F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 2 July 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), 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 (2015-2016) - controversie di lavoro - ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 2 July 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), 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 1 February 2014, the Player of Country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid from the date of signature until 1 September 2014. 2. According to clause 8 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to a total remuneration of USD 30,000, divided in 3 instalments to be paid respectively on 1 March 2014, 1 June 2014 and “before the end of the league”. 3. On 21 January 2015, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent, claiming the following: - USD 30,000 corresponding to the total value of the contract plus 5% interest as from 1 February 2014; - USD 10,000 as sporting, moral and personal damages; - USD 2,000 as legal costs. 4. In this respect, the Claimant held that upon the issuance of the International Transfer Certificate (ITC), the Respondent gave the Claimant a cheque in the amount of 12,250,000. Moreover, according to the Claimant, after a few days and before the due date of the cheque, the Respondent impeded the Claimant to train, took the cheque back and made him go back to his country. 5. The Claimant further held having remained unemployed during the contractual period and that he subsequently signed a contract for a much lower remuneration, suffering damages from the breach of the contract by the Respondent. 6. The Respondent submitted its position rejecting the claim. According to the Respondent, the parties signed the contract and the Claimant was transferred to the Respondent on 13 February 2014. The Respondent issued a bank cheque in the amount of 12,250,000 on 10 March 2014 but subsequently, on 13 March 2014, the parties, due to “some administrative matters”, agreed to terminate the contract and the cheque was therefore, cancelled. 7. In this respect, the Respondent submitted a copy of the termination agreement dated 13 March 2014 allegedly signed by both parties, which established that “both parties agreed to terminate the initial contract for the professional player of Club C the Player of Country B (Player A) before certifying this contract by the Football Association of Country D for not agreeing on some administrative matters, acknowledging that the player has not carried out any training unit and not participated in any friendly or official match with the club. Therefore, the player is considered free from any club’s bonds and the player has no financial dues with the club”. 8. The Claimant insisted on his claim and held that he actually arrived in Country D on 4 February 2014 and left on 23 February 2014 after being forced by the Respondent to leave, enclosing a copy of his passport with the respective stamps. 9. Moreover, the Claimant denied having signed the termination agreement and highlighted that he was not in Country D on “10 March 2014” when the termination agreement was allegedly signed. 10. In this context, the Claimant affirmed that “the signature shown on the termination agreement is not of the player, it is apparently was forged and made by the club”. In particular, the Claimant indicated the following points to support the allegation of forgery: - absence of the Claimant’s fingerprint, since the contract contains it; - the signature is different from the signature of the contract; - according to the information in the Transfer Matching System, when the Claimant concluded a new employment contract in September 2014, the reason for the contract termination with the Respondent was the expiration of the contract, which according to the Claimant was confirmed by the Football Association of Country D; - there is no logic reason for the Claimant to terminate the contract for administrative matters after the transfer window was already closed in most countries. 11. Furthermore, the Claimant argued that the cheque was retained by the Respondent when it forced him to leave the country. 12. The Respondent submitted its final comments insisting on its previous arguments and added that, after signing the termination agreement on 13 March 2014, the Claimant left the hotel where he was staying without paying the bill. In this respect, the Respondent held having paid for the hotel costs as well as for his flight ticket, even if it had no obligation to do so. The Respondent further stated that “Also to mention that the player did not played any match for our team and we never used his service but we paid him and cost us too much amounts”. 13. Upon request of FIFA, the Respondent presented the original of the termination agreement signed by both parties. Moreover, the Respondent also submitted the original contract and the original cheque. 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 21 January 2015. Consequently, the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2014; 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 combination 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 a Club of 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 2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 21 January 2015, the 2014 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 DRC acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that they concluded an employment contract on 1 February 2014, valid from the date of signature until 1 September 2014, according to which the Claimant was entitled to a total remuneration of USD 30,000 divided in three instalments. 6. The members of the DRC further noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant claims that the Respondent, after the issuance of the ITC and after having given him a cheque in the amount of 12,250,000, failed to execute the contract, not allowing him to train and making him return to his country. Moreover, the Claimant stated that the Respondent took back the cheque. Therefore, the Claimant lodged a claim for the total amount of USD 42,000, corresponding to the total value of the contract as well as damages and legal costs. 7. The Chamber took note that, on the other hand, the Respondent held that the parties had mutually agreed to terminate the contract, reason why the relevant cheque was cancelled. In particular, the DRC took note that the Respondent submitted a copy of the termination agreement signed by both parties dated 13 March 2014, which established inter alia that the parties agree to terminate the contract as well as that “the player has not carried out any training unit and not participated in any friendly or official match with the club. Therefore, the player is considered free from any club’s bonds and the player has no financial dues with the club”. 8. The DRC further noted that, in his replica, the Claimant denies ever having signed the termination agreement and alleges that he was not in Country D on the date of the alleged signature of the termination agreement. Moreover, the Chamber took note of the Claimant’s statement that his signature was forged. 9. In continuation, the Chamber noted that the Respondent insisted that the parties had signed the termination agreement, reason why the Claimant’s claim should be rejected. 10. Finally, the DRC took duly note that, upon request in accordance with FIFA’s standard practice, the Respondent provided FIFA with the original version of the termination agreement as well as the original contract. 11. Having established the aforementioned, the members of the Chamber pointed out that the core document in the present dispute, considering the claim of the Claimant and the allegations of the Respondent, is the termination agreement apparently concluded between the parties on 13 March 2014. In other words, the DRC considered that the underlying issue in the dispute at hand consists of establishing whether the contractual obligations of the Respondent towards the Claimant extinguished in light of the termination agreement. 12. Indeed, the DRC noted that the parties’ argumentation as to whether the contract was mutually terminated or not is fundamentally divergent. While the Respondent affirms that the parties terminated the contract, the Claimant denies having signed the relevant document. 13. At this stage, the DRC considered it of utmost importance 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 signatures or documents, and that such affairs fall into the jurisdiction of the competent national criminal authority. 14. In continuation, the DRC recalled that all documentation remitted shall be considered with free discretion and, therefore, focused its attention on the termination agreement as well as on other documents containing the Claimant’s signature provided by the parties in the context of the present dispute. In this regard, the DRC pointed out that the original version of the termination agreement as well as the original version of the contract were provided by the Respondent. 15. After a thorough analysis of the aforementioned documents, in particular, comparing the relevant signatures of the Claimant on the 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. 16. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that, unless proven otherwise by a neutral expertise or a decision of the competent national criminal authority, by means of the termination agreement, the Claimant has agreed with the Respondent on the termination of the contract and, in particular, that the Respondent had no further obligations in his favour. 17. In view of all of the above, and based on the documentation at its disposal, the DRC decided that the claim of the Claimant pertaining to the execution of the contract has to be rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 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