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 6 November 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Mohamed Al-Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club C (formerly known as Club CC), 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 6 November 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Mohamed Al-Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club C (formerly known as Club CC), country D as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 5 October 2011, the Player A from country B (hereinafter: player or Claimant) and the club from country D, Club C (formerly known as Club CC) (hereinafter: club or Respondent) signed an employment contract valid as from 4 October 2011 until 30 June 2012. 2. In accordance with the employment contract, the player was entitled to receive inter alia 5 monthly payments of USD 20,000 each, as from 28 February 2012 until 30 June 2012. 3. On 12 and 25 September 2012, the player put the club in default of payment of the amount of USD 100,000. 4. These default notices having remained unanswered, on 1 October 2012, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA asking that the club be ordered to pay the amount of USD 100,000, representing 5 instalments of USD 20,000 each, which fell due as from February until June 2012, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the date of the first default notice, i.e. 12 September 2012. 5. The club failed to reply to the claim prior to the closure of the investigation into this matter. 6. Four months after the closure of the investigation, the club asked to be provided with a copy of the claim. 7. Thereafter, the club rejected the player’s claim asserting that the player had signed a written declaration, dated 30 January 2012, stating that he had received all his financial dues and that he cleared the club from any financial obligations in accordance with the employment contract. 8. The club further asked that the player be obliged to pay USD 10,000 to the club for the expenses it incurred in connection with his false allegations and that the player be held liable for any procedural costs. 9. The player, for his part, denied having signed the document presented by the club in support of its position. In this respect, he highlights inter alia that the document does not bear any letterhead. 10. He further pointed out that, should it be considered a valid document, said document cannot be considered a mutual agreement to terminate the employment contract and he emphasised that he would never have agreed to terminate his contract on 30 January 2012, at the end of registration periods, without alternative employment and without any financial benefit. In addition, should the parties have wished to terminate the contract, according to the player, other wording would have been used in such context. 11. In spite of having been requested by FIFA to present the original of the aforementioned declaration in accordance with FIFA’s standard procedure, the club has failed to do so. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or 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 1 October 2012. Consequently, the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are 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 combination with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2014) 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 an club from country D. 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 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2014), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 1 October 2012, the 2010 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 submitted by the parties. 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. The members of the Chamber acknowledged that the parties had concluded an employment contract valid as from 4 October 2011 until 30 June 2012, in accordance with which the Respondent undertook to pay the total amount of USD 100,000 to the Claimant in five equal instalments of USD 20,000 as from February 2012 until June 2012. 6. In continuation, the Chamber reviewed the claim of the Claimant, who alleges that the Respondent had failed to pay the full amount of USD 100,000 in spite of the default notices he sent to the club. Therefore, the Claimant asks that the Respondent be ordered to pay the amount of USD 100,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from the date of the first default notice, i.e. 12 September 2012. 7. The members of the Chamber then turned their attention to Respondent, who presented its reply to the claim, along with documentation it intended to rely on, only four months after the closure of the investigation into the present matter only. The Respondent having failed to reply within the investigation-phase, the Chamber agreed that the Respondent’s response to the claim could not be taken into consideration and that a decision shall be passed on the basis of the allegations and documentation presented by the Claimant in his statement of claim. In this context, the Chamber referred to art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which stipulates, inter alia, that if no statement or reply is received from the opposing party before the time limit expires, a decision shall be taken upon the basis of the documents already on file. 8. Having said this, the Chamber took into account that the Claimant has duly substantiated his claim by presenting the relevant employment contract signed by and between the parties. Furthermore, in light of the preceding consideration, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent failed to provide justification for non-payment of the claimed amount of USD 100,000. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of USD 100,000 to the Claimant. 9. In this context, the members of the Chamber took note that in accordance with an instruction dated 26 August 2013 in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Claimant was de-registered by the country D Football Association on 30 January 2012 and that he was registered with a club from country E in August 2013. Consequently, the Chamber considered that the pertinent employment contract had been prematurely terminated. 10. The Chamber further took into consideration that there is no indication on file that the relevant employment contract was prematurely terminated by mutual agreement by and between the parties. Consequently, the Chamber agreed that a unilateral termination of contract lies at the basis of the premature termination of the employment contract between the parties. 11. On the basis of all of the above considerations, the members of the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of USD 100,000 to the Claimant as compensation for the unilateral and premature termination of the employment contract without just cause. 12. Furthermore, taking into account the request of the Claimant, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 100,000 as of 12 September 2012 until the date of effective payment. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 100,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as from 12 September 2012 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. 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 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