salary of May 2014; • USD 8,000 regarding the salary of June 2014; • USD 800 regarding part of the salary of July 2014; • USD 800 regarding part of the salary of August 2014; • USD 1,600 regarding part of the salary of September 2014; • USD 8,000 regarding the salary of October 2014. 5. According to the Claimant, the Respondent failed to pay the salaries of May, June and October 2014 and part of the salaries of July, August and September 2014. 6. Moreover, on 13 September 2014, the Respondent remitted via email a document named “Payment of wages for Contract Premier League 2014” dated 11 September 2014, by means of which it informed the Claimant that he was not obliged to attend any training sessions during the months of September and October 2014 and that his salary for August, September and October 2014 would be lowered to USD 7,200. 7. The Respondent submitted its response denying owing the salaries for the months of June and July 2014. In this respect, the Respondent submitted lists of payments made to the players issued by the Respondent. 8. On the other hand, the Respondent stated having duly informed the Claimant that he should not train during the months of August, September and October 2014, reason why his salaries were reduced by 10%. 9. Moreover, since the Claimant had allegedly returned to his home country, another 10% was deducted from the salary of October 2014, “amount is equivalent to that of a price of a flight ticket which the player had to pay if he were to return to country D”. Such deduction was allegedly agreed upon with the player over the phone. 10. Finally, the Respondent offered to pay the Claimant USD 2,400 corresponding to the 10% deducted from the salaries of August, September and October 2014. 11. In his replica, the Claimant insisted in his claim, stating the following: • The Respondent did not contest owing him the salary of May 2014; • The documents provided by the Respondent to demonstrate the payment of salaries of June and July 2014 are issued, stamped and signed by the club itself and cannot be considered; • The Respondent has no right to unilaterally reduce the monthly salaries. 12. The Respondent submitted its final comments stating the following: • It had paid the salaries of May and June 2014; • Regarding the salaries of July and August 2014, the player requested to return to country B in July 2014 and the Respondent agreed paying for the flight tickets to the player and his family and deducted 10% of the monthly salaries; • Regarding the salary of September 2014, the Respondent deducted 20% of the salary, since the player was not attending training sessions and considering the value of the flight ticket for him to return to country D; • Regarding the salary of October 2014, the Respondent allegedly paid the amount of USD 6,400, deducting 20% of the monthly salary as explained above. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First of all, the DRC judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 4 February 2015. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2014; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015) he 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 judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 4 February 2015, the 2014 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC judge started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the DRC judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. In this respect, the DRC judge acknowledged that the parties had signed the contract on 1 April 2014, in accordance with which the player was entitled to receive a monthly salary in the amount of USD 8,000 for the term of the contract. 6. In continuation, the DRC judge noted that the Claimant alleged that the Respondent had failed to pay the aggregate amount of USD 27,200, regarding the monthly salaries between May and October 2014, and asked to be awarded with the payment of the said amount plus interest. 7. Equally, the DRC judge took note of the reply of the Respondent, which asserted that it had already paid the Claimant the monthly salaries claimed. Moreover, the DRC judge took note that the Respondent held having allegedly deducted part of the salaries of August, September and October 2014 after informing the Claimant, on 13 September 2014, that he should not train with the club and that his monthly salary would be lowered to USD 7,200. Moreover, the Respondent alleged having further deducted a percentage of the salaries of September 2014 and October 2014, considering the payment of flight tickets to the Claimant. 8. Finally, the Respondent offered to pay the amount of USD 2,400 to the Claimant, corresponding to 10% of the salaries for August, September and October 2014. 9. With due consideration to the above, the DRC judge acknowledged that the Claimant stated not having received the amount of USD 27,200, whereas the Respondent states that it has already paid the Claimant the due amounts after applying different reductions to the remuneration established in the contract. 10. In this respect, the DRC judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. 11. According to this, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent only provided lists issued by the club itself to demonstrate the payment of the monthly salaries. The DRC judge stressed that such a list cannot be considered as reliable proof that the Respondent indeed paid the relevant amounts. Therefore, the Respondent had failed to demonstrate the effective payment of the amounts claimed. 12. In continuation, regarding the several reductions intended to be applied by the Respondent to the monthly salaries, the DRC judge considered that, on the one hand, the club failed to demonstrate the payment of any flight ticket and, on the other hand, the deductions of 10% because the player was not obliged to train also cannot be accepted. In connection with the letter dated 11 September 2014, the DRC judge stressed that a club cannot unilaterally decide that the player does not have to attend training sessions and simultaneously amend the player’s financial entitlements. Such a measure can only be taken with the agreement of the player. 13. Thus, the DRC judge deemed appropriate to highlight that the Respondent cannot unilaterally decrease the remuneration agreed in the contract by both parties and thus, the Claimant was entitled to receive the monthly salary in the amount of USD 8,000 in accordance with the “Schedule A” of the contract. 14. In view of all of the above, the DRC judge concluded that the Respondent had failed to pay to the Claimant the monthly salaries as agreed upon between the parties in the contract for the period between May and October 2014 without any valid justification. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent must fulfil its obligations as per the contract and, consequently, is to be held liable to pay the outstanding amount of USD 27,200 to the Claimant. 15. With regard to the claimed interests, the DRC judge decided that, in accordance with the long-standing jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the Respondent had to pay default interest on the amount of USD 27,200 at a rate of 5% p.a. as of the respective due dates. III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is 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 27,200 plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows: - 5% p.a. as of 8 June 2014 on the amount of USD 8,000; - 5% p.a. as of 8 July 2014 on the amount of USD 8,000; - 5% p.a. as of 8 August 2014 on the amount of USD 800; - 5% p.a. as of 8 September 2014 on the amount of USD 800; - 5% p.a. as of 8 October 2014 on the amount of USD 1,600; - 5% p.a. as of 8 November 2014 on the amount of USD 8,000; 3. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. 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 DRC judge 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 DRC judge: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives