F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 23 July 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman John Bramhall (England), member Mario Gallavotti (country K), member on the matter between the player, Player A, country B as Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the club, Club C, country D as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club E, country F as Intervening Party regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) - controversie di lavoro – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 23 July 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman John Bramhall (England), member Mario Gallavotti (country K), member on the matter between the player, Player A, country B as Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the club, Club C, country D as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club E, country F as Intervening Party regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 11 February 2013, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: the player or the Claimant/Counter-Respondent) and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: Club C or the Respondent/Counter-Claimant) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the date of signature until 31 July 2014. 2. On the same date, the parties entered into a “Supplementary Agreement” (hereinafter: the agreement) which governed the financial aspects of the contract and according to which the player was entitled to receive from Club C, inter alia, a net monthly remuneration of EUR 20,000. 3. On 9 April 2014, the player lodged a claim against Club C in front of FIFA requesting, inter alia, as follows: a. EUR 100,000 as outstanding salaries of May, June, July, August and September 2013 “plus social contributions and interests for the delay from the date of the maturation”; b. EUR 200,000 as compensation for breach of contract; c. EUR 500,000 as “compensation for the injury and the health damages suffered”; d. EUR 5,000 as medical expenses. 4. In particular, the player explained that before the start of the season, the team went to country G to “the training stage” and that “since the beginning of this period of training, [he] suffered of a strange sharp pain between his belly and the pubic area…” 5. The player sustained that after informing Club C of the problem, on 18 March 2013, medical tests were performed in the “Emergency Hospital of country D” where it was diagnosed that he had a “not better specified infection, then treated with normal medicines and antibiotics”. In this regard, the player argued that since the doctors of country D did not find any injury, “they suggested to restart with the ordinary training programme”. 6. In continuation, the player stressed that the pain got worse and therefore, “[Club C] authorised [him] to do a serious medical control” in a Hospital in country H where he was treated by Dr. I as of 8 April 2013. The player stressed that Dr. I diagnosed him with a “stress fracture of the pubic area, better known as athletic pubalgia or sport’s hernia”. In this respect, the player enclosed Dr. I’s report dated 14 June 2013, which states, “the patient consulted during the month of April 2013 [and] was advised to follow conservative treatment and if satisfactory results were not achieved, surgical treatment would be necessary”. 7. The player further argued that Dr. I provided him with a specific 10-day training programme in order to fully recover from the injury. The player asserted that for the first two days, Club C decided to follow said programme, but afterwards it decided to reinstate him with the rest of the team, thereby contradicting Dr. I’s programme. 8. The player further held that in view of the above, he had a relapse of his injury. In this respect, the player stressed that on 4 June 2013, a new medical evaluation was done in the Emergency Hospital of country D where he underwent a “Nuclear Magnetic Resonance” (NMR). In this respect, Dr. J issued a report which reads “Bone-destructive changes in the pelvis, femoral heads are not discovered, cortical bones are not damaged, subchondral change of the MR-signal is not determined. MR-signal in the muscle structure is not changed. Pathological changes in the visible pelvic organs are not discovered. Conclusion: Structural changes are not revealed”. 9. The player sustained that based on the above-mentioned report, Club C’s doctor told him that “he was able to continue to work with the regular programme of training”. 10. At this point, the player underlined that his salary of May 2013 was outstanding. 11. According to the player, on 25 June 2013, his agent was summoned to Club C’s premises where its General Director offered him to terminate the employment contract against the payment of his salaries of May and June 2013, which he refused. 12. In view of the above and, in particular, of the fact that Club C would allegedly not do anything to properly take care of his injury, the player argued that “in order to protect his fundamental good of health, [he] was obliged to go in country K, to cure his injury correctly under the control of independent Doctors and for all the time necessary to the proper healing from the athletic pubalgia”. The player further argued that his decision “was justified also in reason of the lack of payment of the monthly wages of May and June 2013…”. 13. On 27 June 2013, Dr. L of a Hospital in country K, analysed the NMR (cf. point I./8. above) and issued a report which reads “the NMR (…) showed a weak, diffused and inhomogeneous oedema of the spongiosis of both pelvis connected with symphysis. The oedema was extended on public insertion of adductor muscles, short and long situation was more evident on the right side (…) clinical suspicious of deep suffering in the pubic region with external periosteal of 8mm is confirmed. The connecting suffering of the big adductor is clear”. 14. Between 27 June 2013 and 9 September 2013, the player remained in country K where he underwent two rehabilitation programs. In this period of time, the following exchange of correspondence took place between the parties: a. On 27 June 2013 the player informed Club C as follows: “I formally communicate you (…) that [the player] is still affected by the injury, already known by you (…) as certified by the report of Dr. L (…) attached to the present.” b. On 28 June 2013, Club C replied, inter alia, as follows: “[We] have been informed (…) that you had not appeared at the team’s (…) training on 27 June 2013 headed to an unknown direction (…) you also missed trainings in the period from 20 to 24 June 2013 (…) [Club C] is much concerned about your conduct and actions and we kindly convincingly ask you to return to the location of the first team (…) This letter should be considered as an official reprimand for [the player]. c. On 1 July 2013, the player replied by providing an address where Club C could contact him and asserting that “the medical situation [of the player], should be considered as a full justification of the absence from work” and that his actions “had to be considered absolutely lawful [since the player] is actually protecting his fundamental right to Health”. d. On 2 July 2013, Club C answered the following: “The medical staff of [Club C] is completely disagreeing with the interpretation of the medical results (…) We should also note that [the player] went to country K without the permission of his current employer”. Furthermore, Club C requested the player “to pass drug tests” since, apparently, he had been caught by the police of country K in possession of marijuana. e. On 3 July 2013, the player reiterated that he was injured. Moreover, he rejected having consumed any drugs and asserted that he will pass the “drug tests” and that “tomorrow, we will be able to send you the programme of rehabilitation planned by Professor M”. f. On 4 July 2013, Club C confirmed that it would send a representative to attend the player’s drug test; g. On 8 July 2013, the player provided Club C with Professor M’s rehabilitation programme dated 3 July 2013, which states that the player “presents severe pain in the pubic zone”; h. On 24 July 2013, the player informed Club C that he was entering to the second-phase of the rehabilitation programme enclosing a second report of Professor M dated 22 July 2013. On 25 July 2013, the player further informed Club C that “the drug test is totally negative and shows that [the player] has not taken any drugs”. i. On 12 August 2013, Club C acknowledged receipt of the player’s correspondence dated 24 July 2013 and “kindly invite [him] to inform about the process of rehabilitation (…) and the date of his returning to [Club C]”; j. On 21 August 2013, Club C invited again the player to inform it “about the process of rehabilitation”; k. On 27 August 2013, the player sent to Club C “the certification of Dr. N that states the programme of care that Player A is attending in his centre” and provided a new address in country K; l. On 30 August 2013, Club C replied emphasising that the contents of the player’s letters dated 24 July 2013 and 27 August 2013 were contradictory since supposedly the Player was rehabilitating with Professor M and now he was supposedly with Dr. N. Therefore, Club C requested a “detailed plan of his final rehabilitation and the date of his returning”; m. On 6 September 2013, the player answered as follows “Next Monday 9 September 2013 (…) [he] will return at your disposal in country D and will be able to train and work for your club” and expressed that “at the end of the work with [Professor M], for recover the best athletic condition he was obliged to find another important centre, with a soccer field in disposition, that allows him to recover the athletic movements in order to avoid unnecessary injury relapses”. 15. On 12 September 2013, once the player had returned to country D, Club C addressed another letter to him requesting “a detailed report about rehabilitation process from the period of 27 June 2013 to 8 September 2013. We cordially insist that the report above should contain full information about each day of player’s staying in country K…”. 16. In this respect, the player stressed that upon his return to country D, he “wasn’t aggregated to the rest of the first team and worked lonely under the control of Mrs. O, that wasn’t a member of the technical staff of the first team”. Moreover, the player held that he had to “attend a very dangerous double daily training program that could compromise [his rehabilitation]”. In this respect, the player argued that he “invited [Club C] to desist immediately from the training program and to reintegrate him with the rest of the team”. 17. On 4 October 2013, the player issued a final warning to Club C asking for his reinstatement in the first team and for the payment of his salaries of May, June, July, August and September 2013. 18. On 9 October 2013, Club C informed the player that it was terminating the employment contract based on i) his failure to show high level of athletic performance and make maximum efforts, ii) his failure to follow instructions, iii) his absence from the club for more than two months and iv) his failure to follow the obligation not to break the “rules of morality”. 19. In this respect, the player emphasised that “according to several decisions of the Chamber, the motivation adducted by the employer cannot be considered as a valid just cause for the termination of a contract…” and that “the just cause for the dismissal, meant as a misconduct by the employee so serious that it does not allow the continuation of the employment relationship (…) in this case does not exist”. 20. Therefore, in the player’s view, Club C terminated the contract without just cause and, on top of his outstanding salaries, the latter must pay him compensation for breach of contract. 21. Finally, the player informed FIFA that he concluded a new employment contract with the club from country F, Club E valid as from 29 January 2014 until 30 June 2014 and according to which he is entitled to receive a total remuneration of EUR 30,000. 22. In its reply to the claim, Club C stressed that the player was absent from the club as of 27 June 2013 until 8 September 2013 without any kind of authorization or permission. 23. In this respect, Club C sustained that the player failed to inform it about the treatment he was receiving in country K despite several requests. Club C argued that the player “took almost 5 weeks” to reply and therefore “raising concerns that he is delaying the process of alleged rehabilitation intentionally”. In this regard, Club C sustained that “the long-lasting absence of a player from his club without authorisation and without other just cause is a justifying reason for the suspension of the payment of the player’s salaries and moreover is to be considered as an unjustified breach of the employment contract by the player”. 24. In continuation and in relation to the player’s alleged injury, Club C stressed that the player justified his leave to country K “on trauma diagnosed by doctors from country K on the basis of magnetic resonance dated 4 June 2013, however, as evident from the explanations of Club C doctor Dr. P, indications mentioned by doctors from country K are common to all football players and does not indicate any traumas”. In order to support its position, Club C enclosed a report from a Dr. P, who stressed, inter alia, that the results of the examination carried out in country H “could be caused by in infectious process. After the results of the analysis carried out to identify the presence of the anti-infectious antibodies were received, the excess of the Anti-Chlamyidia trachomatis was discovered”. In addition, Club C held that the explanations of Dr. P are confirmed by the doctor of the country D national football team, who states that the findings of the player’s examination show an infection but not a trauma. 25. Furthermore, Club C explained that upon his return to country D, the player was in poor physical condition “which did not allow him to play safely and successfully” in the team. Club C further argued that the player “has lost his skills of playing football (…) while staying in country K for more than two months…” 26. In this context, Club C sustained that in order to improve the player’s physical condition, he was asked to perform a special individual training program, however “he did not make maximum efforts (…) and did not perform exercises properly”. In this respect, Club C refused that the individual programme was dangerous for the player’s health as these were performed by its players all the time. 27. In relation to the above, Club C argued that the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has maintained that “the athlete is obliged to do whatever is necessary on his part to maintain his working capacity” and that “if the player does not provide the club with his working capacity, this constitutes a serious breach of duty which can justify unilateral termination of the contract”. 28. Along these lines, Club C argued that the player failed to attend a training session on 8 October 2013 without justification and that on 9 October 2013, in order to “check the health of the player and to be sure that he is able to perform training program and is ready to play with the team” an MRI was scheduled, however, the player refused to be tested. In this respect, Club C asserted that, in view of the different and divergent diagnoses, a new MRI could have shown if the player was or had been actually injured. 29. As a consequence, Club C asserted that it had no other option but to terminate the employment contract since i) the player was absent from Club C for more than two months, ii) “[the player] refused to perform medical tests under supervision of [Club C]”, iii) the physical fitness of the player was poor and he was not ready to play in official matches. What is more, the player was not making maximum efforts during the workouts in order to improve his physical fitness and he broke the “rules of morality” as he was found in company of a person in possession of marijuana. 30. On account of all the above, Club C affirmed that it terminated the contract with just cause and thus, lodged a counter-claim against the player requesting the amount of EUR 90,000 “due to improper fulfilment of contractual obligations”. 31. In his replica and reply to the counter-claim, the player stressed that Club C did not contest not having paid his salaries of May, June, July, August and September 2013. 32. Furthermore and regarding his injury, the player rejected the position of Club C and sustained that in accordance with Dr. I’s report, it was clearly established that he was suffering from a “stress fracture on the pubic area”. Therefore, the argument that he was only suffering from an infection must be rejected. What is more, this is confirmed by Dr. I’s letter of 14 June 2013 addressed to Club C, whereby the doctor stated that a surgery might be needed. 33. In addition, the player denied not having trained properly, stressed that Club C did not dispute the fact that he was sent to train by himself and denied having been in poor physical fitness upon his return. In this respect, the player referred to a report dated 5 November 2013 issued by Dr. Q from country K, whereby it was stated that “we don’t have any doubt about the possibility [of the player] to play football as a professional player”. Thus, said report together with the fact that he concluded a new employment contract with the club from country F, Club E, proves, in the player’s view, that he was perfectly fit to participate with Club C. 34. Finally, the player reiterated the arguments of his claim and sustained that the counter-claim of Club C should be dismissed. 35. In its duplica, Club C held that “the physicians in country K were chosen unilaterally by the player and without consent of and coordination with [Club C], thus [Club C] could not trust the impartiality and findings of these physicians”. 36. Finally, Club C reiterated the arguments put forward in its reply and counterclaim. 37. Upon request, the club from country F, Club E, as the player’s new club, presented its position to the counter-claim lodged by Club C. In this respect, Club E stressed that “it absolutely clear that [it] has acted in total good faith”. Club E further asserted that it was only in January 2014 when it started negotiations with the player, i.e. after the player’s contract with the club had already been terminated. 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, the Chamber took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 9 April 2014. 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 and par. 2 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, a club from country D and a club from country F. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber 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 claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 9 April 2014, the 2012 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the 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, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts 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. 5. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber acknowledged that on 11 February 2013, the parties entered into an employment contract valid until 31 July 2014 as well as into an agreement which governed the financial aspects of the contract and whereby Club C undertook to pay the player a monthly remuneration of EUR 20,000. 6. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber took note that it was undisputed that on 9 October 2013, Club C terminated the employment relationship between the parties alleging just cause invoking the following reasons: i) the player was absent from Club C for more than two months, ii) the poor physical fitness of the player upon his return to country D and his refusal to make maximum efforts during training and iii) the alleged player’s breach of the “rules or morality” as he was found in company of a person in possession of marijuana. 7. Having said this, the Chamber proceeded to take note of the player’s position who argues that Club C did not have just cause to terminate the employment relationship. In particular, the Chamber observed that, according to the player, since Club C did not take proper care of his injury, he was entitled to go to country K “in order to protect his fundamental good of health”. 8. Furthermore, the Chamber acknowledged that the player refused the allegations that he was not able to perform at the highest level, rejected having consumed marijuana or any other illicit substance and, moreover, emphasised that at the moment of the termination of the contract by Club C, his salaries of May, June, July, August and September 2013 were outstanding. In this respect, the Chamber took note that according to the player, “the just cause for the dismissal, meant as a misconduct by the employee so serious that it does not allow the continuation of the employment relationship (…) in this case does not exist”. 9. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue in the dispute at hand, considering the position of the parties, was to determine whether the relevant employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by Club C. The DRC also underlined that, subsequently, it would be necessary to determine the consequences regarding the early termination of the employment contract. 10. First of all, the members of the Chamber wished to refer to the issue of the player’s injury. In this respect, the DRC took note that there are dissenting positions between the parties as to whether the player was actually injured or if, as Club C defends, “indications mentioned by doctors from country K are common to all football players and does not indicate any traumas”. 11. In this respect, the members of the Chamber focused their attention on the different medical reports on file, in particular Dr. I’s letter dated 14 June 2013 in which he stressed that “the patient consulted during the month of April 2013 [and] was advised to follow conservative treatment and if satisfactory results were not achieved, surgical treatment would be necessary”, as well as Dr. L’s report dated 27 June 2013, in which it is stated that “the NMR (…) showed a weak, diffused and inhomogeneous oedema of the spongiosis of both pelvis connected with symphysis. The oedema was extended on public insertion of adductor muscles, short and long situation was more evident on the right side (…) clinical suspicious of deep suffering in the pubic region with external periosteal of 8mm is confirmed. The connecting suffering of the big adductor is clear”. In this respect, the members of the Chamber were of the unanimous opinion that it could be established that the player actually suffered from an injury. This is further corroborated by the rehabilitation programme issued by Professor M on 3 July 2013. 12. Having established the above, the Chamber came to analyse the arguments brought up by Club C in order to justify the early termination of the contract. The DRC firstly took note that according to Club C “the long-lasting absence of a player from his club without authorisation and without other just cause is a justifying reason for the suspension of the payment of the player’s salaries and moreover is to be considered as an unjustified breach of the employment contract by the player”. In this respect, the Chamber underlined that it is undisputed that the player was absent from Club C for the period between 27 June 2013 and 9 September 2013. 13. At this point, the Chamber wished to point out that on 27 June 2013, the player had not been authorised by Club C to seek treatment in country K. In other words, Club C had not given its permission to the player to be absent from the club. In this respect, the Chamber in principle agrees that the unauthorized absence of a player from his club can, under certain circumstances, be considered as a justified reason for the termination of an employment contract. 14. However, the members of the Chamber observed that, from the exchange of correspondence that took place between 27 June 2013 and 6 September 2013, it can be noted that whilst at first, Club C requested the player to come back, in its letter dated 12 August 2013, the club explicitly stated that “[we] kindly invite [the player] to inform about the process of rehabilitation (…) and the date of his returning to [Club C]”. In the Chamber’s view, by means of its letter dated 12 August 2014, Club C accepted for the player’s rehabilitation to take place in country K. This is further confirmed, in the Chamber’s opinion, by Club C’s letters of 21 August 2013 whereby Club C requested the player to inform it “about the process of rehabilitation” and of 30 August 2013 whereby Club C requested the player for a “detailed plan of his final rehabilitation and the date of his returning”. 15. With due consideration to the previous considerations, the Chamber finds that whereas the player was absent without authorization as from 27 June 2013, Club C by mid-august did not longer seem to object to his absence and, at that time, did not consider the player’s absence as a reason to terminate the employment relationship. The Chamber is comforted in its conclusion in view of the fact that the player returned to the club in the beginning of September 2013 and trained with the club during a full month with the termination on 9 October 2013. The members of the Chamber find that the foregoing proves that both parties were actually continuing their employment relationship after the player’s absence. 16. On account of the above, the members of the Chamber came to the unanimous conclusion that the player’s absence for the relevant period of time can, under the given circumstances, not be considered as a justified reason to terminate the employment contract and therefore, the Chamber decided to reject the argument of Club C. 17. As to the alleged breach of the “rules of morality” by the player and his failure to “make maximum efforts (…) and perform exercises properly”, the Chamber, referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which establishes that the party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. In this regard, the DRC decided that Club C failed to remit sufficient evidence which could prove, at its satisfaction, the aforementioned supposed breaches of the player. What is more, there is evidence on file which shows that the player tested negative for marijuana. 18. In addition and as to the argument of Club C regarding the “poor physical fitness of the player upon his return to country D”, the DRC referred to its wellestablished jurisprudence according to which, as a general rule, an alleged poor physical fitness of a player cannot justify a premature termination of an employment contract by a club. 19. Finally, the Chamber highlighted that t at the time of the termination of the contract by Club C, the latter’s outstanding payments towards the player amounted to EUR 100,000 comprised of the salaries of May 2013 to September 2013. In this respect and first of all, the Chamber emphasised that Club C’s argument that “the long-lasting absence of a player from his club without authorisation and without other just cause is a justifying reason for the suspension of the payment of the player’s salaries”, cannot be applied to the salaries for May and September 2013. Furthermore, and in view of the conclusion reached by the Chamber in point II./13. to II./17. above, the Chamber finds that the employment relationship continued and that therefore also the salaries for June, July and August 2013 are due. 20. On account of all of the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber decided that Club C did not have just cause to terminate the employment contract on 9 October 2013. Consequently, the DRC decided that Club C is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract without just cause. 21. Bearing in mind the previous considerations, the Chamber went on to deal with the consequences of the early termination of the employment contract without just cause by Club C. 22. First of all, the members of the Chamber concurred that Club C must fulfil its obligations as per the employment contract in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda. Consequently, the Chamber decided that Club C is liable to pay to the player the remuneration that was outstanding at the time of the termination, i.e. the amount of EUR 100,000, corresponding to the player’s salaries of May, June, July, August and September 2013. Moreover, and with regard to the player's request for interest, the Chamber decided that the player is entitled to receive interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the aforesaid amount as from the respective due dates. 23. In continuation, the Chamber decided that, taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the player is entitled to receive from Club C compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding salaries on the basis of the relevant employment contract. 24. In this context, the Chamber outlined that, in accordance with said provision, 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 player 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. 25. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify whether the pertinent employment contract contained any clause, by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon a 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. 26. Having recalled the aforementioned, and in order to evaluate the compensation to be paid by Club C, the members of the Chamber took into account the remuneration due to the player in accordance with the employment contract as well as the time remaining on the same contract, along with the professional situation of the player after the early termination occurred. In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that at the time of its termination, the employment contract would run for another ten months. Taking into account the foregoing, the Chamber decided that the amount of EUR 200,000 shall serve as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 27. In continuation, the Chamber recalled that the player had entered into a new employment contract with the club from country F, Club E valid as of 29 January 2014 until 30 June 2014 and according to which he was entitled to receive a total remuneration of EUR 30,000. Consequently, in accordance with the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber and the general obligation of the player to mitigate his damages, the above-mentioned amounts shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 28. In view of all of the above, the Chamber decided that Club C must pay the amount of EUR 170,000 to the player as compensation for breach of contract, which is considered by the Chamber to be a reasonable and justified amount. 29. Furthermore and as to the player’s request of EUR 500,000 as “compensation for the injury and the health damages suffered” and of EUR 5,000 as medical expenses, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 12 art. 3 of the Procedural Rules and concluded that the player had not substantiated his claim in this regard and thus decided to reject this part of the player’s claim. 30. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further request filed by the player is rejected. Equally, and considering that Club C was found to have terminated the contract without just cause, the counterclaim of Club C is rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Player A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club C is ordered to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 100,000 plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows: a. 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 20,000 as from 1 June 2013; b. 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 20,000 as from 1 July 2013; c. 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 20,000 as from 1 August 2013; d. 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 20,000 as from 1 September 2013; e. 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 20,000 as from 1 October 2013. 3. In the event that the amount and interest due to the Claimant/CounterRespondent in accordance with the above-mentioned number 2. is not paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant is ordered to pay to the Claimant/CounterRespondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 170,000. 5. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in accordance with the above-mentioned number 4. is not paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant 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. 6. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is rejected. 7. The counter-claim lodged by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is rejected. 8. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent/CounterClaimant, 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 article 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