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 2 July 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member on the claim lodged by the club, Club A, Country B as Claimant against the player, Player C, Country D as 1 st Respondent and the club, Club E, Country D as 2 nd Respondent 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 2 July 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member on the claim lodged by the club, Club A, Country B as Claimant against the player, Player C, Country D as 1 st Respondent and the club, Club E, Country D as 2 nd Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 8 February 2011 Club A from Country B (hereinafter: Club A), Club E from Country D and Player C from Country D (hereinafter: the player), concluded an agreement for the loan of the player from Club E to Club A as from 1 February 2011 until 30 June 2011, free of payment, with an option to transfer the player on a permanent basis. 2. On 18 July 2011, Club A and Club E concluded an agreement for the permanent transfer of the player for a transfer fee of EUR 20,000. 3. On 28 May 2011, the player and Club A signed an employment contract valid as from 20 July 2011 until 30 June 2012, in accordance with which the player was entitled to a monthly salary of EUR 1,000. Also, the player was entitled to a “premium for the achieved sporting activity, whose amount will be awarded to the player in accordance with the Premium Policy.” 4. Art. 7 par. 3 of the contract stipulates that: “this contract is concluded for a fixed period until 30 June 2012, with the extension possibility by the football club [Club A] of one more year while increasing the basic monthly remuneration by 20% for the period until 30 June 2013. The option must be applied in writing no later than 30 May 2012 by notifying the Football association of Country B Register Office and with the player’s knowledge.” 5. On 23 May 2012, Club A notified the player and the Football association of Country B of its decision to extend the player’s contract until 30 June 2013. 6. On 25 May 2012, Club A purchased a return flight ticket for the player to travel to Country D, departing on 29 May 2012 and returning to Country B on 11 June 2012. Club A indicated that the player went for holidays and was supposed to return to Country B for “2012/2013 pre-season training which was scheduled to begin on 1 July 2012.” 7. On 10 June 2012 Agent F informed Club A that the player requested the termination of his contract as he would not be returning to Country B. 8. On 11 June 2012, Club A replied that the contract was still valid and that if the player wanted to play for another club, it could only be done with Club A’s approval “which will be some financial compensation.” In reply to this information, Agent F stated that “we are aware of the contract situation, but due to Player C’s family circumstances, he is unable to return to Country B. Please also be advised that currently, there is no Club available.” 9. Between 11 June 2012 and 10 July 2012, various other e-mails were exchanged between the club and Agent F. 10. On 6 December 2012, Club A sent a letter to the player emphasising the validity of the contract until 30 June 2013, while giving notice that he was violating both the contract as well as the internal disciplinary by-laws of the club. In particular, the player was informed that he had been sanctioned with the total amount of EUR 11,022 for missing 8 practice matches (EUR 800), 19 Championship matches (EUR 6,270), 19 “analysis of matches” (EUR 627), various training sessions between June and November 2012 (EUR 2,500) and “regeneration to 25x” (EUR 825). 11. On 1 August 2013, the player and Club E from Country D (hereinafter: Club E), signed a contract valid as from 1 July 2013 until 30 June 2014 in accordance with which the player would be entitled to a gross monthly salary of 14,000. 12. On 13 June 2014, Club A lodged a claim against the player and Club E asserting that the player failed to “arrive and report to the club on 1 July 2012”. Club A stated that 1 July 2012 was indicated as the start of the 2nd term of the contract and that the player did not reply to the numerous e-mails and phone calls. 13. On account of the above, Club A deemed that the player terminated the contract without just cause in July 2012, that sporting sanctions should be imposed on the player and Club E and that they are both liable to pay compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 52,573.31, calculated as follows: - EUR 22,164.31 as the residual value of the contract; - EUR 10,000 as the non-amortized part of the transfer compensation; - EUR 11,022 for the fines imposed on the player; - EUR 8,088.06 as expenses for accommodation; - EUR 1,298.94 as expenses for the flight tickets. 14. As to the residual value of the contract, Club A indicated that during the 2011/2012 season it had paid the player EUR 12,000 in salaries and EUR 6,470.26 in bonuses, thus, establishing a total remuneration of EUR 18,470.26. Since the salary of the player would increase with 20% in the 2012/2013 season, Club A holds that the residual value of the contract amounts to EUR 22,164.31 (18,470.26 x 120). 15. In relation to the accommodation, the club submitted a lease contract dated 30 December 2010 with a duration until 31 December 2011 for EUR 235,82 per month and the extension of the lease agreement until 31 December 2013. Club A stated that since the player left, the apartment was empty but it still had to pay rental expenses. Therefore, Club A claims the amount of EUR 8,088.06. 16. In reply to the claim, Club E submitted a signed statement of the player in which he explained that when he joined Club A he was not provided with an English version of the employment contract. Equally, the notification of the extension of the contract was not provided to him in the English language. However, in relation to the extension of the contract, the player indicated that a letter was handed over and signed for and he “would not have had any complaint about returning to Country B had it not been for family problems” and that he “had enjoyed his time in Country B and would not have had a difficulty returning.” 17. In connection to the above, the player explained that he is from a “close knit family” and that upon returning to Country D, he experienced a family tragedy when his uncle fell ill and “he approached a business advisor and asked that he communicate to [Club A] that he would not be able to return to Country B.” As a result, various emails were exchanged between Agent F and Club A and the latter adopted the stance that a valid contract was in place until June 2013 and that he was therefore not permitted to play in Country D. In this context, the player stressed that Club A was well aware of the difficulties he was facing. 18. The player then approached Club E with a view of being employed by said club, but since Club A was not willing to release him until 30 June 2013, the player was not registered with Club E until after the end of June 2013. 19. The player holds that the following factors should be taking into account for not returning to Country B: - He was young when he went to Country B; - He was not provided with an English version of his contract; - He remained in Country D for family reasons and not to earn more money; - He suffered significant losses by not being able to continue his career; - Club A saved in fact the salaries it otherwise had to pay him. 20. As a consequence, the player requests that Club A’s claim is dismissed or alternatively, “that he be afforded an opportunity to provide evidence and argument in respect of the damages claimed against him.” 21. As to the fines, the player stated that these are unacceptable since his whereabouts were known to Club A, he was not being paid, and he had made it plain that he was not returning for personal reasons. Also, the player stressed that he was sharing the apartment with other players. 22. For its part, Club E explained that the player had approached them in July 2012 stating that he would not be able to return to Country B due to some personal issues. 23. As a consequence, Club E approached Club A asking if the latter would be prepared to release the player, after which it was informed that the player and Club A had a contract in place until 30 June 2013. Club E then offered a transfer compensation of EUR 5,000 for the player but no agreement could be reached, reason for which Club E did not employ the player at that time, did not seek his ITC, and did not induce him to do anything else. 24. Club E indicated that, eventually, the player and Club E signed a contract on 1 July 2013, reason for which is it evident that Club E did not induce the player to terminate his contract. Club E held that in August 2013 the ITC was issued without any problems, that it signed the player only after the contract with Club A expired and that it can thus not be held liable for any damages. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, 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 13 June 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 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Dispute Resolution Chamber would, in principle, be competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a club from Country B, a player from Country D and a club from Country D. 3. Furthermore, 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 (edition 2015) and considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 13 June 2014, the 2012 edition of said 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. Having said this, the Chamber acknowledged that on 13 June 2014 Club A lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the player and Club E, alleging that the player had terminated the contract without just cause by not reporting to Club A on 1 July 2012, which was allegedly the start of the 2nd term of the employment contract. The Chamber duly noted that Club A held that on 23 May 2012 it had validly extended the original contract duration (which ran from 20 July 2011 until 30 June 2012) with another year until 30 June 2013. Equally, the Chamber acknowledged that Club A had purchased return flight tickets for the player to go on holidays to Country D, departing on 29 May 2012 with his return to Country B scheduled on 11 June 2012. 6. Considering the above-mentioned elements, the Chamber stressed that it first had to establish which was the event giving rise to the dispute, since art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations stipulates that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall not hear any case subject to the Regulations if more than two years have elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute. The DRC recalled that the application of the two year time limit shall be examined ex officio in each individual case. 7. In this respect, the Chamber noted that Club A is of the opinion that the player breached the employment contract by not reporting to the club on 1 July 2012, which was allegedly indicated as the start of the 2nd term of the contract. 8. Nevertheless, the Chamber emphasised that the validity of the 1st term of the contract ran until 30 June 2012 and that Club A had purchased a return flight ticket for the player to travel to Country D, with the player’s return to Country B scheduled on 11 June 2012. Therefore, the Chamber was of the unanimous opinion that it is evident that Club A expected the player to return to Country B on 11 June 2012. The Chamber also wished to stress that already on 10 June 2012, the business manager of the player had explicitly informed Club A that the player was not returning to the club. Thus, on 10 June 2012 Club A was aware that the player was not planning to return to Country B on 11 June 2012, which, as mentioned previously, actually occurred when the player remained in Country D. 9. Considering the above, the Chamber concurred that the event giving rise to claim of Club A for breach of contract is the player’s failure to return to Country B on 11 June 2012. 10. As a consequence, and taking into account that the claim of Club A was lodged in front of FIFA on 13 June 2014 only, the Chamber finds that it cannot enter into the claim of Club A as it is barred by the statute of limitations in accordance with art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations. Thus, the Chamber held that the claim of Club A is inadmissible. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is inadmissible. ***** 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