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 (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 17 March 2015, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, 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 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 (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 17 March 2015, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, 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 arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 22 August 2013, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as of the date of signature until 30 June 2017. 2. Pursuant to article 4.1 of the contract, the Claimant is to receive the following amounts: Season 2013-2014 - USD 3,000 as monthly salary due at the end of each month; - USD 15,000 as performance-related bonus. Season 2014-2015 - USD 3,500 as monthly salary due at the end of each month; - USD 18,000 as performance-related bonus. Season 2015-2016 - USD 4,000 as monthly salary due at the end of each month; - USD 20,000 as performance-related bonus. Season 2016-2017 - USD 4,500 as monthly salary due at the end of each month; - USD 25,000 as performance-related bonus. 3. On 2 January 2014, the Claimant terminated the contract with the Respondent in writing. 4. On 7 February 2014, the Claimant lodged a complaint before FIFA against the Respondent, requesting the outstanding amount of USD 27,000. 5. According to the Claimant, the Respondent failed to pay his salary from September to December 2013 as well as the amount of USD 15,000 corresponding to the performance-related bonus for the season 2013-2014. 6. In its statement of defence, the Respondent alleges having paid the Claimant’s salary in its entirety until November 2013. In this regard, the Respondent provided bank statements listing the following payments: - USD 3,000 on 2 September 2013; - USD 14,496, i.e. USD 4,500 + USD 4,996 + USD 5,000, on 9 December 2013. 7. Moreover, the Respondent sustains that the Claimant left the Respondent without its prior approval in early December 2013 in order to join the club from country E, Club F. In this respect, the Respondent submitted an e-mail sent to Club F on 31 January 2014 by means of which it made Club F aware of the ongoing contractual relationship between the Respondent and the Claimant and thus, asking Club F to cease any test with the Claimant. 8. In this context, the Respondent requested FIFA to reject the delivery of the International Transfer Certificate (ITC). 9. Furthermore, the Respondent insisted that, in any event, on 11 February 2014, it lodged a claim against the Claimant before the relevant decision-making body of the Football Federation of country D. 10. In spite of having been invited to do so, the Respondent did not provide any documentary evidence in order to substantiate that the present matter should be dealt with by the relevant decision-making body of the Football Federation of country D. The Respondent also did not provide a copy of the claim allegedly lodged against the Claimant in front of the said body or any documents related to the alleged local proceedings. 11. In his replica, the Claimant purely reiterates his claim for the outstanding amount of USD 27,000, without any comments pertaining to the jurisdiction issue raised by the Respondent. 12. In spite of having been invited to do so, the Respondent did not submit its final comments pertaining to the matter at stake. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First of all, the DRC judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 7 February 2014. Consequently, the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2012; hereinafter: the 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 in combination with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2014) the DRC judge would, in principle, be 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. At this point, the DRC judge stated that, prior to deliberating on the substance of the matter, he must verify whether he would be able to deal with the present affair or not for formal reasons. In particular, the DRC judge took note of the formal objection of the Respondent, according to which the Claimant’s claim would not be admissible due to litis pendens, as the Respondent had allegedly lodged a complaint before the decision-making body of the Football Federation of country D regarding the same matter. 4. In this context, the DRC judge deemed it appropriate to remind the parties of the content of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof”. 5. In this respect, the DRC judge noted that, in spite of having been invited to do so by the FIFA administration, the Respondent did not provide a copy of the claim allegedly lodged in front of the Football Federation of country D on 11 February 2014. In fact, the DRC judge noted that the request addressed both to the Claimant and to the Respondent with a view to obtain more information on the claim allegedly pending before the Football Federation of country D remained unanswered by both the Claimant and the Respondent. 6. In view of the aforementioned, and referring to the aforementioned art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the DRC judge deemed that the Respondent was the party responsible to provide documentary evidence in support of its allegation of an alleged situation of litis pendens – or even res judicata – affecting the claim at hand. However, it failed to reply to FIFA’s request for information. 7. Furthermore, the DRC judge noted that while the claim allegedly lodged by the Respondent in front of the Football Federation of country D is dated 11 February 2014, the claim of the Claimant in front of FIFA was lodged on 7 February 2014, i.e. prior to the one allegedly pending in country D. Therefore, FIFA should be considered as the competent forum for the analysis and decision of the present dispute involving the Claimant and the Respondent. 8. Based on the aforementioned, the DRC judge concluded that the present claim is not affected by litis pendens or res judicata and that he is competent to analyse the substance of the dispute. 9. Having established that the Claimant’s claim of 7 February 2014 is admissible, the DRC judge went on to analyse which regulations were applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Regulations (editions 2012 and 2014), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 7 February 2014, the 2012 edition of said regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 10. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, he started by acknowledging the abovementioned facts of the case as well as the documentation contained in the file. However, the DRC judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 11. In this respect, the DRC judge acknowledged that the parties had signed an employment contract on 22 August 2013, in accordance with which the player was entitled to receive, inter alia, the amount of USD 3,000 as monthly salary for the season 2013-2014 as well as the amount of USD 15,000 as performance-related bonus. 12. In continuation, the DRC judge noted that the Claimant alleged that the Respondent had failed to pay his salary from September 2013 to December 2013 amounting to USD 12,000 and the amount of USD 15,000 as performance-related bonus for the season 2013-2014. Consequently, the Claimant asked to be awarded with the payment of the total amount of USD 27,000. 13. Equally, the DRC judge took note of the reply of the Respondent, which asserted that it had already paid the Claimant the total amount of USD 17,496. 14. With due consideration to the above, the DRC judge observed that the Claimant stated that the amount of USD 27,000 is outstanding, whereas the Respondent sustained that it had already paid the Claimant the total amount of USD 17,496. 15. In this respect, the DRC judge 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 on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. 16. According to this, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent substantiated its defence insofar as it submitted evidence indicating several payments, amounting to USD 17,496, made between 2 September 2013 and 9 December 2013. The DRC judge further observed that such documentation or payments were not contested by the Claimant. 17. In view of the above, the DRC judge concluded that the Respondent has provided evidence of its defence and that it could therefore be established that the Respondent had paid to the Claimant part of the outstanding amount requested by the latter in the total amount of USD 17,496. Notwithstanding the above, the DRC judge established that the Respondent did not comply in full with its financial obligations and that, therefore, the Claimant was entitled to certain outstanding amounts. 18. As a consequence, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent must fulfil its obligations as per the contract and, consequently, is to be held liable for the payment of the remaining outstanding amount of USD 9,504 to the Claimant. 19. Finally, the DRC judge concluded his deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted. 3. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 9,504, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 4. In the event that the abovementioned amount is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the aforementioned time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 6. 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 DRC judge 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 DRC judge: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives