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 27 November 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member on the matter between the player, Player L, from country P as Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the club, Club V, from country R as Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the club, Club F, from country P as Intervening Party 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 27 November 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member on the matter between the player, Player L, from country P as Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the club, Club V, from country R as Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the club, Club F, from country P as Intervening Party regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 19 February 2008, Player L, from country P (hereinafter: the Claimant/Counter-Respondent), and Club V, from country R (hereinafter: the Respondent/Counter-Claimant), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 22 February 2008 until 31 December 2010. 2. Articles 16.1, 16.2 and 16.3 of the contract stipulate, respectively, that “The applicable law is country R Law”, “The present agreement will be considered as signed in country R and all disputes, controversies, misunderstandings deriving from or in connection to the present agreement will be governed, interpreted, understood and solved according to the country R law in force, as well as to the sports statutes and regulations” and “The contractual liability, the establishment of damages and penalties are regulated by the Civil Law, the sports Statutes and Regulations, as well as by the appendices to the present agreement”. 3. Furthermore, according to art. 17.2 of the contract, “The parties will make, in good faith, all efforts in order to solve amiably any dispute, controversy or misunderstanding arising from or in connection with the present agreement. If this is not possible, the dispute will be forwarded in order to be solved only to the sports jurisdiction courts of country R Football Federation or Professional Football League”. 4. Subsequently, the parties signed an undated “annex to the contract” (hereinafter: the annex), by means of which the validity of the contract was extended for the period of 15 December 2010 until 30 June 2013. 5. According to art. 1 of the annex, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant undertakes to provide the Claimant/Counter-Respondent with: - EUR 147,600 net for the period of “15 December 2010 until 30 June 2012”, payable in 12 monthly instalments of EUR 12,300, at the latest on the 25th day of each month; - EUR 147,600 net for the period of “1 July 2012 until 30 June 2013”, payable in 12 monthly instalments of EUR 12,300, at the latest on the 25th day of each month. 6. Furthermore, art. 3 of the annex establishes that “If the player is injured during training, official or friendly matches, he will have all rights and obligations arising from this contract, according to legislation in force”. 7. On 7 August 2012, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent unilaterally terminated the employment contract with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, after having sent it three warnings on 18 July 2012, 27 July 2012 and 2 August 2012, based on the alleged existence of outstanding remuneration towards him, in the total amount of EUR 86,100, corresponding to the months of January to July 2012, inter alia. 8. On 12 October 2012, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for breach of contract, requesting the payment of the total amount of EUR 234,231, as follows: - EUR 86,100 corresponding to outstanding salaries for January to July 2012 (7 x EUR 12,300), plus interests of 5% as from each due date; - Currency of country R 2,428 or EUR 531 as reimbursement of costs in connection with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s injury (cf. point I.10. below); - EUR 147,600 as compensation for breach of contract corresponding to the residual amount of the contract (12 x EUR 12,300), plus interest of 5% p.a. until full payment; - attorney fees. 9. In his arguments, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims to have received the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s letters dated 21 July 2012 and 1 August 2012, in reply to his reminders of 18 July 2012, 27 July 2012 and 2 August 2012 (cf. point I.7. above). While he requested the payment of his outstanding remuneration as well as information on his training schedule, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant accused him of not complying with the recovery program assigned to him by the club’s doctor, having therefore violated the club’s internal regulations. 10. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent rejects the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s accusations and claims that he has followed all instructions of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in relation to his injury. In this regard, he provides a copy of a “medical letter” dated 7 August 2012, issued by the Arcadia hospital, according to which “the player consulted in our services on 05/07/2012” and of an invoice dated 5 July 2012, issued by the same hospital, detailing the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s debts for his treatment in the amount of currency of country R 574. In addition, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent points out that he bore all the costs related to his injury. 11. Not having received the payment of his allegedly outstanding salaries neither information on his training schedule, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated the contract on 7 August 2012 (cf. point I.7. above). 12. In its reply, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant disputed the jurisdiction of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber in favour of the National Dispute Resolution Chamber of the country R Football Federation or of the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the country R Professional Football League, referring to clauses 16.1, 16.2, 16.3 and 17.2 of the employment contract (cf. points I.2. and I.3. above). 13. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant provided FIFA with a partial copy of the “Regulation on the Status and Transfer of Football Players” (edition 2011; hereinafter: the country R Football Federation Regulations) and a partial copy of the “country R Football Federation Statute” (edition not specified; hereinafter: the country R Football Federation Statute). 14. As to the substance of the case, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant maintains that before the end of the 2011/2012 season, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent suffered an injury during a training camp and was, therefore, assigned medical treatment by the club’s doctor. As per the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, after the recovery sessions in the hospital, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was supposed to follow an individual training schedule from 14 to 21 July 2012, in order to be readmitted to the main team. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant claims that, according to the report of the team’s physical coach dated 20 July 2012 the Claimant/Counter-Respondent failed to follow such schedule. 15. In spite of the reminder allegedly sent by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on 1 August 2012 requesting his return, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent failed to present himself. Thus, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant deems that he breached the contract without just cause on 14 July 2012. 16. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant also claims that it had paid to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the total amount of EUR 162,143.14 by 9 May 2012, in addition to all other amounts due for the first contractual period. 17. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, however, pointed out that its administrative board had imposed on him a disciplinary sanction on 27 April 2012, for an unspecified breach committed in the first contractual period. This sanction was ratified by the country R Football Federation Disciplinary Commission on 11 July 2012, and consequently the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s annual remuneration for the 2011/2012 season was reduced by 25%. Consequently, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant concluded that the amount of EUR 39,143.14 was paid in excess to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 18. Consequently, on 23 November 2012, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant lodged a counterclaim against the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, requesting the payment of the following amounts: - EUR 39,143.14 as the reimbursement of the amount paid in excess to him; - unspecified compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to “25% of contractual rights effectively paid until the termination”; - EUR 80,000 corresponding to the transfer fee paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 19. In his reply, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent first of all insisted on the competence of the FIFA DRC over the present case, since the “NDRC of country R does not respect the principle of equal representation of players and clubs”. 20. In addition, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent rejected the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim and insisted that his salaries for January to June 2012 remain outstanding. Furthermore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent stated that he had never before been informed about the existence of any pending procedure regarding a fine in the amount of 25% of his annual remuneration and points out the fact the Respondent/Counter-Claimant only provided a copy of the ratification of an alleged decision of the club in this regard and no evidence of an alleged contractual breach on his part. 21. As to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s accusations that he did not comply with the recovery treatment assigned to him, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent points out that all documentation provided by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in this regard are documents issued by the club’s employees and, therefore, cannot be taken into account. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims that not only he had to bear the costs of his own treatment but also that as from 16 July 2012 he was every day present at the club’s training camp, without a training schedule and not able to contact the club’s directors in this regard. 22. Finally, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent points out that the reminder dated 1 August 2012 mentioned by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, regarding his alleged absence, was sent almost 2 months after the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had finished his treatment in the hospital, showing that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was not interested in his services. 23. In its final position on the claim, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant maintains its previous argumentation and provides copies of 2 undated documents allegedly issued by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, according to which the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was summoned to “be heard in connection with [his] misbehaviour” on 24 April 2012 and, subsequently, informing him of the penalty imposed on him of 25% of his annual remuneration. 24. In his final position on the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent maintains his previous argumentation and denies having ever received the aforementioned documents provided by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant (cf. point I.23. above) and claims that such decision cannot be taken into account, as it was issued in violation of his right of defence. 25. In its comments, Club F (hereinafter: the Intervening Party) fully endorses the allegations of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 26. On 5 September 2012, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent signed a new employment contract with the Intervening Party, valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2013, according to which he was entitled to a monthly salary of EUR 740. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC or the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 21 par. 1 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules). The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 12 October 2012. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the edition 2008 of the Procedural Rules was applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 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 2 in combination with art. 22 b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010, 2012 and 2014; hereinafter: the Regulations), the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall adjudicate on employment-related disputes between a club and a player, with an international dimension. 3. Having said that, the DRC stated that it would, in principle, be the competent body to decide on the present litigation involving a country P player and a country R club regarding an employment-related dispute. 4. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant contested the competence of FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber to deal with the present case, stating that any dispute arisen between the parties should be submitted to the deciding bodies of the country R Football Federation and of the country R Professional Football League, on the basis of art. 16.1, 16.2, 16.3 and 17.2 of the contract (cf. points I.2. and I.3. above). 5. The Chamber equally noted that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent rejected such position and insisted on the fact that FIFA had jurisdiction to deal with the present matter, since the deciding bodies of the country R Football Federation and the country R Professional Football Federation allegedly do not respect the principle of equal representation of players and clubs. 6. Taking into account the above, the Chamber emphasised that, in accordance with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations, it is competent to deal with a matter such as the one at hand, unless an independent arbitration tribunal, guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of players and clubs, has been established at national level within the framework of the association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. With regard to the standards to be imposed on an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings, the Chamber referred to the FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20 December 2005. In this regard, the members of the Chamber further referred to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008. 7. In relation to the above, the Chamber also deemed it vital to outline that one of the basic conditions that needs to be met in order to establish that another organ than the DRC is competent to settle an employment-related dispute between a club and a player of an international dimension is that the jurisdiction of the relevant national arbitration tribunal or national court derives from a clear reference in the employment contract. 8. Therefore, while analysing whether it was competent to hear the present matter, the Dispute Resolution Chamber considered that it should, first and foremost, analyse whether the employment contract and the annex at the basis of the present dispute actually contained a jurisdiction clause. 9. Having said this, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to art. 16.1, 16.2, 16.3 and 17.2 of the contract, mentioned by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant as the basis to reject the DRC’s competence over the present case. 10. In this context, the Chamber first focused its attention on art. 16.1, 16.2 and 16.3 of the contract and, after carefully analysing their content, it concluded that such clauses do not constitute arbitration clauses. 11. Having said that, the members went on to analyse the content of art. 17.2 of the contract, equally mentioned by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. In this respect, the members of the DRC were of the opinion that art. 17.2 of the employment contract does not make clear reference to one specific national dispute resolution chamber in the sense of art. 22 lit. b) of the aforementioned Regulations. Therefore, the members of the Chamber deem that said clause can by no means be considered as a clear arbitration clause in favour of either of the national deciding bodies, i.e. of the country R Football Federation or the country R Professional Football League, and, therefore, cannot be applicable. 12. In addition, the member of the Chamber noted that the annex to the contract (cf. points I.5. and I.6. above), upon which the Claimant/Counter-Respondent bases his financial claims, does not contain any jurisdiction clause. 13. Having established that the first criteria for the recognition of the competence of a national decision-making body is not fulfilled in the present matter, the Chamber deemed unnecessary to examine any further points which would need to be assessed before concluding to the competence of a national deciding body. 14. In view of the above, the Chamber established that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s objection to the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter had to be rejected and that the DRC is competent, on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, to consider the present matter as to the substance. 15. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber analysed which edition of the 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 (editions 2010, 2012 and 2014) and considering that the claim in front of FIFA was lodged on 12 October 2012, the 2010 edition of said Regulations is applicable to the present matter as to the substance. 16. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, it started to acknowledge the facts of the case as well as the documents contained in the file. 17. In this respect, the members of the DRC acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that, on 19 February 2008, they signed an employment contract originally valid as from 22 February 2008 until 31 December 2010. 18. Furthermore, the DRC acknowledged that it was also undisputed by the parties that they had concluded an undated “annex to the contract”, by means of which the latter was extended for the period of 15 December 2010 until 30 June 2013, and the Claimant/Counter-Respondent would be entitled to receive the amounts detailed in point I.5. above. 19. Finally, the Chamber noted that the parties also did not dispute the fact that the contract was unilaterally terminated by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, in writing, on 7 August 2012. 20. Having said that, the DRC noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims that, in spite of his warnings dated 18 July 2012, 27 July 2012 and 2 August 2012, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to pay him 7 monthly salaries for the period of January to July 2012. Furthermore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent states that he had borne all the expenses of the treatment of an injury, despite the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s alleged contractual obligation to bear such costs. Finally, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to provide him with any instructions regarding his new training schedule as from 16 July 2012, in spite of his written requests. Thus, he unilaterally terminated the contract on 7 August 2012. 21. Subsequently, the DRC noted that, on the other hand, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant deems that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated the contract without just cause on 7 August 2012, as he allegedly failed to comply with the training schedule prescribed by the club, from 14 to 21 July 2012. Furthermore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant claims that, due to a disciplinary violation, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was imposed a sanction corresponding to 25% of his earnings for the 2011/2012 season, ratified on 11 July 2012 by the country R Professional Football Federation Disciplinary Commission. As a consequence, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant deems that it paid the Claimant/Counter-Respondent an amount higher than the one he was entitled to receive as per the contract. Thus, on 23 November 2012, it lodged a counterclaim against him, requesting the amounts detailed in point I.18. above. 22. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the allegations of both parties, was to determine whether the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had had a just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment contract on 7 August 2012. 23. At this point and for the sake of good order, the Chamber 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 from an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. 24. In this respect, the DRC noted that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent has provided a copy of the correspondence addressed to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on 18 July 2012, 27 July 2012 and 2 August 2012, reminding it of the existence of unpaid salaries for the months of January to July 2012, as well as requesting information about his training schedule. 25. Furthermore, the Chamber duly noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant claims not to have any outstanding amounts towards the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, but on the contrary it would have paid him an amount higher than the one he was actually entitled to receive as per the contract. In support of its allegations, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant provides copies of several receipts in the total amount of EUR 162,143.113, allegedly paid to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent by 9 May 2012, as well as a ratification by the country R Professional Football Federation Disciplinary Commission dated 11 July 2012, regarding the imposition of a fine amounting to 25% of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s earnings for the 2011/2012 season. 26. Bearing in mind the aforementioned art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the DRC noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant bore the burden of proof regarding the payment of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s remuneration or the reasons not to have complied with such contractual obligation. 27. With regard to the receipts presented by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, mentioned in points I.16. and II.25. above, the DRC first noted that they were only submitted in their original language, without a translation. At this point, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to remind the parties that, in accordance with art. 9 par. 1 lit. e) of the Procedural Rules, all documentation provided in the context of a dispute in front of FIFA should be presented in the original version and, if applicable, translated into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, Spanish and German). Bearing in mind the wording of the aforementioned provision, the Chamber concluded that the receipts provided by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant without a translation into one of the aforementioned official FIFA languages could not be taken into account. Consequently, the members of the DRC deemed that no substantial evidence was provided by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant with regard to the payment of the 7 monthly salaries claimed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent as outstanding. 28. In continuation, the DRC went on to analyse the second argument of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, regarding the imposition of a financial sanction on the Claimant/Counter-Respondent for an alleged, unspecified breach of contract on his part. In this regard, the DRC, always bearing in mind the principle or burden of proof, noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not provide a copy of a decision allegedly taken by its administrative board on 27 April 2012 or any evidence or specification regarding the disciplinary violation allegedly committed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, leading to the application of such fine. 29. Likewise, the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent rejected the aforementioned argument of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, pointing out that he was never informed of and never participated in the proceedings leading to the imposition of such fine. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was not able to provide any substantial proof of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s participation in these procedures or that he was even made aware of it prior to having lodged his claim before FIFA. 30. Subsequently, the Chamber further wished to point out that the fine allegedly imposed on the Claimant/Counter-Respondent for an unspecified and unproved disciplinary violation, not supported by any substantial evidence in this regard, and amounting to 25% of his earnings for an entire season must be considered disproportionate and therefore not applicable. 31. In this context, and irrespective of the foregoing considerations, the Chamber wished to point out that the imposition of a fine, or any other available financial sanction in general, shall not be used by clubs as a means to set off outstanding financial obligations towards players. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s argument in this regard. 32. In continuation, the DRC noted that while the Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to provide him with any information regarding his training schedule as from 16 July 2012, and supports his allegations with the warnings sent to the club in this regard on 18 July 2012, 27 July 2012 and 2 August 2012, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was not able to provide any documentation proving that it had indeed notified the Claimant/Counter-Respondent of his trainings schedule. In particular, the DRC noted that the only document provided by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in this regard, is a report of its physical coach dated 20 July 2012, attesting the player’s alleged non-compliance with a supposed training schedule from 14 to 21 July 2012. In this respect, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to emphasize that such a report, issued by an employee of the club, did not consist of objective and impartial evidence of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s allegation and, thus, cannot be taken into account. 33. In view of the foregoing allegations and documentation presented by both parties, the Chamber concluded that, on 7 August 2012, as the Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated the contract, 7 monthly salaries for January to July 2012 had remained unpaid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and that such non-payment could not be justified by the latter. Therefore, and in line with its well-established and longstanding jurisprudence, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had a just cause to terminate the contract on 7 August 2012 and was consequently entitled to receive an amount of compensation by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, in addition to any outstanding monies. 34. Prior to establishing the amount of compensation for breach of contract due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the DRC proceeded with the calculation of the outstanding monies payable to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent under the terms of the employment contract until the date of termination, i.e. on 7 August 2012. 35. Taking into consideration the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim as well as the reasons previously exposed, the DRC concluded that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant must fulfill its obligations as per the employment contract concluded with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and, consequently, is to be held liable to pay the outstanding remuneration due to the latter in the total amount of EUR 86,100, corresponding to 7 monthly salaries from January to July 2012. 36. In addition, taking into account the Claimant/Counter-Respondent's request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the members of the Chamber decided to award the Claimant/Counter-Respondent interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on each outstanding salary, as from their respective due dates, as detailed in point III.4. below. 37. The Chamber subsequently took note of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s request for the payment of the amount of currency of country R 2,428 or EUR 531 as reimbursement of costs in connection with his injury by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 38. In this regard, the Chamber focused its attention on the analysis of art. 3 of the annex, quoted in point I.6. above. Having carefully analysed the wording of such article, the Chamber was of the opinion that the clause in question does not clearly and specifically established that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent should be entitled to the reimbursement of any expenses made in connection with the treatment of an injury acquired while performing his work. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that such claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had to be rejected. 39. Having established the outstanding amounts due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including, in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period. 40. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contains a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake. 41. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the employment contract as from 7 August 2012 until 30 June 2013. The Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 135,300, corresponding to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s remuneration for 11 residual months, serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 42. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages. 43. In this regard, the Chamber noted that on 5 September 2012 the Claimant/Counter-Respondent signed a new employment contract with the Club F, from country P, valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2013, according to which he was entitled to a global salary of EUR 7,400. 44. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant must pay the amount of EUR 127,900 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent as compensation for breach of contract, plus interest of 5% p.a. as of 12 October 2012 until the date of effective payment, in accordance with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s request and the Chamber’s well-established jurisprudence. 45. For all the above reasons, the DRC decided to partially accept the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and holds the Respondent/Counter-Claimant liable to pay the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the amount of EUR 86,100 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. as from each respective due date until the date of effective payment, as well as the amount of EUR 127,900 as compensation for breach of contract, plus interest of 5% p.a. as of 12 October 2012. 46. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further request filed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is rejected and that the counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is rejected. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Player L, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is partially accepted. 3. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club V, is rejected. 4. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant is ordered to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 86,100 plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment, as follows: a. 5% p.a. as of 26 January 2012 over the amount of EUR 12,300; b. 5% p.a. as of 26 February 2012 over the amount of EUR 12,300; c. 5% p.a. as of 26 March 2012 over the amount of EUR 12,300; d. 5% p.a. as of 26 April 2012 over the amount of EUR 12,300; e. 5% p.a. as of 26 May 2012 over the amount of EUR 12,300; f. 5% p.a. as of 26 June 2012 over the amount of EUR 12,300; g. 5% p.a. as of 26 July 2012 over the amount of EUR 12,300. 5. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant is ordered to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 127,900 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 12 October 2012 until the date of effective payment. 6. Any further claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent are rejected. 7. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent plus interest are not paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 8. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent/Counter-Claimant immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances are 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: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives