F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 November 2015, by Philippe Diallo (France), 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 arisen between the parties I.

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) - controversie di lavoro – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 November 2015, by Philippe Diallo (France), 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 arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 July 2014, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as of 1 July 2014 until 30 June 2015. 2. Pursuant to art. III of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive a monthly net salary of EUR 4,300 payable “until the 25th day of the month following the month such remuneration is due for”. 3. In addition, art. X of the contract provides for the following: “X.7. THE [RESPONDENT] shall pay to THE [CLAIMANT] the amount of 6 000 (six thousand) euro net, no later than 01.09.2014; X.8. THE [RESPONDENT] shall pay to THE [CLAIMANT] the amount of 6 000 (six thousand) euro net, no later than 10.01.2015; X.9. THE [RESPONDENT] shall provide THE [CLAIMANT] with 4/four/ two-way ticket for every sport-year of the present contract for the destination country D-country E”. 4. On 9 June 2015, the Claimant terminated the contract on the basis of “article 327, paragraph 1, item 2 of the Labour Code and in compliance with article 36, paragraph 3 of the Football Association of country D’s Rules on Contracts and Transfers of Football Players, and FIFA rules and practices”. In particular, the Claimant stresses that the Respondent failed to pay him his salaries for March and April 2015 as well as the amount of EUR 6,000 due in accordance with clause X.8. of the contract. 5. On the same date, the Claimant requested the Football Association of country D to ratify the termination. 6. On 22 June 2015, the Football Association of country D ratified the termination as of 9 June 2015. 7. On 6 July 2015, the Claimant, referring to art. 12bis of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, requested the Respondent to pay him EUR 20,190 corresponding to his salaries for March, April, May and 9 days of June 2015 as well as the down payment due on 10 January 2015 in accordance with art. X.8. of the contract, by no later than 20 July 2015. 8. On 23 July 2015, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent for breach of contract, requesting the following: - EUR 20,190 net as outstanding salaries broken down as follows:  EUR 4,300, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 25 April 2015, corresponding to his salary for March 2015;  EUR 4,300, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 25 May 2015, corresponding to his salary for April 2015;  EUR 4,300, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 9 June 2015, corresponding to his salary for May 2015;  EUR 1,290, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 9 June 2015, corresponding to 9 days of his salary for June 2015;  EUR 6,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 10 January 2015, corresponding to the down payment due on 10 January 2015. - EUR 3,010 net, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 9 June 2015, as compensation corresponding to the residual value of the contract; - The imposition of sporting sanctions on the Respondent. 9. In his claim, the Claimant insists that the Respondent was already in arrears for a considerable amount and for a significant period of time and that, therefore, putting it in default became useless. 10. In spite of having been invited to do so, the Respondent did not reply to the claim. 11. Upon request, the Claimant informed FIFA that he did not enter into any employment contract between 9 June 2015 and 30 June 2015. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First, the DRC judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the DRC judge took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 23 July 2015. Consequently, the 2015 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015), he is competent to decide on the present litigation, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between an player from country B and a club from country D. 3. Moreover, and in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 lit. i) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the DRC judge confirmed that he may adjudicate in the present dispute which value does not exceed CHF 100,000. 4. Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which edition of the 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 (edition 2015), and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 23 July 2015, the 2015 edition of said Regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the present matter as to the substance. 5. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, he started by acknowledging the abovementioned facts of the case as well as the documentation contained in the file. However, the DRC judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to facts, arguments and documentary evidence which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 6. In this respect, the DRC judge acknowledged that the parties had signed an employment contract, valid as of 1 July 2014 until 30 June 2015 and that the Claimant had unilaterally terminated said contract with the Respondent on 9 June 2015, i.e. before the ordinary expiry of the employment contract. 7. In continuation, the DRC judge noted that the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent maintaining that he had terminated the employment contract with just cause on 9 June 2015. In particular, the DRC judge observed that the Claimant alleges that the Respondent failed to pay his salaries for March, April, May and nine days of June 2015 as well as a down payment due on 10 January 2015. Consequently, the Claimant asks to be awarded his outstanding dues as well as the payment of compensation for breach of the employment contract. 8. Subsequently, the DRC judge observed 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. Consequently, the DRC judge deemed that the Respondent had renounced to its right of defence and, thus, had accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 9. As a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the DRC judge held that, in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, a decision shall be taken upon the basis of the documents already on file, in other words, upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant. 11. The DRC judge further acknowledged that, in accordance with the employment contract, the Claimant’s salary was payable “until the 25th day of the month following the month such remuneration is due for”. 12. On account of the aforementioned, and, in particular, taking into account that the Respondent did not reply and thus, did not contest that the relevant amount had remained unpaid, the DRC judge established that the Respondent, without any valid reason, failed to remit to the Claimant, until 9 June 2015, the salaries for March and April 2015, as well as the down payment due on 10 January 2015. Consequently, and considering that the Respondent had repeatedly and for a significant period of time been in breach of its contractual obligations towards the Claimant, the DRC judge decided that the Claimant had just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment contract on 9 June 2015 and that, as a result, the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contact with just cause by the Claimant. 13. Having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract, the DRC judge focused its attention on the consequences of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the DRC judge decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent an amount of money as compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding payments on the basis of the relevant employment contract. 14. At this stage, the DRC judge made reference to his previous considerations (cf. II.12) and recalled that at the time of the termination, i.e. on 9 June 2015, the salaries for March and April 2015 as well as the down payment due on 10 January 2015 were outstanding. The DRC judge however considered that even though the Claimant’s salary for May 2015 had not formally fallen due on the date of termination, the Claimant had rendered his services to the Respondent for the entire month of May 2015 and therefore decided to award it to the Claimant as outstanding remuneration. 15. Consequently, in accordance with the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 18,900 as outstanding remuneration. 16. In addition, and taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as the due date of the salaries and the date of termination, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent had to pay default interest at a rate of 5% as follows: a. 5% p.a. as of 11 January 2015 on the amount of EUR 6,000; b. 5% p.a. as of 26 April 2015 on the amount of EUR 4,300; c. 5% p.a. as of 26 May 2015 on the amount of EUR 4,300; d. 5% p.a. as of 9 June 2015 on the amount of EUR 4,300. 17. In continuation, the DRC judge focused his attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation payable to the Claimant by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the DRC judge 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 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. 18. In application of the relevant provision, the DRC judge held that he first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract 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 DRC judge established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake. 19. As a consequence, the DRC judge determined that the amount of compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The DRC judge recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable. 20. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the DRC judge proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the employment contract until 30 June 2015, taking into account that the Claimant?s remuneration until May 2015 is included in the calculation of the outstanding remuneration. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the amount of EUR 4,300, i.e. the Claimant’s salary for June 2015, serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 21. In continuation, the DRC judge verified as to whether the Claimant 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber, 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. 22. The DRC judge noted that it appears from the documentation on file that the Claimant not sign any contract with a new club within the relevant period. Thus, the Claimant had apparently not been able to mitigate damages. In this context, the DRC judge declared that there is no remuneration to be taken into account in order to mitigate the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 23. In this respect and bearing in mind all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of EUR 4,300 to the Claimant, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter. 24. Subsequently, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of compensation as of the date on which the claim was lodged, i.e. 23 July 2015, until the date of effective payment. 25. The DRC judge concluded his deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. ***** 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, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 18,900 plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows: a. 5% p.a. as of 11 January 2015 on the amount of EUR 6,000; b. 5% p.a. as of 26 April 2015 on the amount of EUR 4,300; c. 5% p.a. as of 26 May 2015 on the amount of EUR 4,300; d. 5% p.a. as of 9 June 2015 on the amount of EUR 4,300. 3. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract amounting to EUR 4,300 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 23 July 2015 until the date of effective payment. 4. In the event that the amounts plus interest due to the Claimant in accordance with the above-mentioned points 2. and 3. are not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limits, 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 is rejected. 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances are to be made and to notify the DRC judge 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 DRC judge: Markus Kattner Acting Secretary General Encl. CAS directives