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 passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 18 March 2016, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Philippe Piat (France), member John Bramhall (England), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Zola Majavu (South Africa), member on the claim presented by the player, A, from H as Claimant against the club, B, C 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 passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 18 March 2016, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Philippe Piat (France), member John Bramhall (England), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Zola Majavu (South Africa), member on the claim presented by the player, A, from H as Claimant against the club, B, C as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 25 February 2015, the player from country H, A (hereinafter; the Claimant) and the club from country C, club B, (hereinafter; the Respondent) concluded an employment contract valid as of the date of its signature until 31 December 2015. 2. According to the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent inter alia the amount of USD 120,000 payable in 11 equal instalments of “USD 10,900” plus a “signature fee” of USD 50,000 (hereinafter; the sign-on fee). 3. On 30 June 2015, and completed on 28 September 2015, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA requesting the payment of the signon fee plus his salaries “for six months, from February 2015 to present (August 2015)”, i.e. USD 115,400. 4. On its part, the Respondent replied to the claim only after the FIFA administration had informed the parties that the investigation-phase of the matter at hand had been closed and that no further submissions from the parties would be admitted to the file. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as the DRC or the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 30 June 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 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 2015), 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 H and a club from country C. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015), and considering that the claim was lodged on 30 June 2015, the 2015 edition of the aforementioned 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. First, the Chamber noted that the parties to the dispute had concluded a valid employment contract on 25 February 2015 valid until 31 December 2015, in accordance with which the Respondent would pay the Claimant inter alia USD 120,000 as salaries payable in 11 equal instalments of “USD 10,900” plus a sign-on fee of USD 50,000. 5. Subsequently, the Chamber took note that the Respondent’s reply was submitted to FIFA only after the parties had been duly informed that the investigation-phase of the matter at hand had been closed and that no further submissions would be admitted to the file. 6. With the aforementioned in mind, the DRC referred to art. 9. par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which if no statement or reply is received before the time limit expires, a decision shall be taken upon the basis of the documents already on file, as well as to art. 9 par. 4 of said rules which stipulates that parties shall not be authorised to supplement or amend their requests or their arguments, to produce new exhibits or to specify further evidence on which they intend to rely, after notification of the closure of the investigation. 7. The DRC decided thus not to take into consideration the reply of the Respondent when assessing the matter at hand. Consequently, the members of the DRC concluded that they shall take a decision upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant only. 8. As a consequence of the aforementioned, the members of the Chamber duly noted that according to the Claimant, the Respondent had failed to pay his salaries “for six months, from February 2015 to present (August 2015)”. 9. Taking into account the documentation presented by the Claimant in support of his petition, the DRC concluded that the Claimant had substantiated his claim pertaining to outstanding remuneration with sufficient documentary evidence. Nevertheless, the Chamber emphasised that, as the contract was concluded on 25 February 2015 and that the latter provided for 11 monthly salaries, the first salary was payable in March 2015. 10. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC established that the Respondent failed to remit the Claimant’s remuneration in the total amount of USD 115,400 corresponding to his salaries as of March 2015 until August 2015 plus the sign-on fee. 11. Consequently, the Chamber decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the total amount of USD 115,400. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, A, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, B, is ordered to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of USD 115,400. 3. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant in accordance with the abovementioned number 2. is not paid by the Respondent, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the aforementioned time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent, immediately and directly, of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received. ***** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to article 67 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS, a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives). The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following: Court of Arbitration for Sport Avenue de Beaumont 2 1012 Lausanne Switzerland Tel: +41 21 613 50 00 Fax: +41 21 613 50 01 e-mail: info@tas-cas.org www.tas-cas.org For the Dispute Resolution Chamber: _____________________________ Marco Villiger Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives