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 theDispute 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 claim presented by the player, Player A, country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, 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 theDispute 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 claim presented by the player, Player A, country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, country D as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 9 January 2012, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the club from country D, Club C, (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid from the date of signature until the end of the 2011-2012 season in country D. 2. According to art. 3 of the contract, the Respondent undertakes to pay the Claimant, inter alia, remuneration of USD 13,000”per month for a period of one year”. 3. According to art. 4 of the contract, the Respondent undertakes to provide the Claimant with health insurance and paid leave for 4 weeks after the end of the sport season. 4. On 3 October 2012 the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent for outstanding remuneration, which he amended on 22 July 2014, and requested the payment of the total amount of USD 158,000, made up of: USD 58,000 in outstanding remuneration, corresponding to his salaries of March 2012 (USD 6,000 and April 2012 until July 2012 (4x13,000), as well as USD 100,000 as compensation for “the financial and moral damages suffered” by the Claimant. 5. In his claim, the Claimant states that the country D league ended in July 2012. As per the Claimant, during the entire validity of the contract, he was not regularly paid. The Claimant states that he requested the outstanding amounts many times but without receiving “a clear position” from the Respondent. He also states that he remained in country D for a few days following the end of the contract to receive the outstanding amounts but eventually left without payment given the “degradation of the human condition in Damascus” at the time. Lastly, the Claimant asserts that the Respondent was obliged to also provide him with health insurance and paid leave for 4 weeks, but that it failed to do so. 6. The Claimant further argues that he should be granted compensation on account of the financial and moral damages that he suffered as a result of having to live in a State in civil war, particularly when the Respondent did not provide him any support. 7. In its reply, the Respondent claims that the Claimant has received all amounts due to him as per the contract and provides a copy of a receipt dated 9 January 2012, according to which: “I, the undersigned, the footballer Player A, received from the administration of Club C an amount estiamed at $/105,000/ say only one hundred five thousand dollars / for the contract concluded with Club C.” 8. In his replica, the Claimant underlines that the Respondent acted in bad faith during the entire procedure and according to him, the Respondent presented a false document recognizing the receipt of the payment of USD 105,000 by the Claimant. Furthermore, he claims to have never received this money nor signed this document and therefore states that his signature has been forged by the Respondent. Finally the Claimant makes reference to two other cases involving the Respondent, in which he deems that the Respondent is always acting the same way, presenting false arguments as well as documents with a fake signature. 9. In its final position, without any further comments, the Respondent provided FIFA, upon request of the letter, with the original of the allegedly forged document. 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 3 October 2012. Consequently, the edition 2008 of the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (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 b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2010, 2012 and 2014; hereinafter: the Regulations), 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 a 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 (editions 2010, 2012 and 2014), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 3 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. In this respect, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that they signed an employment contract valid as from 9 January 2012 until the end of the 2011-2012 season in country D, according to which the Claimant was entitled to receive a monthly salary of USD 13,000. 6. The Chamber then reviewed the claim of the Claimant and noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant claims that the Respondent failed to pay him part of his salary for March 2012 (USD 6,000), and his salaries for April 2012 until July 2012 ( USD 13,000 per month), for a total amount of USD 58,000. Therefore, the Claimant requests that the Respondent proceed with the payment of the aforementioned amounts, plus a compensation for financial and moral damages. 7. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber took due note of the allegations of the Respondent, who claims, on the other hand, that the amount of USD 105,000 (which corresponds to a higher amount than the total amount allegedly due to the Claimant) has already been paid to the Claimant, pursuant to the document allegedly signed by him on 9 January 2012 (hereinafter: the “receipt”), extinguishing thus any financial obligation of the Respondent towards the Claimant. 8. The Chamber further noted that, in his replica, the Claimant denies having signed any document, the “receipt” provided by the Respondent being a counterfeit. Furthermore, the DRC noted that, while providing FIFA with the original version of the document allegedly signed by the Claimant, the Respondent did not provide its final position as to the Claimant’s claim. 9. Having established the aforementioned, the DRC pointed out that the core document in the present dispute, considering the claim of the Claimant and the allegations of the Respondent, is the “ receipt” apparently signed by the Respondent and the Claimant on 9 January 2012, by means of which “[…] the footballer Player A, received from the administration of Club C an amount estiamed at $/105,000/ say only one hundred five thousand dollars / for the contract concluded with Club C”. In other words, the Chamber considered that the underlying issue in the dispute at hand consists of establishing whether the Claimant’s argument regarding the alleged counterfeit of the “receipt” could be upheld or, in case not, whether the financial obligations of the Respondent towards the Claimant could be considered as extinguished with the alleged signature of the aforementioned document. 10. In this context, the Chamber first focused its attention on the Claimant’s allegation that the “receipt” dated 9 January 2012 presented by the Respondent was a falsified document. 11. At this stage, the members of the Chamber considered it appropriate to remark that, as a general rule, FIFA’s deciding bodies are not competent to decide upon matters of criminal law, such as the ones of alleged falsified signature or document, and that such affairs fall into the jurisdiction of the competent national criminal authority. 12. In this regard, the DRC noted that the “receipt” of 9 January 2012 bears the signature of the Respondent and the alleged signature of the Claimant. 13. In addition, the members of the DRC pointed out that, upon FIFA’s request and in view of the Claimant’s allegation of falsification, the Respondent was able to provide the original of such receipt, currently available for the analysis of the Chamber. 14. In this context, the DRC deemed it appropriate to recall the content of said document. The “receipt” of 9 January 2012 bearing the signature of the Respondent and what the Respondent claims to be the Claimant’s signature recognizes the receipt of the payment of USD 105,000 “for the contract concluded with Club C”. 15. In continuation, the DRC recalled that all documentation remitted shall be considered with free discretion and, therefore, it focused its attention on the original of the “receipt” as well as on other documents containing the Claimant’s signature, provided by the parties in the context of the present dispute. 16. After a thorough analysis of the aforementioned documents, in particular, comparing the relevant signatures of the Claimant in the various documents provided in the present affair, the DRC had no other option but to conclude that, for a layman, the signatures on such documents appear to be the same. Thus, the Claimant’s allegation of counterfeit cannot be upheld. 17. In view of the foregoing, the DRC concluded that, by signing the “receipt”, the Claimant acknowledged having received the amount of USD 105,000, corresponding to a higher amount than what he was entitled to for the entire duration of his contract. 18. In this context, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to emphasize that a party signing a document of legal importance, as a general rule, does so on its own responsibility and is consequently liable to bear the possible legal consequences arising from the execution of such document. 19. In view of all of the above, and based on the documentation currently at their disposal, the members of the Chamber came to the conclusion that, the present claim of the Claimant pertaining to outstanding salaries has to be rejected, since the relevant receipt dated 9 January 2012 seems to have been duly signed by the Claimant and therefore, the Respondent does not have any pending financial obligations towards him. 20. The members of the Chamber concluded their deliberations by establishing that the claim of the Claimant is entirely rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is rejected. ***** 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