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 6 November 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Theo Van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Mohamed Al-Saikhan (Saudi-Arabia), member on the claim presented by the club, Club A, country B as Claimant / Counter-Respondent against the player, Player C, country D as Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club E, country D as Respondent 2 and the club, Club F, country G as Respondent 3 regarding an employment-related dispute 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 6 November 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Theo Van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Mohamed Al-Saikhan (Saudi-Arabia), member on the claim presented by the club, Club A, country B as Claimant / Counter-Respondent against the player, Player C, country D as Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club E, country D as Respondent 2 and the club, Club F, country G as Respondent 3 regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 23 December 2011, the player from country D, Player C (hereinafter: Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant or player), and the club from country B, Club A (hereinafter: Claimant / Counter-Respondent or Club A), signed an employment contract, valid as from 23 December 2011 until 1 June 2012. Furthermore, on 23 May 2012, the player and Club A signed a second employment contract (hereinafter: contract), valid as from 1 June 2012 until 1 June 2013. 2. Moreover, on 23 December 2011, the club from country D, Club E (hereinafter: Respondent 2 or Club E) and Club A signed an agreement over the loan of the player to the latter, valid as from 23 December 2011 until 1 June 2012. In addition, on 23 May 2012, Club E and Club A signed a second agreement over the loan of the player, valid as from 1 June 2012 until 1 June 2013 (hereinafter: loan agreement), under which Club A undertook to pay a loan compensation to Club E in the total amount of USD 325,000 in two instalments. Both loan agreements were also signed by the player. 3. Article 20.2 of the loan agreement stipulates that: ``in case CLUB [Club A] fails to pay the wages, bonus and/or any other remuneration established in the labour agreement Club E shall at any time unilateral breach this Agreement and the PLAYER immediately return to country D’’; and in accordance with art. 20.3 of the loan agreement: ``The PLAYER must immediately communicate Club E all the time that CLUB [Club A] fails to pay wages, bonus and/or any remuneration contracted in the labour agreement’’. 4. In this respect, art. 21 of the loan agreement, entitled ``Release from Club E side’’, stipulates, inter alia, that: ``Club E has right to cancel this contract in the period of December 1st 2012 to December 31st 2012 under request by fax, email or letter. If Club E request the release of this contract, Club E shall pay back to CLUB the expenses that CLUB had with LOAN payment, PLAYER’S salary (Include signing on fee) and air tickets’’. 5. According to the contract, the player was entitled to receive, inter alia, for the 2012/13 season the following net amounts and benefits: • Signing on fee USD 60,000 • Twelve equal instalments of USD 20,000 each as from 1 June 2012 until 1 June 2013 USD 240,000 • A furnished two bedroom apartment for the player and his family; • Two return business air tickets country D-country B-country D for the player, his wife and his two children; • Bonus of USD 1,000 in case of scoring a goal in official competitions. 6. According to the loan agreement, which constitutes an integral part of the contract, the player was entitled to receive, inter alia, for the 2012/13 season the above mentioned amounts and benefits plus ``a driver with car always available for him and his family’’. 7. According to Club A, on 3 July 2012, Club E notified the club the will of the parties, i.e. the player and Club E, to terminate the employment contract as well as the loan agreement both signed on 23 May 2012 by mutual agreement. In this alleged correspondence, Club E allegedly stated that the player did not want to return to Club A due to a language barrier issue, non-satisfaction with the coach’s training methodology and the complex political situation in country B referring to the risk of a war. Moreover, Club E indicated that the player had an ``offer from City X in country G’’ which would be good for his career and that since, in the addition to the above, the club was ``under negotiation with other foreign striker to replace’’ the player and the latter did not ``come on time for new season from vacation’’, Club E requested the club to agree to the termination of the mentioned contracts as well as to provide the bank details in order for Club E to transfer the first loan payment made by Club A to them. Club E also informed the club that it had already requested the International Transfer Certificate (hereinafter: ITC) of the player. 8. In response to the above mentioned correspondence, Club A alleges to have drawn Club E’s attention to the principle of contractual stability. 9. According to Club A, despite its warning, on 7 July 2012, the player and Club E jointly addressed it a correspondence notifying the ``unilateral termination’’ of the employment contract and the loan agreement, alleging that Club A failed to pay the USD 60,000 signing-on fee plus two monthly salaries corresponding to June and July 2012. Moreover, Club E invoked art. 20.2 of the loan agreement. It was further indicated that the club must send the player’s ITC back to Club E ``immediately as the TMS window closes in country D in just 3 days’’. 10. The previous day, on 6 July 2012, Club A also contacted the club from country G, Club F (hereinafter: Respondent 3 or Club F), regarding the apparent publication on their official website that Club F had concluded a contract with the player for the 2012/13 season and informed Club F that the player was under a valid contract with Club A and that any negotiations between Club F, the player and Club E constituted a violation of FIFA Regulations and the player’s contract with the club. 11. On 7 July 2012, Club F informed Club A that Club E had ``offered the player’’ to them and that it was ``ready to deal with the club which entitled to deal’’. 12. On account of the above, on 26 July 2012, Club A lodged a claim against the player and Club E in front of FIFA maintaining that they acted in breach of contract without just cause shortly before the beginning of the country B super league. The claim was amended later on in order to involve Club F in the proceedings as a respondent. 13. Therefore, Club A seeks compensation from the player and Club E in the amount of USD 1,380,000 plus interest as follows: • USD 1,215,000 paid by Club A to replace the player during his absence: a) USD 750,000 corresponding to the amount of the contract between the club and the new player, Player H; and b) USD 465,000 corresponding to the amount of the contract between the club and the new player, Player J; • USD 165,000 corresponding to the amount paid regarding the extension of the loan agreement (first instalment of loan compensation). 14. Furthermore, Club A seeks compensation in the amount of USD 620,000 as further damages based on clauses 5 to 13 of the employment contract, disciplinary measures and strongly requests that sporting sanctions be imposed on the player, Club E and Club F. 15. Moreover, Club A requests FIFA to order that Club E and Club F be deemed jointly and severally liable for the payment of the above mentioned amounts. 16. According to Club A, as a consequence of the breach, it had to incur high expenses in order to find another player. 17. Club A sustains that the first instalment of the loan fee in the amount of USD 165,000 was paid to Club E. 18. Furthermore, Club A maintains that the signing-on fee stipulated in the employment contract was not paid to the player on 23 May 2012, since the player was leaving on holiday in the early morning the day after the signature of the contract and it was agreed that the player would receive the payment upon his return to country B, on 23 June 2012; however, he never came back. Club A sustains that the agent of the player from country D, Agent Y, assured the club that the reason for the player’s delay in returning from holiday was due to passport issues. 19. According to Club A, the player and Club E had ``no real intention to remain committed to the valid contract’’ and they were in fact ``looking for another club for higher amounts’’. 20. In their reply to the claim, the player and Club E, with regard to Club A’s statement that they breached the terms of the employment contract and the loan agreement, sustain that these allegations are based on the supposed announcement made in the website of Club F that the player had apparently been transferred to the club from country G, which according to the player and Club E is ``untrue and absurd’’ and does not demonstrate any possible breach of contract by the player or Club E since they had not entered into any contractual relationship with Club F. The player further highlights that no evidence for such allegation has been submitted by Club A. 21. Notwithstanding the above, according to the player and Club E, at the time that Club A alleges that the player committed breach of contract, the employment contract as well as the loan agreement had already been ``breached without just cause’’ by Club A, due to failure to pay the player’s remuneration. 22. According to Club E, by the end of May 2012, the player had not yet received the relevant signing-on fee. After having being informed by the player of this fact, in accordance with clause 20.3 of the loan agreement, Club E, instead of immediately terminating the loan agreement, decided to first contact Club A informing that, in line with clauses 3.3 and 20.2 of the loan agreement, it would not start procedures for the extension of the player’s loan in the Transfer Matching System (hereinafter: TMS) until the breach was remedied by the club and the amount corresponding to the signing-on fee was paid. Club E maintains that afterwards, instead of fulfilling all its duties, Club A only paid Club E the first instalment of the transfer fee, failing to pay the player’s remuneration and signing-on fee. Club E had thus no option but to terminate the loan agreement and requested the return of the player’s ITC. 23. Moreover, the player and Club E sustain that the player had not resumed his activities with Club A on 23 June 2012 due to the club’s fault as, indeed, he had a few problems with the issuance of his new passport; however, the player stressed that Club A failed to issue the relevant air tickets for the player and his family, as provided for in the loan agreement and the employment contract. Furthermore, the player asserts that the formal termination of the loan agreement and the employment contract took place on 7 July 2012, after a few attempts to solve the matter amicably. 24. Hence, according to the player and Club E, at the time that the club alleges that the player committed a breach of contract, the employment contract as well as the loan agreement had already been breached without just cause by the club, due to failure to pay one third of the player’s entire remuneration, i.e. the signing-on fee plus the salaries for June and July 2012, which fell due on 23 May, 1 June and 1 July 2012, respectively. In this respect, Club E sustains that the payment of the player’s remuneration was a condition sine qua non for the continuity of the loan agreement in accordance with its clause 20.2. 25. In addition, Club E sustains that despite the return of the player to its squad, no inducement to a possible breach of the contract can be attributed to Club E as, after the termination or expiration of the employment contract signed on the occasion of the player’s loan, the player would have re-joined Club E. 26. With regard to Club A’s allegation that the player’s agent, Agent Y, had authorised it to pay the player’s remuneration only after his scheduled return from vacation, i.e. on 23 June 2012, the player as well as Club E sustain that this ``shall not speak against’’ the player’s rights because: a) Club A failed to provide any written evidence to support its allegation; b) it would be contradictory to grant such authorisation the very same day on which the employment contract was signed; c) it would be more reasonable to amend the employment contract and change the date on which the player’s signingon fee and first salary were to be paid; d) the agent had neither powers nor authorisation to give such consent on behalf of the player. 27. As to the amounts claimed by Club A, the player and Club E sustain the following: • Regarding the investment allegedly made by the club to replace the player, the calculation suggested by Club A is disproportional, as it seems unreasonable and unjustifiable to hire two players with higher salaries to replace just one. Moreover, the two mentioned players, unlike the Respondent, are in the national ``A’’ team in their respective countries, i.e. Country K and country B. In addition, the remuneration of the two players together is equivalent to more than four times that of the player’s remuneration under the employment contract. • As to the first instalment of the loan fee apparently paid to Club E, the player sustains that he shall not bear any responsibility. Club E, for its part, maintains that it complied with all its obligations under the loan agreement and that, due to the club’s breaches of contract, it shall be entitled to receive the entire transfer fee agreed as compensation. • As to the damages claimed in the amount of USD 620,000, which according to the player and Club E is more than two times higher than the player’s remuneration under the employment contract, both sustain that the club failed to demonstrate that the player and Club E entered into any contracts with other clubs. 28. In view of the above, the player and Club E request FIFA that the claim lodged by Club A against them be fully rejected and they request that the club bears the legal costs related to the present proceedings. 29. On 11 September 2012, the player lodged a counterclaim against Club A based on the alleged unjustified breach of employment contract by the latter. 30. The player sustains that the club failed to pay the signing-on fee as well as the salaries corresponding to June and July 2012, totalling USD 100,000. Therefore, the player asks that the club be considered liable of breaching the employment contract signed on 23 May 2012 and be ordered to pay compensation as follows: • Signing-on fee USD 60,000 • Monthly salaries corresponding to June and July 2012 as outstanding remuneration USD 40,000 • Remuneration as from August 2012 until June 2013 USD 200,000 31. Furthermore, the player requests that the club be ordered to pay fringe benefits as stipulated in the contract, which shall be calculated by the DRC ex aequo et bono. The following estimates, totalling USD 114,000, were proposed by the player: • Furnished two-bedroom apartment USD 42,000 (USD 3,500 x 12 months) • A car and driver for the player and his family USD 24,000 (USD 2,000 x 12 months) • Eight round-trip business class tickets country D-country B (USD 6,000 x 8 tickets - for the player, USD 48,000 his wife and two children) 32. Moreover, the player requests that the club be ordered to pay damages in the amount of USD 150,000, equivalent to six months of remuneration as stipulated in the employment contract. 33. The player also requests to be awarded 5% interest p.a. over the total amount due by the club accrued as ``from the date of the breach of the contract (or from the original date of maturation, as the case may be)’’ as well as legal and procedural cost and that the club be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for two registration periods. 34. In response to the counterclaim lodged by the player, Club A maintains that the player and Club E did not act in good faith. Furthermore, Club A insists that the player went to country D on 23 May 2012, the day on which the parties signed the employment contract, supposedly for a period of 21 days, the purpose of the trip being the holiday between the end of the league and the starting of the new season on 7 July 2012. For this reason, he accepted to receive, at his return to country B, the sum corresponding to the signing-on fee, i.e. USD 60,000. Moreover, the club submitted a copy of an electronic air ticket issued on 20 May 2012, in the name of the player, for him to leave country B on 24 May 2012 and return on 16 June 2012. 35. With regard to the payment due to Club E, i.e. USD 165,000, the club sustains that the amount was paid on 27 May 2012 to the bank account indicated by Club E. 36. Furthermore, the club asserts that during the first contract all the payments were made in cash and against receipts and that the player did not introduce any bank account for the regular contractual payments. In addition, the club states that it did not have ``intention and motivation to violate the contract as indeed fulfilled all its obligations under the first contract and paid 165us dollar for the second contract to the Club E club immediately’’. 37. Finally, the club insists on its claim and requests that the counterclaim lodged by the player be rejected in its entirety. 38. According to the new employment contract with Club E, to which the player returned, valid as of 1 July 2012 until 1 October 2015, the player was entitled to receive 2,000 per month. 39. On 7 September 2012, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee authorised the Football Federation of country D to provisionally register the player with Club E. 40. Furthermore, on 9 September 2012, Club E and Club F signed an agreement over the loan of the player to the latter as from 9 September 2012 until 30 June 2013, under which Club F undertook to pay loan compensation to Club E in the total amount of USD 500,000. Furthermore, the player was entitled to receive fringe benefits and the total amount of USD 400,000 net as follows: • Signing-on fee USD 80,000 • Twelve equal monthly instalments of USD 26,666 each as from September 2012 until 30 June 2013 USD 320,000 41. According to the employment contract with his new club, Club F, valid as of 9 September 2012 until 30 June 2013, the player was entitled to several bonuses as well as to the same remuneration and fringe benefits stipulated in the loan agreement, dated 9 September 2012. 42. According to Club F, on 6 July 2012, it received a letter from Club A informing Club F that the player was under a current and valid contract with Club A, the contents of which were immediately communicated to Club E. Club F sustains that Club E responded that the contract between the player and the club was terminated and emphasized that the player’s ITC would be sent via the Transfer Matching System (TMS). Therefore, on 9 September 2012, ``after concluding the negotiation between Club E and Club F’’, the player and Club F signed a loan transfer agreement valid until 30 June 2013. 43. According to Club F, the player’s ITC was requested via TMS and received on 13 September 2012 ``without any problems and obstacles by any party’’ and deems that it acted in accordance with the procedures. Club F added that ``according to the current rules and regulations of the players transfers, if any breach found or just causes that prevent the transfer of a player then the TMS will not allow the ITC of the player to be issued and sent to the requesting association’’. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First, 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 26 July 2012. Consequently, the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 1 and par. 2 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 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 D and an club from country G. 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 2014), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 26 July 2012, the 2010 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. The Chamber, however, 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. First, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that on 23 December 2011, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant had concluded an employment contract valid as from 23 December 2011 until 1 June 2012 and that, on 23 December 2011, the Claimant / CounterRespondent signed an agreement with the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant and the Respondent 2 for the loan of the Respondent 2 valid as from until 23 December 2011 until 1 June 2012. 6. In addition, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that on 23 May 2012, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant had concluded an employment contract valid as from 1 June 2012 until 1 June 2013 and that, on 23 May 2012, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant and the Respondent 2 signed an agreement for the loan of the player to the Respondent 2 as from 1 June 2012 until 1 June 2013. 7. The Chamber further acknowledged that the agreement for the loan of the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant contained a clause which provides “in case CLUB [Club A] fails to pay the wages, bonus and/or Any other remuneration established in the labour agreement Club E shall at any time unilateral breach this Agreement and the PLAYER immediately return to country D” (cf. point I.3 above). 8. In continuation, the members of the Chamber took into account that on 7 July 2012, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant and the Respondent 2 notified the Claimant / Counter-Respondent of the termination of the contract and the loan agreement, inter alia, on the basis of the aforementioned clause 20.2 of the loan agreement, stating that “they [Club A] didn’t do any payment until now”. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent, for its part, submits, inter alia, that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant and Respondent 2 terminated the employment contract and the loan agreement without just cause. 9. In this respect, the Chamber took note that according to the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant, at the time of the termination of the contract and the loan agreement on 7 July 2012, the total amount of USD 100,000 was yet to be paid by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to the Respondent 1 / CounterClaimant. Consequently, according to the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant and the Respondent 2 (hereinafter together referred to as: the Respondents), the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had been in breach of contract at the time of the contract termination. In this respect, the Respondents invoke art. 20.2 of the loan agreement. 10. The Chamber highlighted that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the conflicting positions of the parties, was to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause and which party was responsible for the early termination of the contractual relationship in question. The Chamber also underlined that, subsequently, if it were found that the employment contract was terminated without just cause, it would be necessary to determine the consequences for the party that was responsible for the early termination of the contractual relationship. 11. The DRC then turned its attention to the arguments of the Claimant / CounterRespondent and acknowledged that according to the latter the sign-on fee stipulated in the employment contract had remained unpaid solely because the player’s agent had agreed with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent that said sign-on fee was to be paid upon the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant’s return to the club. The Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant, for his part, has refuted that he had agreed to a delayed payment of the sign-on fee in general, and in particular, that he had empowered the agent to do so on his behalf. 12. In continuation, the DRC recalled that according to the legal principle of the burden of proof contained in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. 13. In view of the above, the DRC concluded that the Claimant / CounterRespondent shall carry the burden of proof in connection with the allegations that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant’s agent, acting as the player’s legal representative, authorised for the delayed payment of the sign-on fee until the return of the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant. 14. The Chamber noted that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent did not substantiate its allegations, as it did not present any evidence in respect of the alleged authorisation by the player or player’s agent to delay the payment of the sign-on fee. 15. As a consequence of the aforementioned considerations and taking into account the documentation presented by the parties to the dispute, the Chamber established that the sign-on fee had fallen due and remained outstanding at the time of the termination of the contract by the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant. 16. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber observed that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had not contested or given any reasons for the fact that the salary of June 2012 had not been paid, in addition to having failed to present any documentary evidence demonstrating that, in fact, the salary of June 2012 had been paid. 17. As regards the salary for July 2012, the members of the Chamber highlighted that in the absence of clearly specified due dates of the monthly salary payments, it has to be assumed that salary payments fall due at the end of the month in which the related services are rendered. 18. Subsequently, the Chamber noted that it has remained undisputed that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant had not returned to the Claimant / CounterRespondent on 23 June 2012 as was requested because of problems with his passport, which were subsequently acknowledged by the Claimant / CounterRespondent on 29 June 2012, with the latter requesting that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant should return as soon as the problems were resolved. 19. In continuation, as a consequence of the aforementioned considerations and taking into account the documentation presented by the parties to the dispute, the Chamber established that the salary for the month of June 2012 as well as the sign-on fee, i.e. a total of USD 80,000, had fallen due and remained outstanding at the time of termination of the contract by the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant on 7 July 2012. Consequently, the Chamber concurred that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had neglected its financial contractual obligations toward the player, triggering the application of clause 20.2 of the loan agreement. 20. On account of all of the above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant was entitled to terminate the contract on 7 July 2012. 21. As a consequence, the Chamber decided to reject the claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 22. Furthermore, and in accordance with the general principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is liable to pay to the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant the amounts which were outstanding under the terms of the contract at the moment of termination. 23. The Chamber then first turned its attention to the sign-on fee of USD 60,000 due to be paid upon signature since it was not otherwise specified and applicable to the entirety of the 2012/2013 season. Therefore, the members of the Chamber decided to award the sign-on fee to the Respondent 1 / CounterClaimant as outstanding remuneration on a pro-rata temporis basis, i.e. as from the start of the employment contract until its termination. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant is entitled to receive 1/12th of the amount of USD 60,000, i.e. USD 5,000 as the outstanding portion of the sign-on fee. 24. On account of the above, the Chamber decided that the Claimant / CounterRespondent is liable to pay to the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant the amount of USD 25,000, i.e. USD 5,000 relating to the signing-on fee and USD 20,000 relating to the monthly salary of June 2012. 25. In addition, taking into consideration the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the members of the Chamber decided to award the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amount of USD 25,000 as from 11 September 2012 until the date of effective payment. 26. Having established that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the contract with just cause by the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant, the Chamber focussed its attention on the consequences of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant would, in principle, be entitled to receive from the Claimant / Counter-Respondent compensation for breach of contract. 27. Subsequently, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the matter at hand. In doing so, the members of the Chamber first 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 Respondent 1 / Counter-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 had to clarify 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. In consideration of the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the employment contract as of its termination until 1 June 2013 and concluded that the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant would have received total remuneration of USD 275,000 (i.e. USD 55,000 relating to the signing-on fee plus 11 monthly instalments of USD 20,000) had the contract been executed until its expiry date. 30. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been enabled 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. 31. Indeed, on 1 July 2012, the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant signed another employment contract with the Respondent 2 valid until 1 October 2015, providing for monthly remuneration of 2,000. In addition, the player was loaned from the Respondent 2 to the Respondent 3 as from 9 September 2012 until 30 June 2013, and was entitled to receive from the Respondent 3 a total amount of USD 400,000 during said period of time. 32. 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. 33. Consequently, on account of the aforementioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that even though the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is considered liable for the breach of the relevant employment contract, the Respondent 1 / CounterClaimant did not suffer any financial loss from the violation of the contractual obligations by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Chamber, therefore, decided that there is no amount that should be awarded to the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant as compensation for breach of contract in the matter at hand. 34. In addition, with regards to the claimed legal expenses, the Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as 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 Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant’s request relating to legal expenses. 35. Finally, the members of the DRC concluded their deliberation in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Club A, is rejected. 2. The claim of the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant, Player C, is partially accepted. 3. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent has to pay to the Respondent 1 / CounterClaimant outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 25,000, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision plus 5% interest p.a. as from 11 September 2012 until the date of effective payment. 4. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. Any further claim lodged by the Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant is rejected. 6. The Respondent 1 / Counter-Claimant is directed to inform the Claimant / Counter-Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is 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: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives