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 21 May 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member on the matter between the player, Player A, Country B as Claimant and the club, Club C, Country D as Respondent 1 and the club, Club E, Country F as Respondent 2 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 21 May 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member on the matter between the player, Player A, Country B as Claimant and the club, Club C, Country D as Respondent 1 and the club, Club E, Country F as Respondent 2 regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. According to the Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant), on 30 January 2013, he signed a contract (hereinafter, the 2012-2013 contract with Respondent 1) with the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: Respondent 1), valid until 30 June 2014. 2. According to the 2012-2013 contract with the Respondent 1, the Claimant was entitled, during the 2012/2013 season, to a remuneration equivalent to the “Federal Minimum”, which the Claimant evaluates in the amount of EUR 59,797.92, in accordance with the Collective Agreement between the Football Federation of Country D and Professional League of Country D. 3. Subsequently, on 27 August 2013 the Claimant signed a second employment contract with the Respondent 1, valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2014 (hereinafter, the 2013-2014 contract with Respondent 1). 4. According to the 2013-2014 contract with Respondent 1, the Claimant was entitled to a remuneration in the amount of EUR 29,900 during the 2013-2014 season. According to the Claimant, this amount was to be paid in monthly instalments of EUR 2,990 each, commencing as of 28 September 2013 until 30 June 2014. 5. According to the Claimant, on 5 February 2013, he transferred on loan from the Respondent 1 to the Club of Country F, Club E (hereinafter: Respondent 2) and signed an “agreement of a professional football player” with said club (hereinafter: the contract with Respondent 2), valid as from 5 February 2013 until 31 December 2013. 6. According to the contract with Respondent 2, the Claimant was entitled to a salary in the amount of “Euro 1000/month and premium”. 7. In addition, the contract with Respondent 2 contained, inter alia, the following clause: “The Football Club employs the Football Player as professional contractual football player according to the Act on Sport of Country F as well as the rules of the Football Federation of Country F”. 8. On 12 July 2013, the contract with Respondent 2 was mutually terminated through an “Agreement” signed by the Claimant and Respondent 2. In this regard, clause 2) of said agreement stipulated the following: “2) The Parties unanimously declare that they do not have and cannot have any claims against each-other, and that they cannot challenge this Agreement” 9. On 18 November 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA both against the Respondent 1 and Respondent 2, and requested the DRC to condemn the Respondent 1 to pay him the total amount of EUR 20,155, plus 5% interest p.a., as outstanding salaries, detailed as follows: -EUR 12,457.90, for the period comprised between 30 January 2013 until 30 June 2013 (EUR 2,491.58 per month); -“EUR 7,698” for the period comprised between 1 July 2014 until 30 August 2014 (EUR 2,566 per month). 10. Alternatively, the Claimant requested the DRC to condemn both respondents to pay the same total sum (i.e. EUR 20,155, plus 5% interest p.a.) to the following extent: -“EUR 15,155.90”, for the period comprised between 30 January 2013 until 30 June 2013 (EUR 7,457.90=5*1,491.58, calculated as the difference between the salary agreed with the Respondent 1 (EUR 2,491.58) and the salary agreed with Respondent 2 (EUR 1,000), to be paid by the Respondent 1, plus EUR 4,983.16 for the salaries of July and August 2014; -EUR 5,000, to be paid by Respondent 2, corresponding to the period of validity of the contract signed with this club (i.e. 5 months). 11. Furthermore, the Claimant suggested an “indemnification or compensation” to be paid by the respondents in addition to the outstanding salaries in the amount of EUR 15,000 or “as wisely determined by the DRC” to the extent of the liability of the respondents towards the Claimant. 12. Moreover, the Claimant requested the payment of the costs related to the proceedings, including the attorney’s fees. 13. In addition, the Claimant informed that he transferred on loan to the Club of Country B Club G on 2 September “2014”. 14. Finally, the Claimant underlined that he tried to contact the respondents via email and letter in order to claim the overdue salaries before lodging his claim. 15. On 1 December 2014, the Respondent 2 replied to the claim, and declared the following: “(…) We would like to spend some part of the money (what we had to get from [the Respondent 1]) for the salary of [the Claimant]. It is agreed that [Respondent 2] only pays to the [Claimant] if [the Respondent 1] pays his obligations to [the Respondent 2]. This has not taken place yet after numerous notice to the [Respondent 1] (…) we understand the [Claimant’s] problem and position, so if our club financial situation allows it shortly we will make his payment”. 16. In this regard, Respondent 2 attached a document sent to it by the Respondent 1, available only in Language of Country D and dated 5 February 2013, by means of which the Respondent 1 established the payment of EUR 25,000 to the Claimant. 17. In addition, Respondent 2 attached an agreement or “Declaration”, dated 8 February 2013, apparently signed by this club and by the Claimant, by means of which they agreed upon the following: “In the case of [the Respondent 1] does not settle the payments until the deadline described in, [Respondent 2] unilaterally can terminate the [Claimant’s] contract without financial and legal consequences”. 18. On 15 January 2015, the Respondent 1 replied to the claim. According to this club, the Claimant was never registered with it during the period comprised between 30 January 2013 and 30 June 2013. Furthermore, the Respondent 1 attached a copy of an ITC in order to prove that the Claimant was only registered with it on 27 August 2013. Moreover, with regard to the 2012-2013 contract, the Respondent 1 argued that the signature of the managing director is missing. 19. In reference to the 2013-2014 contract with it, the Respondent 1 considered that, following his release from Respondent 2, the Claimant was transferred “free of charge on a temporary basis to Club G” on 1 September 2013, and therefore requests the DRC to “take this circumstance into due consideration”. 20. Finally, the Respondent 1 requested to reject all claims made by the Claimant and in all cases, to award expenses for the proceedings. 21. On 12 February 2015, the Claimant insisted that the 2012-2013 contract with the Respondent 1 was valid as from 30 January 2013. In this regard, the Claimant stated that the contract was signed in the presence of the executive director of the Respondent 1. In reference to the allegation made by the Respondent 1 over the non-registration of the Claimant during the disputed period, the Claimant considered that his claim is not made in reference to this, but to the existence of an agreement between the Respondent 1 and him. 22. In addition, the Claimant underlined that the Respondent 1 never denied the existence of the 2013-2014 contract with this club, which entitled him to an amount of EUR 29,900 for the entire season. 23. In reference to the arguments of Respondent 2, the Claimant considered that the employer should be consistent with his obligations, despite the agreements existing with a third party. Thus, the Claimant considered that the argument of Respondent 2, according to which it agreed to pay only if the Respondent 1 did, is illegal. 24. On 16 February 2015, Respondent 2 submitted an unsolicited correspondence, by means of which it declared that “the facts what our club outlined in the previous messages do not change”. 25. Despite being invited to do so, none of the respondents provided any final comments to this case. 26. According to the information available in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Claimant de-registered from his previous club, Club H, on 7 December 2012, and the ITC in favour of the Football Federation of Country F was issued on 22 February 2013. 27. In addition, and according to the information available in the TMS, the Claimant de-registered from Respondent 2 on 30 June 2013 and the ITC in favour of the Football Federation of Country D was issued on 29 August 2013. 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 18 November 2014. Consequently, the 2014 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 2014 and 2015 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 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, a Club of Country D and a Club of Country F. 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 2014 and 2015), and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 18 November 2014, the 2014 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 Chamber took note that, according to the Claimant, an employment contract was concluded and properly formalized between him and the Respondent 1 on 30 January 2013, with a period of validity until 30 June 2014. 6. Moreover, the members of the DRC also took note that, on 5 February 2013, the Claimant transferred on loan to Respondent 2, with which he concluded an employment contract, valid until 31 December 2013. 7. In view of the above, the members of the Chamber observed that the Claimant requested the DRC to condemn the Respondent 1 to pay him a series of amounts for the period comprised between 30 January 2013 until 30 June 2013, corresponding to outstanding salaries. 8. In consideration of the simultaneous conclusion by the Claimant of an employment agreement with the Respondent 1 and Respondent 2 during the overlapping period between 5 February 2014 and 31 December 2013, the Members of the Chamber considered relevant to establish the obligations of the aforementioned respondents towards the Claimant during the considered period. 9. In this regard, the members of the Chamber highlighted that, in the event of a loan, the jurisprudence of the DRC has established that, unless otherwise stated, the effects of the original contract (i.e. the contract with the Respondent 1) are deemed as suspended during the entire duration of the loan. 10. In this context, the Chamber noticed that, none of the contracts signed between the Claimant and the respondents (i.e. the Respondent 1 and Respondent 2) settled any type of shared or mutual obligations towards the Claimant between the involved clubs during the considered loan period. 11. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber noticed that, according to the information available in the TMS, the Claimant transferred directly to Respondent 2, without effectively joining the Respondent 1 at any moment during the loan period. Thus, the members of the Chamber unanimously agreed that, during the loan period, the Claimant was exclusively employed by Respondent 2 as a professional football player, without being subject to the discipline of any other club. 12. In view of the above and in consideration of the jurisprudence of the DRC, the members of the Chamber unanimously agreed that the Respondent 1 could not be held liable for any financial obligation towards the Claimant during the considered loan period, since the Claimant was exclusively subject during this period to his contract with Respondent 2. 13. Consequently, the members of the Chamber unanimously agreed that the claim brought by the Claimant in relation to the Respondent 1 during the considered loan period, must be rejected. 14. After determining the responsibility of the Respondent 1 towards the Claimant during the considered loan period, the members of the DRC subsequently analysed the potential liability of the Respondent 2 towards the Claimant during the aforementioned loan period. 15. In this regard, the members of the Chamber observed that the Claimant concluded a contract with Respondent 2, valid from 5 February 2013 until 31 December 2013. 16. Notwithstanding the above, the members of the Chamber also took note that, on 12 July 2013, the Claimant and the Respondent 2 concluded a termination agreement which clearly stipulated, inter alia, that the Parties “unanimously declare that they do not have any claims against each-other”. 17. Consequently, the members of the Chamber agreed that the claim brought by the Claimant in relation to the Respondent 2 during the considered loan period, must also be rejected. 18. In reference to the said termination agreement, the members of the Chamber noticed that the Claimant did not contest the validity of this document and that, in view of its clarity, it has been proven that the Claimant previously agreed with Respondent 2 to abdicate from any financial claim towards it. 19. In addition, the members of the DRC also took note that the Claimant requested the payment of outstanding salaries from the Respondent 1 for the months of July and August 2014. 20. In this regard, the members of the DRC recalled that, on 27 August 2013, the Claimant concluded an agreement with the Respondent 1 (i.e. the 2013-2014 contract with the Respondent 1), which was valid until 30 June 2014. 21. In view of the above, the members of the DRC unanimously agreed that the Respondent 1 had no obligations towards the Claimant after 30 June 2014 and that, consequently, the Claimant’s request for the payment of outstanding salaries from the Respondent 1 for the months of July and August 2014 must also be rejected due to a lack of contractual basis. 22. Moreover, as regards to the claimed legal expenses, the Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as to its long-standing and wellestablished jurisprudence, in accordance with which no procedural compensation shall be awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject the Claimant’s request relating to legal expenses. 23. Finally, the Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting any further 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: Markus Kattner Acting Secretary General Enclosed: CAS directives