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 10 April 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Jon Newman (USA), member John Bramhall (England), member Taku Nomiya (Japan), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), 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 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 10 April 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Jon Newman (USA), member John Bramhall (England), member Taku Nomiya (Japan), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), 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 arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 3 December 2012, 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 1 January 2013 until 31 May 2014. In addition, on 5 December 2013, both parties entered into an agreement for the purchase of image rights (hereinafter: the agreement) constituting “an additional and inextricable part of the contract of employment dated 03/12/2012”. 2. According to art. 2 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive the following remuneration: - For the period 1 January 2013 – 31 May 2013: EUR 10,000 net payable in five equal monthly instalments of EUR 2,000, “beginning on the 31/01/2013 and ending 31/05/13”; - For the period 1 June 2013 – 31 May 2014: EUR 20,000 net, payable in ten equal monthly instalments of EUR 2,000 “beginning on the 30/8/2013 and ending on 31/05/2014”. 3. Moreover, the Exhibit 1 to the agreement provides for the following amounts: - For the period 1 January 2013 – 31 May 2013: EUR 45,000 net payable as follows: o “An advance of payment of EUR 20,000 payable until the 15th January 2013; o 5 monthly instalments of EUR 4,000 net the first payable on the 30/01/2013 and the remaining at the end of each following month until full payment; o 5 monthly instalments of EUR 1,000 net the first payable on the 31/01/2013 and the remaining at the end of each following month until full payment.” - For the period 1 June 2013 – 31 May 2014: EUR 90,000 net as “Annual Image Rights fee”. 4. The contract contains the following stipulations: “B. [The Claimant] is an experienced football player from country B. C. [The Respondent] undertakes to register [the Claimant] as an EU football player with the Football Association of country D according to FIFA and/or UEFA rules applicable at the time of signing the present agreement.” 5. In addition, art. 2 of the agreement stipulates that “[the Claimant] agrees to assign to [the Respondent] all his image rights for all the period of this employment by [the Respondent]”. 6. Furthermore, art. 7 of the agreement states that “[the Respondent] will pay [the Claimant] the sums, benefits and bonuses included in Exhibit 1 that is attached hereto. It is agreed that the sums mentioned in Exhibit 1 will be paid with 90 days grace period.” 7. On 30 January 2013, the Claimant sent a correspondence to the Respondent to inform the latter that an amount of EUR 22,000, corresponding to the salary for January and the advance of payment provided by the agreement, were outstanding. In the same correspondence, the Claimant pointed out that he was obliged to train isolated from the first team in unprofessional conditions, that the Respondent prevented him from going to country E in order to see his newborn child and that the disciplinary sanction imposed on him for unprofessional behaviour on 28 January 2013 should be annulled for violation of his right to be heard. Finally, the Claimant requested the Respondent to inform him whether he was registered at the Football Association of country D. 8. On 31 January 2013, the Respondent proposed the Claimant to terminate the contract in exchange of a payment of EUR 15,000. 9. On 6 February 2013, the Claimant refused the Respondent’s proposal. He also stated that the Respondent forced him to train despite an injury and that the Respondent authorised him to travel to country E but refused to deliver a written authorisation. Therefore, he did not travel for fear of being deemed as being absent without authorisation. 10. On 7 February 2013, in its reply to the Claimant’s correspondence, the Respondent acknowledged that the Claimant was never registered at the Football Association of country D. In addition, the Respondent asserted that the Claimant signed a receipt on 18 January 2013 confirming the payment of the advance of EUR 20,000 and pointed out that the amounts set in the agreement are to be paid within a 90-day grace period. Finally, the Respondent considered that it provided the Claimant with professional training conditions and medical treatment. 11. On 10 February 2013, the Claimant recognised having signed the aforementioned receipt but sustained not having received the money. Furthermore, the Claimant stressed that the lack of registration constituted a violation of the obligations contained in the contract and requested the Respondent to regularise the situation. 12. Subsequently, the Claimant addressed several correspondence to the Respondent and the Football Association of country D requesting his registration; however, to no avail. The Respondent only replied that it would continue to honour its contractual obligations. 13. On 2 March 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent before FIFA requesting the following: - the contractual relationship to be deemed as terminated with just cause; - EUR 9,000 net as outstanding remuneration, composed of: o EUR 2,000, plus 5% p.a. as of 31 January 2013 until the date of effective payment, as outstanding monthly salary for January 2013 in accordance with the contract; o EUR 2,000, plus 5% p.a. as of 28 January 2013 [sic] until the date of effective payment, as outstanding monthly salary for February 2013 in accordance with the contract; o EUR 5,000, plus 5% interest as of 28 February 2013 until the date of effective payment, as outstanding remuneration due in accordance with the agreement; - EUR 131,000 net, plus 5% interest as of the due date until the date of effective payment, as compensation, broken down as follows: o EUR 26,000 corresponding to the residual value of the contract, i.e. salary from March 2013 until May 2014; o EUR 105,000 corresponding to the residual value of the agreement, i.e. remuneration from March 2013 until May 2014. - Sporting sanction to be imposed. 14. In his claim, the Claimant first of all stresses that the Respondent failed to pay him the salary for January and February 2013 as well as the remuneration due on 28 February 2013 in accordance with the agreement. Additionally, the Claimant states that he was threatened and therefore forced to return the advance of payment of EUR 20,000 but does not claim it due to a lack of evidence. 15. Furthermore, the Claimant maintains that he did not benefit from professional training conditions in spite of having been hired as “a professional football player”. 16. In addition, the Claimant recalls that the Respondent refused to deliver him a written authorisation to go back to country E. 17. Moreover, the Claimant asserts that the Respondent’s behaviour showed its intention of ending the contractual relationship. In this regard, the Claimant points out the proposal to terminate the contract dated 31 January 2013. Then, the Claimant refers to the fine imposed on him for an alleged unprofessional behaviour before a game and questioned the basis of the fine since he could not have played said game for lack of registration. In this respect, the Claimant also insists that together with the notification of the fine, the Respondent informed him that the Board of Directors would discuss whether his unprofessional behaviour should lead to the termination of the contract. Finally, the Claimant sustains that the refusal to register him clearly evidenced that the Respondent never counted on him, in particular considering the content of the stipulation referred to in point 3 above. 18. In light of the foregoing, the Claimant considers that he had a just cause to terminate the contract. 19. In its response, as a preliminary observation, the Respondent states that the claim has to be dismissed since the event triggering the cause of action, i.e. the termination, never occurred. 20. The Respondent further emphasises the Claimant’s failure to comply with his obligations. In this regard, the Respondent asserts that the Claimant refused to train with the reserve team, behaved unprofessionally by drinking alcohol very late at night and showed complete disrespect to the Respondent’s officials. According to the Respondent, the foregoing elements justified the fine imposed on the Claimant and, since they demonstrated the Claimant’s will to leave the Respondent, justified the proposal made on 31 January 2011. 21. In continuation, the Respondent refers to its financial obligations and considers that at the time of the claim, an amount of EUR 2,000, i.e. salary for January 2013, was outstanding. According to the Respondent, it paid the advance of EUR 20,000 and therefore, rejected the allegations of threats. Moreover, the Respondent states that the amounts provided by the agreement were not yet due since the latter stipulates that “It is agreed that the sums mentioned in Exhibit 1 will be paid with 90 days grace period.” 22. As concerns the alleged refusal to allow his return to country E, the Respondent insists that it never did so and that in any case, such a decision is to be left to the Respondent’s discretion. 23. Subsequently, the Respondent asserts that the Claimant was treated as a professional and further adds that the Claimant benefited from the same training conditions as any of the Respondent’s professional players. 24. As to the registration of the Claimant, the Respondent points out that it was agreed during the contractual negotiations that as soon as the Claimant would have the skills and experience to play officials games, he would be registered; however during the 2012/2013 season, he still lacked the required abilities. Additionally, at the time of the first Claimant’s correspondence, the deadline for registering new players had already expired. 25. Finally, the Respondent sustains that the Claimant left the country in February 2013 without notice and signed an employment contract with another club. 26. Alternatively, should the DRC hold it liable for breach of contract, the Respondent requests the Chamber to mitigate the compensation by considering the new contract signed by the Claimant with Club F and the alleged offer made to it on 18 February 2013 by the club from country I, Club H, which consisted in a loan until 31 May 2013 with a monthly salary of EUR 7,000. 27. In his replica, and in addition to his previous arguments, the Claimant rejects all the allegations regarding his unprofessional behaviour and calls the evidence provided by the Respondent into question, in particular the witness statements. 28. Additionally, the Claimant maintains that he put the Respondent in default several times by means of the aforementioned correspondence and that the Respondent was aware that he had left the country since he left the same day as he lodged the claim. 29. Finally, the Claimant states that the Respondent never informed him of the offer received from the club from country I. 30. In its duplica, the Respondent mainly refers to its previous argumentation while clarifying some elements. 31. Firstly, the Respondent asserts that until the date the Claimant decided to abandon the Respondent, it had paid EUR 25,000, leaving EUR 9,000 outstanding. However, out of the EUR 9,000, an amount of EUR 5,000 was due in accordance with the agreement and therefore could be paid within a 90-day grace period. Additionally, the Respondent considers that the fine of EUR 3,000 has to be deducted from the outstanding remuneration. 32. Moreover, the Respondent sustains that the Claimant breached the contract and the agreement by leaving the country without previously terminating said agreements and that it informed him about the offer received from the club from country I but he refused it. 33. Finally, the Respondent states that in case the DRC deems that it is to be held liable for breach of contract, no sporting sanction should be imposed. 34. On 8 March 2013, the Claimant and the club from country G, Club F, concluded an employment contract, valid as of the date of signature until 1 December 2013 and according to which the Claimant received a total remuneration of EUR 17,500. On 17 January 2014, the Claimant entered into an employment contract with the club from country K, Club J, valid as of 22 January 2014 until 30 June 2014 and entitling him to a total remuneration of 108,360. However, according to the Claimant, Club J only paid him 20,000 for January and February 2014 and therefore, on 23 June 2014, they decided to mutually terminate the contract. In accordance with the mutual termination, Club J undertook to pay the Claimant an amount of 50,000 as follows: - 25,000 on 31 July 2014; - 25,000 on 31 August 2014. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter referred to as the DRC or the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 2 March 2013. Consequently, the 2012 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 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 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 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 (edition 2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 2 March 2013, the 2012 edition of said Regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. In continuation, with regard to the claimed payments in connection to the image rights agreement apparently signed by the parties, the Chamber also had to verify whether, for formal reasons, it was competent to deal with this specific component or not. In fact it remains that this part of the claim could possibly not be considered due to the Chamber lacking competence to deal with disputes related to image rights. 5. While analysing whether it was competent to hear this part of the claim, the Chamber, without entering into any discussion regarding the actual wording of art. 2 of the agreement nor its title itself, which undoubtedly defines the agreement as an image rights agreement, wished to highlight that said agreement contained further elements which led to believe that it was not in fact an image rights agreement but rather a separate agreement to the employment contract, i.e. directly linked to the services of the Claimant as a player. 6. As a general rule, if there are separate agreements, the DRC tends to consider the agreement on image rights as such and does not have the competence to deal with it. However, such conclusion might be different if specific elements of the separate agreement suggest that it was in fact meant to be part of the actual employment relationship. In the case at hand, such elements appear to exist. In particular, art. 1 of the agreement states that “the parties agree that this agreement shall be an additional and inextricable part of the contract of employment dated 3/12/2012”. 7. In view of all the above, the Chamber established that the image rights agreement is to be considered, meaning that it is in a position to take it into consideration when assessing the Claimant’s claim. 8. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, it started by acknowledging the abovementioned facts of the case as well as the documentation contained in the file. 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. 9. In this respect, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent had signed an employment contract on 3 December 2012, valid as of 1 January 2013 until 31 May 2014 and according to which the Claimant was entitled to a monthly salary of EUR 2,000. In addition, the members of the Chamber took note that on 5 December 2012, the parties entered into an agreement entitling the Claimant to a global amount of EUR 135,000. 10. Moreover, the DRC observed that none of the parties expressly terminated the employment relationship; however, the members of Chamber concurred that by lodging on 2 March 2013 a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, for breach of contract and requesting the contract and the agreement to be deemed as terminated with just cause, the Claimant de facto terminated the contractual relationship. In view of the above, the Chamber held that 2 March 2013 must be considered as date of termination. 11. In continuation, the Chamber noted that the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent maintaining that the Respondent had breached the contract by showing no interest in his services. In particular, the Claimant outlines that the Respondent failed to pay him two monthly salaries as well as the instalment due on 28 February 2013 in accordance with the agreement, refused to register him at the federation, imposed on him an unjustified fine and did not provide him with professional training conditions. 12. Thereafter, the members of the Chamber took note of the reply of the Respondent, which acknowledges not having registered the Claimant but alleges that it would have done so as soon as the Claimant would have the skills and experience to play official games. In addition, the DRC observed that the Respondent asserts that the fine was justified by the unprofessional behaviour of the Claimant. Finally, the Chamber noted that the Respondent considers that it is actually the Claimant who breached the contract and the agreement by leaving the country without notice. 13. Subsequently, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant had on various occasions requested the Respondent to comply with its obligation of registering him. However, and in spite of these requests, the members of the Chamber observed that the Respondent acknowledged that it had never registered the Claimant at the Football Association of country D but justified it by his lack of skills and abilities. 14. In this respect, the Chamber referred to stipulation C of the contract which provides that “[t]he Respondent] undertakes to register [the Claimant] as an EU football player with the Football Association of country D according to FIFA and/or UEFA rules applicable at the time of signing the present agreement”. 15. In light of the above, the members of the Chamber considered important to point out, as has been previously sustained by the DRC, that among a player’s fundamental rights under an employment contract, is not only his right to a timely payment of his remuneration, but also his right to access training and to be given the possibility to compete with his fellow team mates in the team’s official matches. 16. This led the Chamber to conclude that by refusing to register the Claimant, in spite of its express commitment to do so, the Respondent is effectively barring, in an absolute manner, the potential access of the Claimant to competition and, as such, is violating one of his fundamental rights as a football player. 17. The DRC further referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof, and pointed out that the Respondent had failed to present documentation evidencing that it had paid the Claimant’s salaries for January and February 2013. 18. As far as the claimed instalment due in accordance with the agreement is concerned, the Chamber deemed it fit to emphasise that clause 7 of the aforementioned agreement provides for a grace period of 90 days in order to comply with the obligations set therein. In view of the foregoing, the DRC concluded that the instalment due for February 2013 in accordance with said agreement had not fallen due yet on the date of termination and was therefore not outstanding when the Claimant de facto terminated the contract, i.e. on 2 March 2013. 19. Reverting to the Respondent’s request to set off the fine imposed on the Claimant against his outstanding remuneration, the DRC referred to art. 12 par. 3 and 6 of the Procedural Rules and held that the Respondent did not submit any reliable evidence proving that the Claimant had actually behaved in such an unprofessional manner justifying a fine of EUR 3,000. Therefore, the members of the Chamber decided to reject the Respondent’s request in this regard. 20. In view of the above considerations, the Chamber concluded that an amount of EUR 4,000, corresponding to the salaries for January and February 2013, was outstanding on the date of termination, i.e. 2 March 2013. 21. Furthermore, the DRC wished to highlight that on 31 January 2013, the Respondent proposed to terminate the contract in exchange for the payment of EUR 15,000. 22. On account of all the above circumstances, and in particular considering the failure to register the Claimant, the outstanding salaries as well as the Respondent’s proposal to terminate the contract, the Chamber established that the Respondent had no longer been interested in the Claimant’s services. Such conduct constitutes, in the Chamber’s view, a clear breach of contract. Consequently, the Chamber concurred the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contact with just cause by the Claimant. 23. Having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequences of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent an amount of money as compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding salaries on the basis of the relevant employment contract. 24. First of all, reverting to the Claimant’s financial claim, the DRC made reference to its previous considerations and recalled that at the time of the termination, i.e. on 2 March 2013, the salaries for January and February 2013 were outstanding. 25. Consequently, in accordance with the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 4,000 as outstanding remuneration corresponding to the salaries relating to January and February 2013. 26. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim, the Chamber decided that the Respondent had to pay default interest at a rate of 5% as follows: - 5% p.a. as of 1 February 2013 on the amount of EUR 2,000; - 5% p.a. as of 1 March 2013 on the amount of EUR 2,000. 27. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including, in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period. 28. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contains a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake. 29. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a nonexhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable. 30. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the contract and the agreement until 31 May 2014, taking into account that the Claimant’s remuneration which had fallen due up until 2 March 2013 is included in the calculation of the outstanding remuneration. Therefore, the Chamber held that the remuneration due as of March 2013 until 31 May 2014 should be taken into consideration to figure out the amount due as a compensation for breach of contract. In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 136,000 shall serve as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract 31. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been able to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages. 32. The Chamber noted that according to the Respondent’s declarations and the documentation submitted, the Claimant concluded two employment contracts in the relevant period, according to which the Claimant received a total remuneration of EUR 34,300, i.e. EUR 17,500 plus 70,000, which corresponds to EUR 16,800. 33. In accordance with the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber and the general obligation of the player to mitigate his damages, such remuneration under the new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 34. In view of all of the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of EUR 101,700 to the Claimant, which is considered by the DRC to be a reasonable and justified amount as compensation for breach of contract. 35. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of compensation as of the date on which the claim was lodged, i.e. 2 March 2013, until the date of effective payment. 36. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. ********** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 4,000 plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows: a. 5% p.a. as of 1 February 2013 on the amount of EUR 2,000; b. 5% p.a. as of 1 March 2013 on the amount of EUR 2,000. 3. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract amounting to EUR 101,700 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 2 March 2013 until the date of effective payment. 4. In the event that the amounts plus interest due to the Claimant in accordance with the above-mentioned points 2. and 3. are not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limits, 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 remittances are to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber: Markus Kattner Acting Secretary General Encl. CAS directives