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 19 February 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member on the matter between the player, Player A, Country B as Claimant and the club, Club C, 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 19 February 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member on the matter between the player, Player A, Country B as Claimant and the club, Club C, Country D as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 23 July 2010, the player, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant), born on 12 May 1992, was transferred on loan from the Club of Country B, Club E, to the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent). On the same date, the Claimant concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) with the Respondent, valid as from the date of signature until 31 December 2011. In this regard, the related International Transfer Certificate (ITC) was issued on 9 August 2010. 2. According to clause 8.1 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to a monthly remuneration in the amount of USD 5,000. In addition, the player was entitled to a monthly housing assistance allowance amounting to USD 300, as well as “two air tickets round trip, economic class, City of Country B-Country D for season”. 3. In addition, clause 9.2 of the contract stipulated the following: “Braking or revoking the work contract in advance, the payment of the contractor of all the values due to the athletes are realized at the day of contract termination, or at latest on the next day. The athlete has to hand over to the contractor at the day of contract termination his working papers and the necessary documents.” 4. On 3 August 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA against the Respondent for breach of contract without just cause. In particular, the Claimant requested the payment of all the sums he would have earned until the expiration of his contract with the Respondent, in the amount of USD 98,490 plus 5% interest, as from 12 August 2010, calculated as follows: - USD 86,500, corresponding to 17.3 months of salary (from 23 July 2010 until 31 December 2011); - USD 5,190, corresponding to 17.3 months of housing allowance (from 23 July 2010 until 31 December 2011); - USD 6,800, corresponding to four air tickets round trip, economic class, City of Country B – City of Country D (two for the 2010 season and two for the 2011 season). 5. In addition, the Claimant requested the DRC to determine a supplementary compensation for the allegedly caused “career damages and emotional suffering”. 6. On 20 August 2012, the Claimant amended his claim, and requested the payment of a total amount of USD 196,962, plus 5% interest as of 12 August 2010, calculated as follows: - USD 86,450, corresponding to 17.3 months of salary (from 23 July 2010 until 31 December 2011); - USD 5,187, corresponding to 17.3 months of housing allowance (from 23 July 2010 until 31 December 2011); - USD 6,844, corresponding to four air tickets round trip, economic class, City of Country B – City of Country D (two for the 2010 season and two for the 2011 season); 7. In addition, the Claimant suggested the DRC to condemn the Respondent to pay him a supplementary amount of USD 98,481 for “career damages and emotional suffering” or “other value determined by the DRC”. 8. According to the Claimant, on 12 August 2010, the Respondent sent a fax to Club E informing the latter that, following a medical exam, the Claimant was diagnosed with osteoarthritis of the hip join, meaning that “with such problems he cannot play football at the higher level”. According to the Claimant, on the same date, he was informed orally by the Respondent of his health problems. Consequently, the Claimant considered the contract as terminated without just cause on 12 August 2010. 9. Subsequently, the Claimant explained that he returned to Country B in order to continue playing for Club E. However, the summer registration period ended on 19 August 2010. 10. On 28 October 2010, following a request of the Football Federation of Country B, FIFA denied to issue an International Transfer Certificate (ITC) in order for the Claimant to be registered in Country B after the end of the registration period, and informed him that he will need to wait until the next registration period. 11. On 20 January 2011, the Claimant returned to Club E, being employed under the conditions of his previous employment contract, valid from 1 July 2009 until 30 June 2012. 12. According to the employment contract signed with Club E, the Claimant was entitled to a monthly salary of 900. 13. In relation to the time limits established in article 25 par. 5 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Claimant considered that the Respondent’s fax of 12 August 2010, and not the signature of the contract, was the event giving rise to the dispute. 14. As to the substance of the matter, the Claimant refused the medical conclusions of the Respondent, but also considered that the Respondent was not allowed to breach the contract even if the Claimant was really injured after the signature of the contract, in accordance with article 18 par. 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. 15. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent stated that it is relevant to consider that the transfer of the Claimant from Club E was concluded under a Cooperation Agreement between both clubs in order to promote friendly relations between them. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that in early August 2010, following the beginning of the execution of the contract, the Claimant was found to have serious health problems. Consequently, the Respondent argued that it would have had a just cause to terminate the contract unilaterally in August 2010. 16. Moreover, the Respondent also stated that it did not take any unilateral actions, but that it only informed Club E on the Claimant’s health, and bought him return flight tickets to Country B. The Respondent also considered that at that moment the Claimant did not make any objections to the mutual termination of the contract, which was confirmed with the signature of a termination agreement in 2011, even though the Respondent acknowledged that the relations between the Claimant and the Respondent were terminated on 12 August 2010. In the opinion of the Respondent, it is not understandable how the Claimant could raise any request almost two years after he terminated any relations with the Respondent. In addition, the Respondent stated that in any case the Claimant was receiving salary from Club E after terminating the relations with the Respondent and returning to Country B. 17. Finally, the Respondent argued that the Claimant tacitly accepted the terms of the termination agreement by playing for Club E, and quoted DRC jurisprudence, according to which “the parties have tacitly complied with the terms of the private contract and through this action, have implied that their real intentions were stipulated in this agreement”. 18. In his replica, the Claimant considered that the existence of a Cooperation Agreement between Club E and the Respondent is irrelevant, as the Claimant was not aware of its existence. The Claimant insisted that, in any case, the validity of a contract may not be made subject to a positive medical examination. In addition, the Claimant declared that he did not object to the termination of the contract with the club in August 2010 because he “had no option but taking the plane and return to Country B”. Finally, the Claimant acknowledged that a termination agreement was signed in January 2011 because it was his only option to return to work as a professional player, and that in no case this means that he “abdicated from his salaries, benefit and indemnity”. 19. The Claimant acknowledged that he received salaries from Club E during the remaining loan period, but that the value (USD 400) is much less than the salary offered by the Respondent. 20. As final comments, the Respondent confirmed its position elaborated in the response. In particular, the Respondent highlighted that the parties agreed verbally to terminate the contract. The Respondent stated that the Claimant’s health issue “was not a condition precedence to the Employment Agreement, but a just cause to terminate”. The Respondent also highlighted the fact that, by signing a termination agreement in January 2011, the Claimant made no further requests on salaries. In reference to the flight tickets, the Respondent considered that they were only provided and paid for the Claimant’s presence in Country D, and that they should not be awarded as he was away. The Respondent also rejected the claimed amount in relation to the housing allowance, since the Claimant was not living in City of Country D. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as DRC or Chamber) 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 3 August 2012. Consequently, the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the 2008, 2012 and 2014 editions 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 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 of Country B and a Club of Country D. 3. The competence of the Chamber having been established, the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players 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 matter was submitted to FIFA on 3 August 2012, the 2010 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. Having established the foregoing, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber continued by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file in relation to the substance of the matter. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. In this respect, the members of the DRC took note that on 23 July 2010, an employment contract was concluded between the parties for the period from 23 July 2010 until 31 December 2011, following a transfer on loan from Club E to the Respondent. 6. In continuation, the Chamber took note of the Claimant’s allegation that the contract was terminated without just cause by the Respondent on 12 August 2010, after sending a fax to Club E on that same date of a fax informing the Club of Country B of the Claimant’s apparent medical problems. 7. In this regard, the members of the Chamber underlined that the Claimant declared that, having been orally informed by the Respondent of his apparent medical problems on 12 August 2010, he considered the contract terminated and subsequently returned to Country B in August 2010. 8. Moreover, the Chamber highlighted that it was undisputed between the parties that they signed a mutual termination agreement in January 2011. 9. Furthermore, the Chamber took note that the Claimant acknowledged that he was being paid by Club E following his return to Country B in August 2010. 10. In addition, the Chamber highlighted that the claim against the Respondent was lodged on 3 August 2012, while the termination agreement was apparently signed by the parties in January 2011. In this regard, the Chamber observed that during this entire period of time, the Claimant did not contest the alleged unilateral termination of the contract by the Respondent. 11. Taking into consideration all the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant had tacitly accepted the termination of the contract. Therefore, the members of the Chamber unanimously decided to reject the claim lodged by the Claimant. 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 (CAS) Avenue de Beaumont 2 CH-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 Enclosed: CAS directives