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 19 February 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member on the matter involving 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 D, as Intervening party 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 19 February 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member on the matter involving 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 D, as Intervening party regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 7 January 2013, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant / Counter-Respondent or player), and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent / Counter-Claimant), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 15 January 2013 until 31 May 2016. 2. The contract specifies inter alia that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is entitled to the following fixed-remuneration: Season 2012-2013: - EUR 100,000 as sign-on fee; - EUR 100,000 payable “when the player turns back from Africa Nations Cup”; - EUR 200,000 net payable in 5 instalments of EUR 40,000 each, the first one due the last day of the month from February through to June 2013. Season 2013-2014: - EUR 500,000 net payable in 10 instalments of EUR 50,000 each, the first one due on 30 August 2013 and then, the last day of the month from September 2013 through to May 2014. Season 2014-2015: - EUR 500,000 net payable in 10 instalments of EUR 50,000 each, the first one due on 30 August 2014 and then, the last day of the month from September 2014 through to May 2015. Season 2015-2016: - EUR 500,000 net payable in 10 instalments of EUR 50,000 each, the first one due on 30 August 2015 and then, the last day of the month from September 2015 through to May 2016. 3. The contract also stipulates that “in the event that the [Respondent / CounterClaimant] fails to comply with a part of its payment obligation at least 60 days the player shall notify the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] in writing. If the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] does not pay the outstanding amounts within 30 days upon the receipt of the written notice, the [the Claimant / CounterRespondent] will be entitled to terminate the employment contract with Cause. For purposes of this Contract, “Cause” shall mean: (…) (B) Non-payment of salaries, benefits and any other monetary obligations of the Company in the amount of at least two instalments. (…) The [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] shall not be entitled to any compensation if he terminates the Contract before the lapse of the term of sixty days mentioned above”. 4. On 2 August 2013, the parties signed a first protocol (hereinafter: the first protocol). 5. According to article 3 lit. a) of the first protocol, “the [Claimant / CounterRespondent] hereby agrees and declares that the obligations of the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] (such as monthly salaries (…)) derived from the employment contract are created as fulfilled and the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] discharges the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] from all of its further obligations. For the avoidance of doubt, the release shall include any and all claims, which were or could have been asserted in the proceedings before the football association of country D, FIFA, CAS, UEFA or national courts”. 6. Article 3 lit. b) of the first protocol provides that “the [Claimant / CounterRespondent] hereby declares that a total amount of EUR 200,000 will be paid to the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] by no later than 10.08.2013. (…) The employment contract will be terminated mutually, following the payment of the above mentioned amount to the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant]”. 7. As per article 3 lit. c) of the first protocol, “In case the employment contract is terminated mutually, the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] hereby declares and accepts that he will not be transferred to any other club from country D for the 2013/2014 Season. The [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] hereby accepts that in case he is transferred to any other club from country D for the 2013/2014 Season, he will be obliged to pay EUR 225,000 as penalty within 5 days following the registration date to the third Club”. 8. On 19 December 2013, the parties signed a second protocol (hereinafter: the second protocol). 9. The second protocol foresees inter alia that the fine of EUR 225,000 imposed on the Claimant / Counter-Respondent on 15 July 2013 is called off and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is to pay the Claimant / Counter-Respondent the outstanding amount of EUR 400,000 by no later than 31 January 2014. 10. On 30 January 2014, the parties signed a settlement agreement (hereinafter: the settlement agreement) in order to set a new deadline for the payment of the outstanding amount foreseen in the second protocol. 11. Pursuant to article 1 of the settlement agreement, “the [Respondent / CounterClaimant] shall make the 50% of the receivables of the [Claimant / CounterRespondent], equal to the amount of net 200,000.00 (Twohundred Thousand Euros) until 31st of January, 2014 at the latest. This payment is a validity condition for this Settlement Agreement and in case the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] does not make this payment on time, this Settlement Agreement shall be null and void without the need of any other notice, notification and/or court verdict and the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] shall be free to terminate his professional contract and to transfer any club in or abroad country D. This termination shall be deemed a unilateral termination with just cause in accordance with the FIFA rules”. 12. Article 2 of the settlement agreement states that “the [Respondent / CounterClaimant] shall make the rest of the receivables of the [Claimant / CounterRespondent], equal to the amount of net 200,000.00 (Twohundred Thousand Euros) until 15th of February 2014 at the latest. In case the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] breaches this payment obligation in whole or in part and doesn’t redeem the default until the 28th day of February, 2014 at the latest, the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] undertakes to pay to the Player 50,000.00 Euro (Fiftythousand Euros) as penalty for the breach of this Settlement Agreement in addition to the above mentioned payment dated 15.02.2014. In order to avoid any misunderstandings, under these circumstances the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] shall pay to the Player 250,000.00 Euro (Twohundredandfiftythousand Euros) in total”. 13. On 4 April 2014, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent put the Respondent / CounterClaimant in default requesting the payment, within 30 days, of the second instalment of EUR 200,000 and the penalty of EUR 50,000 as per the settlement agreement, as well as his salary for February and March 2014. 14. On 12 May 2014, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated the contract with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. 15. On 23 May 2014, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent lodged a complaint before FIFA against the Respondent / Counter-Claimant for breach of contract, requesting the amount of EUR 1,550,000, plus 5% interest p.a. “from the date in which the breach occurred”, broken down as follows: EUR 219,354.84 as outstanding remuneration corresponding to his salary for February, March and April 2014, plus the pro-rata salary for May 2014, as well as the penalty of EUR 50,000 set forth in the settlement agreement. UR 1,030,645.16 as compensation corresponding to the residual value of the contract; EUR 300,000 for specificity of sport corresponding to 6-month salary; The Claimant / Counter-Respondent also requests the imposition of sporting sanctions on the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the payment of legal costs to be borne by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. 16. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent alleges that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant failed to comply with its obligation of payment as set forth in the contract, hence the signature of the second protocol and then, the settlement agreement. According to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the second protocol aimed at settling the outstanding amount of EUR 400,000, allegedly corresponding to EUR 100,000 from the season 2012-2013, plus his salary from August 2013 until January 2014. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent thus underlines that, by the time he received the first instalment of EUR 200,000 on 31 January 2014 as set forth in article 1 of the settlement agreement, he had not received his salary since the end of the season 2012-2013. 17. Furthermore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent holds that by the time he put the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in default, i.e. 4 April 2014, he had not received his salary for 2 months, i.e. February and March 2014, or the second instalment of EUR 200,000 due on 15 February 2014. In this regard, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent refers to the 30-day deadline given to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in order to proceed to the payment, in accordance with the contract. The Claimant / CounterRespondent further sustains that even though the Respondent / Counter-Claimant paid the second instalment of EUR 200,000 on 21 April 2014, the player’s salary for February, March and April 2014 as well as the penalty of EUR 50,000 remained unpaid. 18. Consequently, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent deems having duly terminated the contract on 12 May 2014. 19. In its statement of defence, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant rejects the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim and alleges that it is him who breached the contract in the first instance. According to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent did not join the team on time for the pre-season training of the season 2013-2014 and did not provide the Respondent / Counter-Claimant with a “valid excuse”. Consequently, by means of a decision of the Board of Directors on 15 July 2013, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant decided to fine the Claimant / CounterRespondent in the amount of EUR 225,000, in accordance with its internal disciplinary rules. 20. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant also states that, after having imposed the fine and upon the player’s alleged consistent request to be released from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the parties signed the first protocol which, according to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, aimed at: - waiving the outstanding amount of EUR 100,000 for the previous season, in accordance with art. 3 lit. a) of the first protocol; - terminating the contract with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent amicably, in order for him to join a new club, but subject to the payment of the amount of EUR 200,000 and the additional amount of EUR 225,000 in the event the Claimant / CounterRespondent signs a contract with a new club from country D during the season 2013- 2014, pursuant to art. 3 lit. b) and c) of the first protocol. 21. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant alleges that, since the Claimant / CounterRespondent apparently did not find a new club and as he wished to stay with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, he offered a deduction from his remuneration for the seasons 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 in the amounts of EUR 50,000 and EUR 100,000 respectively. In this respect, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant provides an undated document named “Discount Declaration” signed by the Claimant / CounterRespondent stating that he “personally discounted 50 000 EUR from my [his] season 2012-2013 season claim and EUR 100 000 EUR from my [his] 2013-2014 season receivable rights of current contract in respect of 01.09.2013 personally confirm and declare that about these discounts will not request any type of claim against Club C in future”. 22. Subsequently, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant acknowledged having faced financial issues preventing it from paying its players on a regular basis. Yet, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant asserts that in order to cover the delays of payment and show its good faith, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant signed the second protocol. In particular, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant alleges that it disregarded the “Discount Declaration” signed by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, lifted the penalty of EUR 225,000 set forth in art. 3 lit. c) of the first protocol and thus, calculated the outstanding amount based on the original contract. 23. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant further acknowledged not having paid the second instalment of EUR 200,000 on the agreed date, i.e. 15 February 2014. However, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant sustains having proceeded to the payment of the amount of EUR 200,000 on 18 April 2014 as acknowledged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 24. In addition, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant states that, subsequently to the termination notice received on 12 May 2014, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant contacted the player, inter alia by means of a letter sent on 14 May 2014, in order to underline that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent did not comply with the termination procedure foreseen in the contract and also requested a meeting with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in order to settle the matter amicably. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant alleges that the said letter remained unanswered. 25. Referring to the above-mentioned termination procedure foreseen in the contract (cf. point 3 above), and especially regarding the 60-day period of grace prior to the termination of the contract, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant maintains that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent sent the termination notice before the elapsed deadline of 60 days. In particular, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant explains that by the time it received the default notice, the payment of the second instalment of EUR 200,000 – corresponding to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s salary from October 2013 until January 2014 – was delayed by 47 days. In this regard, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant stresses that the due date of 15 February 2014 fell on a Saturday, therefore the actual due date shall be 17 February 2014. 26. Moreover, in accordance with article 2 of the settlement agreement, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant alleges that the penalty of EUR 50,000 fell due on 28 February 2014 and thus, the payment of such amount was delayed by 35 days. As to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s salary for February and March 2014, which fell due on 28 February 2014 and 31 March 2014 respectively, the delay of payment was by 35 days and 4 days respectively. 27. In this regard, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant holds that since it paid the amount of EUR 200,000 on 18 April 2014, which is within the 30-day deadline provided for in the default notice, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was therefore not entitled to terminate the contract. 28. Thereafter, according to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, on 17 June 2014, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent signed an employment contract with a new club, Club E (hereinafter: Club E). In this regard, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant considers that Club E induced the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to reject any possible amicable settlement offers from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and thus, to unilaterally terminate the contract. 29. In this context, on 31 July 2014, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant lodged a counterclaim before FIFA against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent for termination of the contract without just cause, and against Club E for inducement to the contractual breach, requesting the following: EUR 1,144,930 as compensation to be paid by both the Claimant / CounterRespondent and Club E, broken down as follows: - EUR 1,030,645 corresponding to the residual value of the contract, i.e. from 12 May 2014 until 31 May 2016; - EUR 114,285 as the unamortised agent fee; Sporting sanctions to be imposed on both the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and Club E. 30. In his replica, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent first of all points to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s arguments relating to the player’s alleged previous breaches of contract which, according to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, led to the signing of the first protocol, and holds that these previous circumstances are irrelevant to the matter at stake since the Respondent / Counter-Claimant even decided to disregard any fine or discount on his salary. 31. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent also emphasises the fact that he stayed with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant despite the non-payment of his salary since August 2013. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent thus considers that it is under these given circumstances that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant decided to call off the fine of EUR 225,000 imposed on him, not as a proof of good faith but in order to avoid a possible claim from the player before FIFA. 32. As regards the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s allegations relating to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s breach of the 60-day period of grace set forth in the contract, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent first of all deems that such clause is not binding since “it infringes equal position of football players in the relationship employeremployee”. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent also recalls that by the time he put the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in default on 4 April 2014, his salary as from October 2013 as well as the penalty of EUR 50,000 were outstanding and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant apparently does not contest that after the 30-day deadline set forth in the aforementioned default notice expired, these amounts were still not paid. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent also holds that the signature of the settlement agreement does not change the fact that his salary was due as from October 2013 and thus, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s attempt to establish a new date of payment shall be disregarded. 33. In any event, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent underlines that by the time he terminated the contract on 12 May 2014, his salary for February, March and April 2014 as well as the penalty of EUR 50,000 were outstanding. Therefore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent deems that he terminated the contract with just cause. 34. As to the contract signed with Club E, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent sustains that he had five weeks to look for a new club and thus, explains that it concluded the said contract more than one month after the termination of the contract. Therefore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent considers that he should not be blamed since “it is enough time to start and conclude a negotiation process”. 35. In view of the foregoing, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent reiterates his entire claim and rejected the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s entire counterclaim. 36. As regards Club E’s position, it stresses that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated the contract with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant due to outstanding amounts and thus, considers that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had just cause to terminate the contract. Club E consequently deems that the Respondent / CounterClaimant is not entitled to any compensation. Club E further states that in any event, the amount claimed is excessive, groundless and cannot be accepted. 37. Moreover, Club E sustains that it did not induce the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to terminate the contract. In particular, Club E emphasises that it entered into a contractual relationship with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent only after the player sent the last default notice dated 4 April 2014 and after the termination of the contract on 12 May 2014, endorsed by the football association of country D on 4 June 2014. Club E further holds that it did not enter into negotiation with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent prior to the termination of the contract. 38. Therefore, Club E rejects the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s entire counterclaim. 39. In its duplica, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant holds that the whole factual background given at the beginning of its statement of defence aimed at explaining that, despite the difficulties between the parties, which according to it, occurred because of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, it always tried to keep the contractual relationship “alive”. 40. Regarding the termination procedure foreseen in the contract, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant maintains that it is a valid procedure since it is the law of the parties and it is not in contradiction with FIFA or the football association of country D Regulations. As to the contract signed with Club E, the Respondent / CounterClaimant alleges that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent intentionally disregarded the termination procedure aiming at becoming a free agent. 41. In view of the above, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant reiterates its entire counterclaim. 42. Upon FIFA’s request, Club E and the Claimant / Counter-Respondent confirmed that they signed a contract on 17 June 2014, valid as of the date of signature until 31 May 2017. The contract states that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is entitled to the following fixed remuneration: Season 2014-2015: - EUR 300,000 payable in 2 instalments of EUR 150,000 each, due by 16 June 2014 and by 16 July 2014; - EUR 550,000 payable in 10 instalments of EUR 55,000 each, due from August 2014 through to May 2015. Season 2015-2016: - EUR 300,000 payable in 2 instalments of EUR 150,000 each, due by 1 June 2015 and by 1 July 2015; - EUR 550,000 payable in 10 instalments of EUR 55,000 each, due from August 2015 through to May 2016. Season 2016-2017: - EUR 300,000 payable in 2 instalments of EUR 150,000 each, due by 1 June 2016 and by 1 July 2016; - EUR 550,000 payable in 10 instalments of EUR 55,000 each, due from August 2016 through to May 2017. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the 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 23 May 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 stake (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 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2014), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an player from country B and two clubs from country D. 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 (edition 2014), and considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 23 May 2014, the 2012 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 Chamber entered the substance of the present matter. In doing so, it started by acknowledging the abovementioned facts of the matter 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. In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant entered into a contractual relationship, which was to run from 15 January 2013 until 31 May 2016, according to which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was to receive a fixed-remuneration of EUR 400,000 for the season 2012-2013 and of EUR 500,000 for the seasons 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 respectively. The DRC also observed that, on 30 January 2014, the parties signed a settlement agreement, subsequently to the second protocol which set the payment by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant of the outstanding amount of EUR 400,000, by means of which the Respondent / Counter-Claimant undertook to pay the said EUR 400,000 in two instalments of EUR 200,000 each on 31 January 2014 and 15 February 2014 respectively. The said settlement agreement also provided a penalty of EUR 50,000 in the event the Respondent / Counter-Claimant failed to pay the second instalment of EUR 200,000 by 28 February 2014. 6. In continuation, the Chamber also took note that it is uncontested by both parties that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated in writing the contractual relationship on 12 May 2014, after having put the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in default on 4 April 2014. 7. In this regard, the Chamber took due note that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, on the one hand, insisted on the fact that, at the time he put the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in default, the latter had not paid his salary for February and March 2014 as well as the instalment of EUR 200,000 due on 15 February 2014 and the penalty of EUR 50,000 resulting from the non-payment of the said instalment by 28 February 2014. Moreover, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent insisted on the non-compliance of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant as to its contractual financial obligations as from the first season and, in this respect, underlined that the amount of EUR 400,000 foreseen in the settlement agreement referred to outstanding payments for the season 2012-2013 and from August 2013 up to January 2014. On this basis, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent considered that he had a just cause to terminate the contract. 8. The Chamber further took note of the argumentation of the Respondent / CounterClaimant, which argued that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had unilaterally terminated the contractual relationship without just cause and had thus lodged a counterclaim, inter alia, for compensation. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant acknowledged having faced financial issues which prevented it from paying its players on a regular basis. However, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant underlined having paid the instalment of EUR 200,000 on 18 April 2014. Finally, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant maintained that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent did not comply with the termination procedure foreseen in the contract (cf. point I.3. above) and, therefore, the amounts claimed were not due when the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated the contract. 9. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the claim and counterclaim respectively lodged by the parties, was to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by the Claimant / CounterRespondent, and which party was responsible for the early termination of the contractual relationship in question. 10. In order to do so, the Chamber first and foremost recalled the content of the contractual clause set forth in point 1.3. above, which stipulates that “in the event that the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] fails to comply with a part of its payment obligation at least 60 days the player shall notify the [Respondent / CounterClaimant] in writing. If the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] does not pay the outstanding amounts within 30 days upon the receipt of the written notice, the [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] will be entitled to terminate the employment contract with Cause. For purposes of this Contract, “Cause” shall mean: (…) (B) Non-payment of salaries, benefits and any other monetary obligations of the Company in the amount of at least two instalments. (…) The [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] shall not be entitled to any compensation if he terminates the Contract before the lapse of the term of sixty days mentioned above”. 11. Thereafter, the DRC conceded that, subsequently to the default notice sent on 4 April 2014 and prior to the termination of the contract on 12 May 2014, the Respondent / Counter-Respondent had proceeded to the payment of the instalment of EUR 200,000 due by 15 February 2015. Moreover, the DRC took note that, at the time the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated the contract, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s salary for February, March and April 2014 as well as the penalty of EUR 50,000 had not been paid. 12. In this respect, the members of the Chamber analysed the Respondent / CounterClaimant’s argument as to the non-compliance of the Claimant / CounterRespondent with the contractual clause set forth in point I.3. and deemed it fit to outline that, although the said clause was included in the contract as a result of the mutual consent of the parties, the fact remains that the application of the relevant contractual clause with an important grace period of 90 days appears disproportionate in view of the overall factual situation. The Chamber was of the view that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had already conceded important delays of payment of almost one year salary and nonetheless, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant continued not to pay the Claimant / Counter-Respondent on time. Therefore, the DRC determined that it could not be expected by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in good faith to continue accepting this considerable delay of payment. 13. In view of the foregoing, the DRC concluded that the relevant contractual clause was not applicable to the matter at hand and, therefore, the allegations of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in this respect cannot be considered. 14. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated the contract with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant with just cause on 12 May 2014. Consequently, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and, thus, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim is rejected. 15. Having established that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the contract, the DRC focussed its attention on the consequences of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the DRC decided that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is entitled to receive an amount of money from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant as compensation for the termination of the contract with just cause, in addition to any outstanding payments on the basis of the relevant employment contract. 16. First of all, in relation to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s financial claim regarding outstanding remuneration, the DRC decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is liable to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent the remuneration that was outstanding at the time of the termination, i.e. 12 May 2014. 17. Consequently, and as mentioned in point II. 11. above, the DRC recalled that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not dispute the non-payment of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s salary for February, March and April 2014 provided in the contract, as well as the penalty of EUR 50,000 set forth in the settlement agreement. Therefore, the Chamber decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is liable to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent the amount of EUR 200,000 as outstanding salary for February, March and April 2014 as well as the penalty of EUR 50,000. 18. In continuation and with regard to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent's request for interest, as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the DRC decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent an interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 200,000 as of 12 May 2014 until the date of effective payment. 19. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, 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 / Counter-Respondent 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. 20. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contracts contained a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of 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 said employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake. 21. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable. 22. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent under the terms of the employment contract as from its date of termination with just cause by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent until its original date of expiry, i.e. 31 May 2016. The DRC thus concluded that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent would have received EUR 1,050,000, as salary from May 2014 until May 2016, had the contract been executed until its expiry date. 23. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant / CounterResponent had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages. 24. Indeed, as from 17 June 2014, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent found employment with Club E. In this respect, the Chamber established that the value of the new employment contract concluded between the Claimant / CounterRespondent and Club E for the period as from June 2014 until May 2016 amounted to EUR 1,700,000. 25. In accordance with the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber and the general obligation of the player to mitigate his damages, such remuneration under the new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 26. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that, even though the Respondent / Counter-Claiamnt is considered liable for the breach of the relevant employment contract, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent did not suffer any financial loss from the violation of the contractual obligations by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and, therefore, the Chamber decided that there is no amount that should be awarded to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent / Counter-Claimant as compensation for breach of contract in the matter at hand. 27. Subsequently, the DRC analysed the request of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent corresponding to compensation for “specifity of sport”. In this regard, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to point out that the request for said compensation presented by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had no legal or regulatory basis and pointed out that no corroborating evidence had been submitted that demonstrated the damage suffered or its quantity. In this regard, the members of the Chamber reiterated their previous consideration and outlined that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had not suffered any financial loss from the early termination of the employment contract. Therefore, the Chamber decided that his request in this regard shall be rejected. 28. Moreover, the DRC decided to reject the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim pertaining to legal costs in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the Chamber’s respective longstanding jurisprudence in this regard. 29. The DRC concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claims lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is partially accepted. 2. The counter-claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected. 3. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 200,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 12 May 2014 until the date of effective payment. 5. In the event that the aforementioned amount 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. 6. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected. 7. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent / CounterClaimant immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received. ***** 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: Marco Villiger Acting Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives