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 17 June 2016, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member on the matter between the player, C, from A Represented by xxxxx as Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the club, T, from T as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, L, from S Represented by xxxxx as Intervening Party 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 17 June 2016, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member on the matter between the player, C, from A Represented by xxxxx as Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the club, T, from T as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, L, from S Represented by xxxxx as Intervening Party regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 6 August 2014, the player from A, C (hereinafter: the Claimant-Counter Respondent), born on 15 May 1985, concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) with the club from T, T (hereinafter: the Respondent / CounterClaimant), valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2017. 2. According to the section V of the contract, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was entitled to the following remuneration: For 2014/2015 Football Season: EUR 1,100,000.00 Due date Amount 14/08/2014 EUR 200,000 29/08/2014 EUR 90,000 01/10/2014 EUR 90,000 31/10/2014 EUR 90,000 28/11/2014 EUR 90,000 02/01/2015 EUR 90,000 30/01/2015 EUR 90,000 27/02/2015 EUR 90,000 01/04/2015 EUR 90,000 30/04/2015 EUR 90,000 29/05/2015 EUR 90,000 For 2015/2016 Football Season: EUR 950,000.00 31/08/2015 EUR 95,000 01/10/2015 EUR 95,000 30/10/2015 EUR 95,000 30/11/2015 EUR 95,000 02/01/2016 EUR 95,000 29/01/2016 EUR 95,000 29/02/2016 EUR 95,000 01/04/2016 EUR 95,000 29/04/2016 EUR 95,000 31/05/2016 EUR 95,000 For 2016/2017 Football Season: EUR 1,000,000.00 31/08/2016 EUR 100,000 03/10/2016 EUR 100,000 31/10/2016 EUR 100,000 30/11/2016 EUR 100,000 02/01/2017 EUR 100,000 31/01/2017 EUR 100,000 28/02/2017 EUR 100,000 03/04/2017 EUR 100,000 28/04/2017 EUR 100,000 31/05/2017 EUR 100,000 3. In addition, section VI a) of the contract stipulated the following: “In case of non-payment of two consecutive salaries in full or in part, the PLAYER should notify the CLUB in writing. The PLAYER shall notify the club in writing and give 7 (seven) days for payment. If the CLUB does not pay the notified amount then the PLAYER has the right to unilaterally terminate the CONTRACT with just cause” 4. Moreover, section VII of the contract stipulated that “the [Respondent / CounterClaimant] shall provide a furnished house” to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 5. On 1 December 2015, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent lodged a claim before FIFA against the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, and requested the payment of the following amounts: - EUR 285,000, corresponding to overdue salaries for the period comprised between August 2015 and October 2015 (i.e. 3 Months); - EUR 1,665,000, corresponding to the residual value of the contract, from November 2015 until 30 May 2017; - EUR 570,000, corresponding to “additional compensation” for damages and equivalent to six months of salary. 6. In addition, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent requested 3% default interest as from 3 November 2015, which is, according to him, the date of the termination of the contract. However, in a different section of his claim, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent requested interest as from 20 of November 2015, “date of the early termination”. Furthermore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent requested the imposition of sporting sanctions against the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. 7. According to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant stopped paying his salaries since 29 May 2015. 8. In view of the above, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent explained that, on 6 November 2015, he sent a notification to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, by means of which he requested the payment, within seven days, of an overdue amount of EUR 285,000, corresponding to the salaries payable on 31 August 2015, 1 October 2015 and 30 October 2015. 9. In this regard, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent attached a letter dated 6 November 2015 and apparently sent by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, by means of which the latter explained that it was facing financial difficulties due to a lawsuit and that it could not perform any payments until 6 December 2015, i.e. after the General Assembly Meeting of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant would be held. In addition, and according to the contents of said letter, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant offered to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent a cheque payable on 10 December 2015 for all his due receivables “plus additional EUR 75,000, which covers his damages for delay”. 10. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent explained that, in reply to said letter, his legal representative sent a letter to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant on 18 November 2015, by means of which he stated, in reference to the offer of the latter, that he did not receive any instruction from his client “to agree those terms neither to accept any additional delay” and that, “consequently [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] is entitled to ask, at any time, for the termination of the contract for just cause”. 11. Subsequently, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent informed that, on 20 November 2015 he sent a letter to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, where he deemed the contract as terminated “for just cause” and that, consequently, he would lodge a claim before FIFA. 12. In its reply on 22 January 2016, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant acknowledged the facts explained by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, but considered that the contract was terminated without just cause. Consequently, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant simultaneously lodged a counter-claim against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent for breach of contract without just cause, and requested the payment of the following amounts from the Claimant / Counter-Respondent: - EUR 1,665,000, corresponding to the residual value of the contract; - xxx (xxxxxxx) 20,650, corresponding to the following invoices for the rental of the player’s apartment following the termination of the contract: o xxx 2,950 for November 2015; o xxx 8,850 for December 2015; o xxx 8,850 for January 2016. 13. According to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the parties initially did their best to fulfil their obligations but, in the beginning of the 2015/2016 season, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent asked for a significant raise. In this regard, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant attached a copy of an exchange of emails it had with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s alleged agent, for the days comprised between 19 November 2015 and 20 November 2015. In particular, in an email dated 19 November 2015, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s alleged representative stated the following: “If [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] breaks his contract we get guaranty by FIFA Rules that [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] will get the total amount of his current contract (2M€) and he will be able to sign a new contract for free wherever he wants (…) we only want what we want from the beginning, a contract to [the Claimant / CounterRespondent’s] real value”. 14. Furthermore, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant explained that it was experiencing financial and legal difficulties during the relevant period, but that it duly informed the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and offered to pay all outstanding amounts, after the meeting of its General Assembly (cf. point I.8 above). 15. In addition, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant explained that the Claimant / CounterRespondent never notified it about the outstanding payments until 6 November 2015, whereas the termination letter was sent on 20 November 2015. 16. In view of the above, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant considered that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated the contract without just cause, and that he acted in an abusive manner and with a lack of good faith. 17. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent provided his reply to the counter-claim lodged by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant after the closure of the investigation-phase. 18. In this regard, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent confirmed his previous allegations and insisted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not deny the existence of a debt towards him consisting in three months of salaries, and that he complied with FIFA’s jurisprudence in relation to the termination of the contract as well as in relation to his default notice. 19. In addition, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent considered that he could not bear any liability in relation to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s financial and legal situation. 20. Moreover, and in relation to the argument brought by the Respondent / CounterClaimant regarding his alleged bad faith, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent considered that there is “no malice or fault to renegotiate an employment contract”. 21. In reference to the reimbursement of the rental fees, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent requested the DRC to disregard the documentation provided by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant since it is only available in xxxxxx language. 22. In this regard, and after the closure of the investigation-phase, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant sent an additional unsolicited correspondence, by means of which it provided a translation in English of the aforementioned invoices. 23. In addition, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent informed FIFA that, on 1 February 2016, he concluded a contract with the club from S, L (hereinafter: the Intervening Party), valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2016, extendable for one additional season in case the Intervening Party would stay in the S top-tier for the next season. 24. According to said contract, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent would be entitled to the total amount of EUR 700,000 for the season 2015/2016, payable in six real instalments. In addition, said contract entitled the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to the total amount of EUR 1,400,000, for the season 2016/2017. 25. Subsequently, and in reference to the counter-claim lodged by the Respondent / CounterClaimant, the Intervening Party was invited to provide additional comments. 26. In this regard, the Intervening Party supported the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s arguments in relation to his termination of the contract with just cause, and insisted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not deny the existence of the claimed debt. Hence, the Intervening Party considered that, since no compensation is due by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, it should not pay any compensation to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant either. 27. Furthermore, the Intervening Party considered that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent signed with it as a free agent, more than two months after the termination of the contract with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. 28. In particular, the Intervening Party explained that its first contact with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent occurred on 21 January 2016, when the alleged representative of the latter contacted it via email. 29. In this regard, the Intervening Party stated that it made its first contractual offer to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent on 25 January 2016, and that the information available on the Transfer Matching System (TMS) confirmed that the Claimant / CounterRespondent was not employed by any other club. 30. In view of the above, the Intervening Party considered that it should not be held liable to pay any compensation to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, as well as in relation to any 6 possible sporting sanctions. In addition, the Intervening Party requested the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to cover the entire costs of the proceedings, plus legal fees in the amount of EUR 10,000. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as DRC or Chamber) 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 1 December 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 2015 edition 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 and 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2016) 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 A, a club from T and a club from S. 3. The competence of the Chamber having been established, the Chamber analyzed 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, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2015 and 2016), and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 1 December 2015, the 2015 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. Having established the foregoing, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber continued by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file in relation to the substance of the matter. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. In particular, the Chamber took note that, on 6 August 2014, the parties concluded an employment contract, valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2017. 6. In continuation, the members of the Chamber noted that the Claimant / CounterRespondent lodged a claim against the Respondent / Counter-Claimant maintaining that he had terminated the employment contract with just cause on 20 November 2015, after previously having put the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in default, since the latter allegedly failed to pay his remuneration. In this respect, the Claimant / CounterRespondent argued that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant stopped paying his salaries since 29 May 2015 and that consequently, the salaries due on 31 August 2015, 1 October 2015 and 30 October 2015 were overdue. Consequently, the Claimant / CounterRespondent requested to be awarded his outstanding dues as well as the payment of compensation for breach of the employment contract. 7. Conversely, the members of the Chamber took into account the counter-claim lodged by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, according to which the termination of the contract by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was without just cause. In this respect, the DRC took note that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant requested the payment of compensation from the Claimant / Counter-Respondent for breach of contract without just cause. 8. In view of the opposing views presented by the aforementioned parties, the DRC turned its attention to the question related to the early termination of the contract and, in particular, as to whether said termination by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was with or without just cause. 9. In particular, the DRC observed that, as acknowledged by the parties, on 6 November 2015, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent sent a default notice to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant (cf. point I.8 above), by means of which he requested the payment within seven days of an amount equivalent to three months of salaries. In this regard, the DRC noted that said default notice referred to section VI a) of the contract (cf. point I.3 above) 10. Moreover, the members of the Chamber observed, as the parties also acknowledged, that, in reply to the aforementioned default notice, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant offered to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, all his due receivables “plus additional EUR 75,000”, by means of a cheque due on 10 December 2015. 11. Consequently, the members of the Chamber noticed that the Respondent / CounterClaimant did not contest the existence of outstanding amount during the procedure but even explicitly acknowledged them. Moreover, the DRC unanimously considered that, despite the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s apparent good will to perform its contractual commitments, the mere existence of the offer mentioned in the previous paragraph was in itself an acknowledgement by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant of the existence of an outstanding debt towards the Claimant / Counter-Respondent corresponding to three months of salaries. 12. Moreover, the members of the Chamber considered that, even though the Respondent / Counter-Claimant offered to settle its debt towards the Claimant / Counter-Respondent on 10 December 2015, the outstanding amounts were already due, respectively, on 31 August 2015, 1 October 2015 and 30 October 2015. 13. In this regard, the DRC considered that, under any circumstance and in application of the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, was entitled to receive his remuneration in a timely manner and as provided in the contract. 14. In view of the above, the members of the Chamber unanimously agreed that, despite the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s offer to settle its debt on 10 December 2015, the Claimant / Counter-Claimant had no obligation to accept said offer, since he was already entitled to receive his remuneration in accordance with the due dates as provided in the contract. 15. In sum, the members of the Chamber considered that, by not paying the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in a timely manner as stipulated in the contract, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had repeatedly and for a significant period of time, i.e. three months, been in breach of its contractual obligations towards the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 16. Thus, the Chamber decided that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment contract on 20 November 2015 and that, as a result, 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. 17. Bearing in mind the previous considerations, the Chamber went on to deal with the consequences of the early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent on 20 November 2015. 18. In this respect, the DRC took into consideration that according to the Claimant / CounterRespondent, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had failed to pay his remuneration in the total amount of EUR 285,000, corresponding to the amounts due on 31 August 2015, 1 October 2015 and 30 October 2015. Consequently, the Claimant requested to be awarded with the payment of the outstanding total amount of EUR 285,000. 19. Moreover, the DRC noted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not provide any evidence that the aforementioned amounts were finally paid to the Claimant / CounterRespondent. 20. In view of all the above, the DRC decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must fulfil its contractual obligations towards the Claimant and is to be held liable to pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 285,000, in view of the outstanding amounts for the salaries of the period due on 31 August 2015, 1 October 2015 and 30 October 2015. 21. In this regard, the Chamber decided that, taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent compensation for breach of contract in addition to the outstanding salaries on the basis of the relevant employment contract. 22. In continuation, the Chamber outlined that, in accordance with the aforementioned 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. 23. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it 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. 24. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber 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 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. Therefore, other objective criteria may be taken into account at the discretion of the deciding body. 25. The members of the Chamber then turned their attention to the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contract and the new contract, which criterion was considered by the Chamber to be essential. The members of the Chamber deemed it important to emphasise that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows the Chamber to take into account both the existing contract and the new contract in the calculation of the amount of compensation. 26. 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, i.e. 20 November 2015, until 31 May 2017, and concluded that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent would have received in total EUR 1,665,000 as remuneration had the contract been executed until its expiry date. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 1,665,000 serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand. 27. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 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 a claimant’s general obligation to mitigate his damages. 28. Indeed, on 1 February 2016, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent found employment with the Intervening Party. In accordance with the pertinent employment contract, valid as from the date of signature, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent would have earned the amount of EUR 700,000 until 30 June 2016, with an option to earn the additional amount of EUR 700,000 for the season 2016/2017 in case the Intervening Party remained in the Spanish-top tier. In this regard, the members of the Chamber observed that it is of public knowledge that the aforementioned condition did not occur and that, consequently, it could only ascertain that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent would be able to mitigate his damages for the amount of EUR 700,000 until 30 June 2016. 29. As a result of the difference between the above-mentioned amounts, the members of the Chamber highlighted that, at this stage, the amount due by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant as compensation would correspond to EUR 965,000. 30. Notwithstanding the above, the members of the Chamber unanimously agreed that, in the light of the particularities of the case, further criteria should be considered in the calculation of the compensation due by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 31. In particular, the members of the Chamber took note of the correspondence submitted during the course of the investigation by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant (cf. point I.13 above), according to which the agent of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent stated the following: “If [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] breaks his contract we get guaranty by FIFA Rules that [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] will get the total amount of his current contract (2M€) and he will be able to sign a new contract for free wherever he wants (…) we only want what we want from the beginning, a contract to [the Claimant / CounterRespondent’s] real value” 32. In this regard, the members of the Chamber observed that the contents of the aforementioned correspondence were undisputed by the Claimant / CounterRespondent. 33. Conversely, the Chamber also recalled that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant offered the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to settle the matter in an amicable way (cf. point I.9 above). 34. Consequently, the members of the Chamber deemed necessary to analyze the content of said correspondence, and understood that it revealed a lack of good faith from the Claimant / Counter-Claimant, who failed to express any sort of initiative in order to reach a non-contentious settlement of the matter. 35. In view of the above, the members of the Chamber unanimously agreed that, even though the Claimant / Counter-Claimant terminated the contract with just cause, there is sufficient and reliable evidence to prove that the Claimant / Counter-Claimant acted in bad faith, whereas the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, despite being in breach of contract, offered an amicable alternative to settle the matter. 36. Taking into account the above-mentioned circumstances, the members of the Chamber unanimously decided to reduce the amount due as compensation, and agreed that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay the amount of EUR 500,000 to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, which was considered as a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the light of the particularities of the present matter. 37. In conclusion, for all the above reasons, the Chamber decided to partially accept the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s request and concluded that the Respondent / CounterClaimant must pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent the amount of EUR 285,000 as outstanding remuneration and EUR 500,000 as compensation for breach of contract. 38. In addition, taking into account the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the DRC decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay to the Claimant interest of 3% p.a. on the outstanding remuneration as from the date of the termination of the contract, and 3% interest p.a. on the compensation as of from the date of the claim. 39. Moreover, the members of the Chamber unanimously decided to reject the Claimant / Counter-Claimant’s request on the payment of “additional compensation” due to a lack of legal and contractual basis. 40. Finally, as regards the claimed legal expenses by the Intervening Party, the Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as to its long-standing and wellestablished jurisprudence, in accordance with which no procedural compensation shall be awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject the request relating to legal expenses. 41. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claims lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected and that, as a consequence of all of the above, the counter-claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant can only be rejected in full. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, C, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club T, has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 285,000, plus 3% interest p.a. as from 20 November 2015 until the date of effective payment. 3. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 500,000, plus 3% interest p.a. as from 1 December 2015 until the date of effective payment. 4. In the event that the amounts set forth in points 2. and 3. plus interest are 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. 5. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected. 6. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent / CounterClaimant immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 2. and 3. 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. 58 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 (CAS) Avenue de Beaumont 2 CH-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 Enclosed: CAS directives