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 (DRC) judge passed on 2 September 2015, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, 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 (DRC) judge passed on 2 September 2015, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, 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 15 July 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 15 July 2014 until 30 June 2015. 2. In accordance with the employment contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant inter alia monthly remuneration of EUR 6,800 until the 25th day of the following month as well as bonuses as defined in the club’s internal rules. 3. By correspondence dated 3 July 2015, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of his remuneration for March and April 2015 as well as the amount of EUR 4,000 related to bonuses, totalling EUR 17,600, setting a time limit of 10 days as of receipt of the default notice in order to remedy the default. 4. On 21 June 2015, with a subsequent amendment on 27 July 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 17,600 corresponding to his salary for March and April 2015 as well as the amount of EUR 4,000 related to bonuses. 5. The Claimant further asks that he be awarded interest of 5% “as of date of effective payment” as well as that legal fees be borne by the Respondent. 6. In spite of having been invited to do so, the Respondent has not replied to the claim. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First of all, the DRC judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 21 June 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 DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and par. 3 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) he 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 judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 21 June 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 judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC judge started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file. However, the DRC judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. Having said this, DRC judge acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent signed an employment contract valid as from 15 July 2014 until 30 June 2015, in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent, inter alia, monthly remuneration of EUR 6,800 as well as bonuses as defined in the club’s internal rules. 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 17,600 corresponding to his remuneration of March and April 2015 amounting to EUR 13,600 plus the amount of EUR 4,000 in connection with bonuses. 7. In this context, the DRC judge took particular note of the fact that, on 3 July 2015, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the aforementioned amounts, setting a time limit of 10 days as of receipt of the default notice in order to remedy the default. 8. Consequently, the DRC judge 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 judge took into account that the Respondent, for its part, failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant, in spite of having been invited to do so. In this way, the DRC judge considered that the Respondent renounced its right to defence and thus accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 10. Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the DRC judge concurred that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules he shall take a decision upon the basis of the documents already on file, in other words, upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant. 11. Having said this, the DRC judge acknowledged that, in accordance with the employment contract provided by the Claimant, the Respondent was obliged to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 6,800 on a monthly basis. 12. On account of the aforementioned considerations and the documentary evidence provided by the Claimant, the DRC judge established that the Respondent failed to remit the Claimant’s remuneration in the total amount of EUR 13,600 corresponding to the Claimant’s remuneration for March and April 2015. 13. In addition, the DRC judge established that the Respondent had delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis. 14. Consequently, the DRC judge 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 13,600. 15. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 13,600 as from 21 June 2015 until the date of effective payment. 16. Taking into account the documentation presented by the Claimant in support of his petition, the DRC judge concluded that the Claimant had not fully substantiated his claim pertaining to overdue payables with pertinent documentary evidence in accordance with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules. Indeed, the employment contract does not specify any amounts relating to bonus payments and the Claimant has not presented any other documentation corroborating his allegation relating to the amount of EUR 4,000 for bonuses. Consequently, the DRC judge decided to reject the part of the Claimant’s claim relating to bonus payments. 17. Furthermore, as regards the claimed legal expenses, the DRC judge referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as to its long-standing and well-established jurisprudence, in accordance with which no procedural compensation shall be awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Consequently, the DRC judge decided to reject the Claimant’s request relating to legal expenses. 18. Moreover, the DRC judge decided that any further request filed by the Claimant is rejected. 19. In continuation, taking into account the consideration under number II./13. above, the DRC judge 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. 20. The DRC judge established that in virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations he has competence to impose sanctions on the Respondent. Bearing in mind that the Respondent did not reply to the claim of the Claimant and that the Respondent has previously been found by the Dispute Resolution Chamber to have neglected its contractual obligations towards players, the DRC judge decided to impose a fine on the Respondent in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. c) of the Regulations. Furthermore, taking into consideration the amount due of EUR 13,600, the DRC judge regarded a fine amounting to CHF 4,000 as appropriate and hence decided to impose said fine on the Respondent. 21. In this context, the DRC judge 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 DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, overdue payables in the amount of EUR 13,600, plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as from 21 June 2015 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant is not paid by the Respondent 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. Any further request filed 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 judge of every payment received. 6. The Respondent is ordered to pay a fine in the amount of CHF 4,000. The fine is to be paid within 30 days of notification of the present decision to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A ***** 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 DRC judge: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl: CAS directives