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 by way of circulars on 22 June 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, Country B & Country C, as Claimant against the club, Club D, Country E, as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties in connection with overdue payables

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 by way of circulars on 22 June 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, Country B & Country C, as Claimant against the club, Club D, Country E, as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties in connection with overdue payables I. Facts of the case 1. On 29 September 2013, the player of Country B and Country C, Player A (hereinafter: Claimant), and the club of Country E, Club D (hereinafter: Respondent) signed an employment contract valid as from the day of signature until 31 July 2016. 2. Thereafter, on 29 January 2015, the Claimant and the Respondent mutually agreed to terminate the employment contract and, in consequence, concluded a settlement agreement (hereinafter: settlement agreement) by means of which the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 750,000 within three days after the signing of the settlement agreement. 3. Clause 2.2 of the settlement agreement establishes the following: “In the event the payment is done to another bank account different from the one contained herein, the payment shall be deemed as not done”. 4. Moreover, in accordance with clause 2.3 of the settlement agreement, should the Respondent not fulfil the payment agreed therein, a default interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will accrue as from the due date until the date of effective payment. 5. By correspondence dated 30 March 2015, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the amount of EUR 750,000 setting a time limit expiring on 9 April 2015 in order to remedy the default. 6. On 25 March 2015, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA that was completed on 30 March 2015, asking that the Respondent be ordered to pay to him overdue payables in the amount of EUR 750,000 corresponding to the full amount agreed in the settlement agreement. 7. The Claimant further asked to be awarded interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as of 1 February 2015 as well as legal costs. 8. In reply to the claim, the Respondent held that it was not willing to make the relevant payment to the bank account established by the Claimant in the settlement agreement. In this respect, the Respondent explained that the circumstances of the player, i.e. being a citizen of Country B and Country C living in Country F, together with the fact that the bank account informed by the Claimant is an account of Country G, turned the transfer of such amount of money “suspicious” in terms of tax compliance. 9. Based on the above, the Respondent offered to pay the outstanding amount to the Claimant in any other bank account located in a different country from Country G. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber of 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 25 March 2015. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2015; 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 and par. 2 in conjunction 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 of Country B and Country C and a club of Country E. 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 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 25 March 2015, the 2015 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: 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 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 on 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. Having said this, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent signed an employment contract valid as of 29 September 2013 until 31 July 2016. Moreover, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that the employment contract was mutually terminated on 29 January 2015 by means of the settlement agreement signed by both parties, according to which the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 750,000 within the next three days following the day of its signature. 6. The Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, maintaining that the Respondent has overdue payables towards him in the total amount of EUR 750,000 corresponding to the full amount established in the settlement agreement. 7. In this context, the DRC took particular note of the fact that, on 30 March 2015, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the aforementioned amount, setting a time limit expiring on 9 April 2015 in order to remedy the default. 8. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant had duly proceeded in accordance with art. 12bis par. 3 of the Regulations, which stipulates that the creditor (player or club) must have put the debtor club in default in writing and have granted a deadline of at least ten days for the debtor club to comply with its financial obligation(s). 9. Subsequently, the Chamber took into account that the Respondent, for its part, held that it was not willing to make the relevant payment to the bank account established by the Claimant in the settlement agreement. In this respect, the DRC took note of the argument of the Respondent, which explained that the circumstances of the player i.e. being a citizen of Country B and Country C living in Country F, together with the fact that the bank account informed by the Claimant is an account of Country G, turned the transfer of such amount of money “suspicious” in terms of tax compliance. 10. With due consideration to the above, the members of the Chamber, at this point, turned their attention to the contents of the settlement agreement and, in particular, to its clause 2.2 which reads as follows: “In the event the payment is done to another bank account different from the one contained herein, the payment shall be deemed as not done”. 11. In this regard and with reference to clause 2.2 of the settlement agreement, the DRC considered that the arguments raised by the Respondent cannot be considered a valid reason for non-payment of the monies claimed by the Claimant as it was mutually agreed in the settlement agreement, duly signed by both parties, that the payment of the due amount would explicitly be made in the bank account informed by the Claimant therein. In other words, the reasons brought forward by the Respondent in its defence do not exempt the Respondent from its obligation to fulfil its contractual obligations towards the Claimant. 12. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject the argumentation put forward by the Respondent in its defence. 13. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the Chamber established that the Respondent failed to remit the Claimant’s remuneration in the total amount of EUR 750,000 corresponding to the amount mutually agreed in the settlement agreement. 14. In addition, the DRC established that the Respondent had delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis. 15. Consequently, the members of the Chamber decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant overdue payables in the total amount of EUR 750,000. 16. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 750,000 as from 2 February 2015 until the date of effective payment. 17. Furthermore, as regards the claimed legal expenses, the Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as to the long-standing and well-established jurisprudence of the DRC, 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. 18. In continuation, taking into account the consideration under number II./14. above, the Chamber referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations which stipulates that any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis may be sanctioned in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations. 19. The DRC established that in virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations it has competence to impose sanctions on the Respondent. Bearing in mind that the Respondent duly replied to the claim of the Claimant and in the absence of the circumstance of repeated offence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided to impose a warning on the Respondent in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. a) of the Regulations. 20. In this respect, the Chamber wished to highlight that a repeated offence will be considered as an aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty in accordance with art. 12bis par. 6 of the Regulations. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club D, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, overdue payables in the amount of EUR 750,000, plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as from 2 February 2015 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant 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 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. 6. A warning is imposed on the Respondent. ***** 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