F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) – debiti scaduti – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) – overdue payables – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 28 January 2016, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, country D as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties in connection with overdue payables

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) – debiti scaduti – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) – overdue payables – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 28 January 2016, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, country D as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties in connection with overdue payables I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 March 2014, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: Claimant), and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: Respondent) signed an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2015. 2. In accordance with the employment contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant inter alia a monthly remuneration of EUR 1,500 net “plus contributions”. 3. By correspondence dated 27 October 2015, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of his salary for April and May 2015 setting a time limit of 10 days of receipt of his notice in order to remedy the default. 4. On 21 October 2015, and completed on 3 December 2015, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA asking that the Respondent be ordered to pay to him overdue payables in the amount of EUR 3,535.08 corresponding to his remuneration for April and May 2015. 5. The Claimant further asks that the Respondent shall pay the aforementioned amount within 15 days of notification of the decision plus 5% interest p.a. in the event of non-respect of this time limit. 6. In reply to the claim, the Respondent held that it settled all of its financial obligations towards the Claimant and highlighted that the Claimant has an outstanding debt towards the Respondent. 7. In this respect, according to the Respondent, the Claimant still owes the amount of EUR 6,116.06 to the Respondent’s main sponsor, as a result of which the Respondent’s sponsor has retained sponsorship monies. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: 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 21 October 2015. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2015; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, 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 conjunction with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015), it is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player from country B and a club from country D. 3. Furthermore, the DRC 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 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged 21 October 2015, the 2015 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on 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 DRC acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent signed an employment contract valid as of its date of signature until 30 June 2015, in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent, inter alia, monthly remuneration of EUR 1,500 net “plus contributions”. 6. The Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, maintaining that the Respondent has overdue payables towards him in the total amount of EUR 3,535.08 corresponding to his remuneration for April and May 2015. 7. In this context, the DRC took particular note of the fact that, on 27 October 2015, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the aforementioned remuneration, setting a time limit of 10 days as of receipt of the Claimant’s notice in order for the Respondent to remedy the default. 8. Consequently, the DRC concluded that the Claimant had duly proceeded in accordance with art. 12bis par. 3 of the Regulations, which stipulates that the creditor (player or club) must have put the debtor club in default in writing and have granted a deadline of at least ten days for the debtor club to comply with its financial obligation(s). 9. Subsequently, the DRC took into account that the Respondent, for its part, held having fully complied with its obligations towards the Claimant and that the Claimant has an outstanding debt towards its main sponsor, who allegedly has retained sponsorship monies from the Respondent in this connection. 10. In this regard, the DRC considered that the arguments raised by the Respondent cannot be considered a valid reason for non-payment of the monies claimed by the Claimant, in other words, the reason brought forward by the Respondent in its defence does not exempt the Respondent from its obligation to fulfil its contractual obligations towards the Claimant. In addition, referring to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber noted that the Respondent had not presented any documentation demonstrating that it had in fact remitted the Claimant’s remuneration for April and May 2015. 11. Consequently, the DRC decided to reject the argumentation put forward by the Respondent in its defence. 12. Having said this, the DRC recalled that, in accordance with the employment contract, the Respondent was obliged to pay to the Claimant a monthly EUR 1,500 net “plus contributions”. 13. Taking into account the documentation presented by the Claimant in support of his petition, the DRC concluded that the Claimant’s monthly remuneration of EUR 1,500 net “plus contributions” corresponded to the average monthly amount of EUR 1,734. 14. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC established that the Respondent failed to remit the Claimant’s remuneration for April and May 2015 in the total amount of EUR 3,468. 15. In addition, the Chamber established that the Respondent had delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis. 16. Consequently, the DRC decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant overdue payables in the total amount of EUR 3,468. 17. In continuation, taking into account the consideration under number II./15. above, the DRC referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations which stipulates that any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis may be sanctioned in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations. 18. The DRC further established that by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations it has competence to impose sanctions on the Respondent. Therefore, bearing in mind that the Respondent duly replied to the claim of the Claimant and in the absence of the circumstance of repeated offence, the DRC decided to impose a warning on the Respondent in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. a) of the Regulations. 19. In this connection, the DRC wished to highlight that a repeated offence will be considered as an aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty in accordance with art. 12bis par. 6 of the Regulations. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant overdue payables in the amount of EUR 3,468 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, interest of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the fixed time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the DRC of every payment received. 6. A warning is imposed on the Respondent. ***** 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: Marco Villiger Acting Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives