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 25 September 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, country B, as Claimant / Counter-Respondent I against the club, Club C, country D, as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club E, country B, as Counter / Respondent II regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties. I.

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 25 September 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, country B, as Claimant / Counter-Respondent I against the club, Club C, country D, as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club E, country B, as Counter / Respondent II regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 10 July 2010, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: the player), and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: Club C), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid from the date of its signature until 31 May 2012. 2. In accordance with the contract, Club C has to remit the player, per season, the following net remuneration: i. EUR 100,000 upon the signature of the contract and in July 2011; ii. 10 monthly instalments of EUR 50,000 each between 30 August 2010 and 31 May 2011; iii. EUR 100,000 in July 2011; iv. 10 monthly instalments of EUR 50,000 each between 30 August 2011 and 31 May 2012. 3. According to art. 1 of the contract, the player’s fax number is XXXX and ‘’the parties agree that all notices pursuant to this contract shall be considered as properly given or made when delivered to the above written address and fax number unless any party change his address by giving written notice to the other party’’. 4. According to art. 6.4 of the contract, ‘’any claim raised by the player relation to late payments can only be lodged after a payment delay of 90 days. In such case, the player shall be entitled to send a written 30-day warning to the club, asking for the outstanding salaries. If the club does not liquidate its debt to the player within the term of the notice, the player shall be entitled to terminate the labor relationship’’. 5. As per art. 7.1 of the contract, ‘’the player accepted that he read and understand and received the copy Regulations & Disciplinary Codes of the CLUB. In the event that the player has committed any or all actions listed in the Regulations and Disciplinary Codes of the CLUB to the present Contract, the Player agrees to pay any fine which the Club has fixed for him according to Regulations & Disciplinary Codes of the CLUB. The player’s salary, that month is reduced without notification. The player agrees with these deductions.’’ 6. On 22 June 2011, Club C wrote to the player to inform him that pre-season training would start on 25 June 2011. 7. On 12 July 2011, the player put Club C in default for the payment of his salary for the month May 2011 and requested such payment within 30 days making reference to art. 28 of the Football Federation of country D’s Guidelines for the Status and Transfer of Professional Football Players, which he quoted as follows: ‘’if the club defaults to pay the football player’s wages, in case that the player tends to terminate the relevant contract, such football player shall be obliged to instigate a letter of warning to be served by a notary public to the club, and for information, the Football Federation of country D, to request the club to pay his wages in 30 days. Should the club fail to pay the player’s wage in that period of time, the player shall be entitled to terminate the contract in 7 days following expiry of the said period’’. 8. On 14 July 2011, on the basis of the fact that the player was supposedly absent from training as from 5 July 2011, Club C decided to impose a fine of USD 20,000 on him and deduct from his salary an amount corresponding to seven days’ remuneration. 9. By means of a letter dated 15 July 2011, Club C warned the player that he had failed to attend the pre-season camp which started on 5 July 2011 and had not followed the training program of which he was informed orally. At the same time, Club C informed the player of his training timetable and location. 10. On 20 July 2011, the player responded to Club C stating that he had received a written permission from the latter for his absence from 7 to 11 July 2011 and upon his return was not allowed to train with the team. Furthermore, the player mentions that he started training at the ‘’Youth Setup Facility’’ on 18 July 2011, date on which he received Club C’s correspondence dated 15 July 2011. At the same time, the player outlines that Club C’s behaviour since his default notice of 12 July 2011 is malicious and will lead to compensation being due. 11. On 21 July 2011, the player addressed a letter to Club C stating that he was not allowed to enter the ‘’Youth Setup Facility’’ in order to train on that same day. Club C responded to this letter on 27 July 2011, contesting the player’s statement and maintaining that he had failed to train between 15 and 27 July 2011. 12. On 22 July 2011, Club C addressed a further letter of warning to the player claiming that he was absent from the pre-season camp as from 5 July 2011 without permission, had not been given permission to travel from 7 to 11 July 2011 and failed to follow the training program of which he was informed by means of its letter dated 15 July 2011. In conclusion, Club C claims it will terminate the contract unless the player joins Club C’s training camp until 28 July 2011. 13. On 1 August 2011, Club C sent the player a final request to return to the club by 2 August 2011. 14. Club C terminated the contract by means of a written notice dated 3 August 2011. 15. On 26 March 2012, the player lodged a claim against Club C in front of FIFA, arguing that the latter had no just cause to terminate the contract. The player requests the following amounts: i. EUR 150,000 as outstanding remuneration, including the monthly instalment of EUR 50,000 due on 31 May 2011 and the amount of EUR 100,000 due in July 2011. ii. EUR 500,000 as compensation corresponding to the residual value of the contract as of 4 August 2011. 16. The player explains that Club C failed to pay the monthly instalment of EUR 50,000 due on 31 May 2011, which is why he put Club C in default on 12 July 2011. 17. In addition to its failure to pay his remuneration due on 31 May 2011, Club C omitted to invite the player for pre-season training, prevented him from accessing the training facilities and did not integrate him in the squad list for the upcoming season, all this without valid reason. According to the player, such unfair treatment which occurred after his default notice of 12 July 2011, was intentional by Club C in order to create a situation by which it would have a just cause to terminate the contract. In particular, this was apparently Club C’s intention as of its relegation at the end of the 2010/2011 season, this being reflected by the fact that the latter club apparently proposed the mutual termination of the contract against payment of EUR 50,000, which he refused. 18. In its reply dated 21 June 2012, Club C refers to the fact that the player was apparently absent from training without authorisation from 20 to 24 March 2011 and from 30 March to 4 April 2011, which is why Club C imposed a fine of USD 10,000 on the PlayerRespondent I, notified to his fax number in country B on 14 April 2011. In this respect, Club C points out that the player never contested these fines in front of the competent authority. 19. According to Club C, the player stopped attending training as of 1 July 2011 and did not attend the pre-season camp as of 5 July 2011, without authorisation. In this regard, Club C makes reference to its correspondence of 15 July 2011 in relation to the player’s unauthorised absence as of 5 July 2011 as well as to the fine of USD 20,000 imposed by decision dated 14 July 2011. Club C also contests the player’s allegation of having been prevented from accessing the training facilities, as highlighted in its letters dated 22 and 27 July 2011. 20. With regard to the player’s claim, Club C claims that the former’s default notice was not in line with art. 6.4 of the contract, since the claimed amount was not in delay of 90 days. Furthermore, Club C maintains that even without deducting the fines imposed on the player, and referring to the various bank statements provided, it paid the player a total amount of EUR 618,392.70, thereby paying EUR 18,392.70 more than the amount actually due to the player. In this respect, Club C presented bank statements referring to payment made to the player in the total amount of EUR 607,794.09 and 23,000. Furthermore, since the player was absent from training as of 1 July 2011, Club C insists that he is not entitled to the amount of EUR 100,000 due in July 2011. 21. As a result, Club C deems that by his absence in March, April and as of 1 July 2011, the player breached the contract without just cause. Consequently, Club C deems to have had a just cause to terminate the contract in writing on 3 August 2011. 22. On account of the above, Club C lodges a counterclaim requesting the following amounts: i. EUR 18,392.70 corresponding to the amount paid in excess of the Player’s dues; ii. EUR 28,000 corresponding to the fines imposed on the player due to his absence; iii. EUR 17,956.98 corresponding to the Player’s salary for the periods during which he was absent; iv. EUR 650,000 as compensation taking into consideration inter alia the contract’s residual value of EUR 500,000 and the sporting damage suffered by Club C estimated at EUR 150,000; v. 5% interest on the aforementioned amounts as of 5 August 2011. 23. Club C also asks the Club E from country B (hereinafter: Club E) to be held jointly and severally liable for the payment of all the amounts claimed. 24. In his replica, the player first of all indicates that he was dispensed from training from 7 to 11 July and refers to a letter issued by Club C. The latter provided a copy of said dispensation which bears the signature of a Mr F and indicates Club C’s fax number as the sender and the player’s fax number of country B as the recipient. Since he was given such an authorisation, the player claims that Club C’s notification of 15 July 2011, which he received on 18 July 2011, was not justified. In this regard, the player refers to his response to said letter in which he stated that he had been authorised to be absent until 11 July 2011, had started training at the ‘’Youth Setup Facility’’ on the date of receipt of the letter and requested to be reintegrated in training. 25. In addition, the player explains that on 21 July 2011 he was not granted access to train at the ‘’Youth Setup Facility’’. Therefore, on the same day, the player sent a notarised letter to Club C attesting that he was not given permission to train. 26. On the basis of these circumstances, again, the player claims that Club C’s letter dated 22 July 2011 was equally unjustified. 27. In addition, the player maintains that he had the intention to provide his services to Club C throughout the month of July, which can be deducted from his presence in country D according to the stamps in his passport. 28. Turning his attention to Club C’s counterclaim, the player maintains that the fines imposed on him on 14 April 2011 are not valid as they were not validly notified to him. In particular, they were sent to a fax number in country B for no reason and were never notified to the Football Federation of country D. 29. As regards the fine dated 20 July 2011, the player deems it unlawful in particular because he was authorised to be absent from 7 to 11 July 2011. 30. Regarding Club C’s claim for reimbursement of EUR 18,392.70, the player states that the receipts submitted by Club C amount to EUR 585,794.09, comprising EUR 550,000 as salary and sign-on fee and EUR 35,794.09 as match premiums. Therefore, since his dues amount to EUR 600,000 for the 2010/2011 season, Club C’s claim is not substantiated. 31. Finally, the player objects to Club C’s request for compensation on the basis that its termination was not made with just cause since it intentionally created situations attempting to evidence a breach of contract by the player, i.e. alleging he was not authorised to be absent from 7 to 11 July, not allowing him to train with the first team, then not allowing him to train with the youth teams, imposing unjustified fines, not considering him in the squad list for the upcoming season. Moreover, the player reiterates that Club C created this situation because it intended not to keep him, in particular, because of his high wages and their reduced financial capacities following relegation. 32. In its duplica, Club C highlights that the player neither contested being absent without permission, from 20 to 24 March and 30 March to 4 April 2011, nor having received its fax, dated 14 April 2011, notifying him the first fine. In this regard, Club C maintains that its notification of fines via fax was perfectly acceptable, in line with art. 7.1 of the contract and therefore valid. 33. In addition, Club C states that the player’s absence from 25 June to 6 July 2011 remains uncontested, in spite of the fax sent to the player on 22 June 2011, which the player does not contest having received. 34. Reverting to the alleged authorisation to be absent from 7 to 11 July 2011, Club C claims that the document remitted by the player, in particular the signature of Mr F, is forged. In Club C’s view, the signature of Mr F is clearly different from his signature in the contract and Club C’s letter dated 22 June 2011. In addition, on 7 July 2011, i.e. the date indicated on the document in question, Mr F was apparently with the team in city G, country D, whilst the Player was abroad and there is no evidence regarding a notification by fax or courier. 35. Therefore, the player’s absence from 7 to 11 July 2011 was not justified and, subsequently, the Player still failed to provide his services to Club C after having returned to country D on 12 July 2011. 36. As for the player’s allegation of being prevented from accessing the training facilities on 21 July 2011, Club C reverts to the stamps in the player’s passport which, in its view, indicate that he was not in country D on that date since he returned on 25 July 2011 only. After his return on said date, the player continued to be absent from training. The player in fact failed to train as from 1 July until 3 August 2011 and the player has not submitted any evidence of having trained with the ‘’Youth Setup Facility’’. 37. In continuation, Club C turns its attention to the bank statements submitted and claims that they indicate that the player received a total of EUR 630,794.09, and not EUR 585,794.09 as alleged by the player. This discrepancy relates to a payment made on 15 February 2011, which Club C states amounted to EUR 50,000 whilst the player stated it was of EUR 5,000. Therefore, the player was clearly in bad faith when sending Club C a default notice regarding the payment of EUR 50,000. 38. Regarding the player’s claim for the amount of EUR 100,000 due on 1 July 2011, Club C adds that the player is not entitled to it because it is an advance payment for the 2011/2012 season and the player did not provide his services throughout July 2011. Alternatively, Club C argues that should the player be entitled to this amount, it should at least be amortised on the residual duration of the contract. 39. In his final comments, the player argued that his absence from 20 to 24 March and 30 March to 4 April 2011 is irrelevant with regard to the termination of the contract because he continued to compete for Club C for a further four months. As a justification for his absence on these dates, the player explained that his father was suffering from cancer and in fact passed away on 3 June 2011. In this respect, the player presented various medical reports indicating that a Mr H was admitted in hospital for oncological treatment for the first time on 31 March 2011, followed chemotherapy in April and May 2011 and passed away on 2 June 2011. Since the player faced a situation of urgency, he claims that he could not request a written permission to travel and asserted that he had Club C’s oral consent. 40. Reverting to the fines imposed on him by Club C, the player reiterates that he never received them as they were sent to a fax number of country B although he was living in country D at the time. Furthermore, the player maintains that Club C did not have a justification to reduce his salary or impose fines by unilateral decision since his absence cannot be seen as a major violation of the contract. 41. In addition, the player again insists that he took part in pre-season training with Club C from 25 June until 6 July 2011, on which date the rest of the team travelled to a preseason camp and the Player was not allowed to join. In this regard, the player submitted documentation regarding a hotel stay and the rental of a car in city I from 25 June to 6 July 2011. 42. The player also contests Club C’s statement that the authorisation to be absent from 7 to 11 July 2011 was a forgery. In particular, the player points out that the document in question was sent from Club C’s fax number as can be seen on the top of the document. 43. Subsequently, the player returned to country D on 11 July, left again on 16 July 2011 after being told a personal training program would be put in place. He then apparently received the letter of warning on 18 July 2011, returned to country D the next day and began training at the ‘’Youth Setup Facility’’. Then, on 21 July 2011, he was allegedly not allowed to enter the training facilities. 44. In relation to Club C’s arguments regarding payments, the player maintains that it can be seen from the list of payments that he received EUR 550,000 in instalments of either EUR 50,000 or EUR 100,000. These amounts correspond to his salary based on the contract. However, according to the player, all the other small payments, which amount to a total of EUR 35,794.09, relate to match bonuses. According to the player, not only do all clubs pay such match bonuses, but they were paid several months before the salary for May 2011 fell due, meaning that they do not relate to said salary. 45. On 30 August 2011, the player signed an employment contract with the club from country B, Club E (hereinafter: Club E) valid until 30 June 2012, which provides for a total fixed remuneration of EUR 125,000 as well as a conditional payment of EUR 20,000 in case the club from country B is promoted to the first division of country B at the end of the 2011/2012 season. 46. The Football Federation of country D rejected the relevant request submitted by the Football Federation of country B for delivery of the ITC. Upon such request from the Football Federation of country B, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee authorised the provisional registration of the Player with Club E on 7 October 2011. 47. In its position, Club E claimed that any request against it should be declared inadmissible due to the fact that it was declared bankrupt on 30 December 2013. 48. Regarding the substance of the matter, Club E points out that at the time it concluded the contract with the player on 30 August 2011, the contract had been terminated by Club C and the Player was therefore free to enter into a new contractual relationship. Moreover, Club E insists that Club C breached the contract by not allowing the player to train and therefore had no just cause to terminate the contract. 49. Furthermore, Club E claims that it had no influence with regard to the termination of the contract. In fact, it merely concluded an employment contract with a Player who had been without a contract for one month. 50. At the end of the 2011/2012 season, Club E gained promotion to the first tier of national football in country B. 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 case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 26 March 2012. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. article 21 par. 2 and 3 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 conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012), 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 and a club from country D as well as a club from country B. 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 (editions 2014, 2012 and 2010), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 26 March 2012, the 2010 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. The members of the Chamber started by acknowledging the facts of the case, as well as the documentation contained in the file. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the player and Club C signed an employment contract valid as from 10 July 2010 until 31 May 2012. 6. The members of the Chamber equally took into account that it is undisputed that, on 3 August 2011, Club C notified the player of the termination of the contract. 7. In this context, the Chamber noted that the player deems that Club C did not have a just cause to terminate the contract and maintains that Club C no longer wished to keep his services for the second season of the contract and, therefore allegedly created several circumstances with a view to terminate the contract. In particular, the player claims having duly trained with Club C from 25 June to 5 July 2011, was then not invited by the latter to take part in the training camp in city G, was given a written authorisation to be absent from 7 to 11 July 2011, trained with Club C’s youth setup from 19 to 21 July as requested by the latter and was thereafter forbidden to take part in training. In view of the stated circumstances, the player insists that all the warning letters from Club C throughout the month of July were unjustified and the latter was is in bad faith when reproaching him for allegedly being absent. As a consequence, the player lodged a claim against Club C requesting compensation for breach of contract in addition to remuneration which was allegedly outstanding at the time of the termination, i.e. EUR 50,000 as salary for the month of May 2011 and the amount of EUR 100,000 due in July 2011. 8. As concerns the position of Club C, the Chamber observed that it claimed having had a just cause to terminate the contract as the player had allegedly repeatedly been absent and thereby acted in breach of the employment contract. In particular, the Chamber took note of Club C’s explanations according to which the player had failed to train from 25 June until 3 August 2011, did not take part in the training camp in city G as of 5 July 2011, had not been given any authorisation for being absent from 7 to 11 July 2011 and had not followed the personal training program of which he was informed by means of the letter dated 15 July 2011. As such, Club C contests that the player at all took part in training as from 25 July 2011 and contests all the arguments brought forward by the latter for being absent as from then. As a consequence, Club C lodged a counterclaim against the player asking for compensation for breach of contract and requesting Club E to be held jointly and severally liable for the payment of all amounts requested. 9. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber acknowledged that it had to examine whether the reasons put forward by Club C could justify the termination of the contract in the present matter. 10. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract. In other words, only when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect a continuation of the employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken in order for an employer to ensure the employee’s fulfilment of his contractual duties, such measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of an employment contract can only ever be an ultima ratio measure. 11. In this context, the Chamber first of all deemed it fit to point out that the decision of Club C to terminate the contract was essentially based on alleged absences of the player as of 25 June 2011 onwards and thus that his alleged unjustified absences in March and April 2011 are not to be taken into consideration when assessing as to whether Club C had a just cause to terminate the contract. 12. In light of the above, the Chamber gave particular attention to the timeline of events between 25 June 2011, date on which the player was due to resume training with Club C, and 3 August 2011, date of termination of the contract. First of all, the Chamber noted that the player alleges having started training with the team on 25 June 2011. As to Club C, the Chamber observed that it first warned the player about his alleged absence by means of letters dated 14 and 15 July 2011 which both make reference to an alleged absence of the player since 5 July 2011. In this context, and in particular since at the time of the events Club C did not complain about any wrongdoing by the player until 5 July 2011, the Chamber had to assume that the latter complied with his contractual obligations and trained accordingly until such date. 13. Subsequently, the Chamber noted that the player asserts not having been invited to partake in the training camp in city G as of 5 July 2011, whilst Club C reproaches the former for not having taken part. In this regard, reverting to the principle that any party claiming an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules), the Chamber pointed out that Club C neither proved having calledup the player for the relevant training camp, neither indicated in what manner he might have been requested to take part in the camp. Therefore, the Chamber considered that from the stated circumstances it had to assume that the player’s presence at the camp as of 5 July 2011 had not been requested. 14. As concerns the disputed absence of the player from 7 to 11 July 2011, the Chamber observed that the latter claimed having received a written authorisation from Club C, whilst the latter declares that the signature borne on said document is forged. In this respect, the Chamber emphasised that as a general rule it is not the competent body to decide upon matters of criminal law, such as the alleged falsified signature or document, but that such affairs fall into the jurisdiction of the competent national criminal authority. Notwithstanding said principle, and without being able to determine whether the relevant signature was authentic or not, the Chamber noted, as mentioned by the player, that the correspondence in question was apparently sent from the fax number of Club C. Hence, the Chamber concluded that the player had provided satisfactory evidence for having been authorised to be absent from 7 to 11 July 2011 and thus could not be blamed therefor. 15. As concerns the subsequent events, the Chamber took note, on the one hand, that the player alleged having followed his personal training program from 19 to 21 July 2011, as of when he was apparently no longer allowed to train. On the other hand, the Chamber noted Club C’s assertions according to which the player had failed to follow his personal training program in spite of being duly informed by means of its letter dated 15 July 2011. In this regard, the Chamber deemed that neither party had provided convincing evidence to substantiate their respective allegations as to the events after the player was informed of his personal training program, although the DRC was able to note that the player was indeed in country D for a certain number of days between 19 July and 3 August 2011. Thus, the Chamber emphasised that it was not in a position to determine whether or not the player had acted in breach of contract after having been informed of his personal training program. 16. On account of the entire circumstances described above, the DRC was able to determine that several alleged wrongdoings put forward by Club C to justify having terminated the employment contract could not be verified and, consequently, appear to be untrue. In particular, the Chamber recalled that the player had taken part in training from 25 June until 5 July 2011, had apparently not been called-up for the training camp as of 5 July 2011 and was then authorised to be absent from 7 to 11 July 2011. Consequently, the DRC was able to conclude that up until the date on which he was informed of his personal training program, the player had not acted in breach of contract. On account of the foregoing and regardless of whether the player’s subsequent absence was justified or not, the DRC considered that the latter had certainly not repeatedly breached his contractual obligations. Thus, in principle, before terminating the contract, Club C could have used more lenient measures towards the player. 17. On account of the above, the Chamber decided that Club C had no just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship with the player and therefore, concluded that Club C had terminated the employment contract without just cause on 3 August 2011. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject the counter-claim lodged by Club C against the player and Club E and that Club C is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contact without just cause. 18. 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. 19. First of all, the members of the Chamber concurred that Club C must fulfil its obligations as per the employment contract up until the date of termination of the contract in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”. In this regard, the Chamber took note of the player’s claim for outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 15,000, composed of the monthly salary for the month of May 2011 and the amount of EUR 100,000 due in July 2011. With reference to the principle of burden of proof, as established in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the DRC observed the payment receipts presented by Club C and concluded that they indicated that the player had received a total remuneration of EUR 607,794.09 and 23,000. On account thereof, and since in accordance with the contract, the player was entitled to the total amount of EUR 600,000 for the entire season 2010/2011, the Chamber reached the conclusion that Club C provided evidence that the salary for the month of May 2011 had duly been paid. 20. Reverting to the claimed amount of EUR 100,000 due in July 2011, the Chamber reiterated, as concluded above, that the player had offered his services at least until the receipt of the correspondence containing his personal training program, apparently on 18 July 2011, and could not be blamed for his absences. Therefore, the Chamber reached the conclusion that the player is entitled to the amount of EUR 100,000 as outstanding remuneration. 21. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that Club C is liable to pay to the player the amounts which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. EUR 100,000 which was due in July 2011. 22. 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. 23. In this context, the DRC 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 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. 24. In application of the relevant provision, the DRC held that he 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. 25. Subsequently, 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 in the same contract, along with the contractual situation of the player after the early termination occurred. In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that at the time of the termination of the employment contract on 3 August 2011, the contract would run for another season, in which a total of ten installments were still to be paid. Consequently, taking into account the financial terms of the contract, the Chamber concluded that the remaining value of the contract as from its early termination by Club C until the regular expiry of the contract amounts to EUR 500,000 and that such amount shall serve as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 26. In continuation, the Chamber remarked that the player had concluded a new employment contract with Club E on 30 August 2011 and which ran until 30 June 2012, in accordance with which the Player would receive a total salary equivalent to EUR 125,000 as well as a bonus of EUR 20,000 in case of promotion of Club E at the end of the 2011/ 2012 season. In relation to this last amount, the Chamber equally noted that Club E had indeed gained promotion at the end of the 2011/2012 season. 27. Consequently, and bearing in mind the provision of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations and in accordance with the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber as well as the general obligation of the player to mitigate his damages, such remuneration under the new employment contract shall be taken into account for 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 355,000 to the player as compensation for breach of contract without just cause, which is considered by the Chamber to be a reasonable and justified amount. 29. For all the above considerations, the DRC decided to partially accept the player’s claim and held that Club C is liable to pay the total amount of EUR 100,000 to the player, which was outstanding remuneration at the time of the unilateral termination of the contract with just cause by Club C and the amount of EUR 355,000 corresponding to the compensation for the unilateral breach of contract without just cause. 30. Finally, the Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claims of the player are rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent I, Player A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent I, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 100,000. 3. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent I, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 355,000. 4. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent I, in accordance with the above-mentioned points 2. and 3. are not paid by Respondent / Counter-Claimant within the stated time limits, interest at a rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the aforementioned time limits and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent I is rejected. 6. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent I 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. 7. The counter-claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected. ***** 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