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 16 October 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Todd Durbin (USA), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member John Bramhall (England), 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 16 October 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Todd Durbin (USA), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member John Bramhall (England), 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 17 August 2010, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: the player or Claimant) and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the club or Respondent) signed an employment contract valid as from 15 August 2010 until 30 June 2014 (hereinafter: the contract). The contract includes a financial appendix which provides that “for the official games from the First League we offer bonuses of EUR 2,000 per point, amount that will be paid 50% after the match and the rest of 50% at the qualification in Champions League or Europa League groups”. 2. On 20 January 2012, the player and the club signed an amendment (hereinafter: the second agreement) to the contract which provided that there were no longer any mutual debts arising from the contract, that the new term of the contract was 30 June 2012, and that the player was now entitled to receive EUR 65,000 for the remainder of the contractual relationship, as follows: a. EUR 15,000, payable for January 2012; and, b. monthly remuneration of EUR 10,000 payable as from February 2012 until 30 June 2012. 3. In addition, the second agreement provides that it “cancels the previous financial appendix” and in particular that “the other provisions in the contract remain unaltered”. 4. On 17 December 2013, the player lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the club asking that he be paid outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 91,000, pertaining to EUR 35,000 in unpaid salaries and EUR 56,000 unpaid league bonuses plus 5% interest p.a. from the day the club was in breach of the agreement, as well as the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against the club. The player further claims EUR 20,000 to cover his legal fees. 5. The player claims to have not been paid his salaries since the beginning of April 2012. In addition, he claims that the club accumulated 28 first league points during the months of April and May 2012 and that he is therefore entitled to receive unpaid league bonuses. 6. In spite of having been invited by FIFA to provide its position regarding the claim, the club did not respond to the claim or make any statement during the course of the investigation. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or 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 17 December 2013. Consequently, the 2012 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2012; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 1 and par. 2 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 conjunction with art. 22 lit. (b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2014) (hereinafter: the Regulations) the DRC 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. In continuation, the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber referred on the one hand to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2014), and on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 17 December 2013 and concluded that the 2012 edition of 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 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. The Chamber, however, 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, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that on 17 August 2010, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an employment contract valid as from 15 August 2010 until 30 June 2014 and that, on 20 January 2012, the parties signed an agreement by means of which the contract was amended. 6. The Chamber then reviewed the claim of the Claimant, who maintains that he is entitled to outstanding remuneration of EUR 35,000 in unpaid salaries and EUR 56,000 in unpaid league bonuses. Therefore, he asks that the Respondent be ordered to pay the total amount of EUR 91,000 plus interest. 7. At this point the Chamber recalled that art. 1 of the amendment provides that it “cancels the previous financial appendix”. In continuation, the members of the Chamber noted that art. 4 of the amendment provides that “The other provisions in the contract remain unaltered”. 8. 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 members of the DRC were of the opinion that the Respondent renounced its right of defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 9. Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned considerations, the Chamber 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, i.e. upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant. 10. In continuation, the members of the DRC acknowledged that in accordance with the amendment to the contract provided by the Claimant, the Respondent was obliged to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 65,000 from 20 January 2012 until 30 June 2012. 11. In this respect, the Chamber took into consideration that according to the Claimant, the Respondent had failed to pay his remuneration in the total amount of EUR 35,000, corresponding to unpaid salaries since April 2012 until 30 June 2012, i.e. until the date of termination of the contract. 12. Taking into account the documentation presented by the Claimant in support of his petition, the members of the DRC concluded that the Claimant substantiated his claim pertaining to outstanding remuneration with sufficient documentary evidence. 13. In particular, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant held that he had not been paid since April 2012. In this regard, the Chamber determined that the salaries owed as from April 2012 until the termination of the employment contract on 30 June 2012, should have been paid by the Respondent, i.e. the Claimant was entitled to three monthly salaries of EUR 10,000 each. 14. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the members of the DRC established that the Respondent failed to remit the Claimant’s monthly remuneration in the total of EUR 30,000 corresponding to the months of April, May and June 2012. 15. Consequently, the Chamber decided that in accordance with the general principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the claimant outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR 30,000. 16. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 10,000 as from 1 May 2012 until the date of effective payment; interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 10,000 as from 31 May 2012 until the date of effective payment; and interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 10,000 as from 1 July 2012 until the date of effective payment. 17. Furthermore, and irrespective of the foregoing considerations, the Chamber noted that the Claimant held that he had not been paid EUR 56,000 in league match bonuses. Given that the player’s entitlement to bonus payments was cancelled with the signature of the amendment (cf. point II.7 above), the player’s claim for these bonus payments must be rejected. 18. In addition, with regards to the claimed legal expenses, the Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules as well as its long-standing and well-established jurisprudence, 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. 19. Finally, the members of the DRC concluded their deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 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 EUR 30,000 plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows: a. 5% p.a. as of 1 May 2012 on the amount of EUR 10,000; b. 5% p.a. as of 31 May 2012 on the amount of EUR 10,000; c. 5% p.a. as of 1 July 2012 on the amount of EUR 10,000. 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. 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