F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) – debiti scaduti – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) – overdue payables – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed on 25 April 2016, by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, A, country G represented by Mr xxx as Claimant against the club, B, country R as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties in connection with overdue payables I.

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) – debiti scaduti – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) – overdue payables – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed on 25 April 2016, by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, A, country G represented by Mr xxx as Claimant against the club, B, country R as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties in connection with overdue payables I. Facts of the case 1. On an unknown date, the player from country G, A (hereinafter: Claimant), and the club from country R, B (hereinafter: Respondent), signed an employment contract valid as from 7 July 2015 until 31 May 2016. 2. On 28 September 2015, the Claimant and the Respondent signed an addendum to the employment contract. 3. In accordance with the employment contract and its addendum, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant inter alia a monthly salary of xxx (xxx) 29,844 / EUR 5,000. Furthermore, the Claimant was entitled to receive EUR 300 as a bonus for every draw and EUR 900 for each win if the player was in the first line-up for a minimum of 45 minutes. In addition, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 5,000 on 25 January 2016. 4. The employment contract further specifies that salary payments are to be made on the 15th day of the month following the month during which the player’s services were rendered. 5. By correspondence dated 25 January 2016, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the amount of EUR 12,976 setting a time limit expiring on 4 February 2016 in order to remedy the default. This amount included the following remuneration: salary for the months of November and December 2015 (total EUR 10,000), bonuses for matches between 27 October 2015 and 11 December 2015 (EUR 2,976). 6. On 8 February 2016, the Claimant informed FIFA that he had received payment of EUR 5,000 from the Respondent. 7. On 20 January 2016, and completed on 4 February 2016, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA asking that the Respondent be ordered to pay to him overdue payables in the amount of EUR 7,976 corresponding to Claimant’s salary for December 2015 and the aforementioned bonuses. 8. The Claimant further asked that the Respondent be ordered to pay legal/procedural costs. 9. In reply to the initial claim, the Respondent held that it is confronted with financial difficulty and that it wishes to amicably settle with the Claimant. It further highlighted that it made efforts by paying one salary to the Claimant and that further payments will soon follow. 10. On 18 March 2016, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of inter alia the amount of EUR 12,976 setting a time limit expiring on 28 March 2016 in order to remedy the default. This amount includes the following remuneration: salary for January 2015 (EUR 5,000), payment due on 25 January 2016 (EUR 5,000), and the aforementioned match bonuses of EUR 2,976. 11. On 2 March 2016, and completed on 29 March 2016, the Claimant amended his claim asking that the Respondent be ordered to pay the amount of EUR 12,976 (cf. point I./10. above). 12. On 31 March 2016, the Claimant informed FIFA he had received payment of EUR 2,100 from the Respondent in connection with the aforementioned bonus payments. 13. The Respondent has not replied to the Claimant’s amended claim. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First of all, the DRC judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 20 January 2016. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2015; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are 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 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015) he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player from country G and a club from country R. 3. Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which 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 on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 20 January 2016, the 2015 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC judge started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file. However, the DRC judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. Having said this, DRC judge acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent signed an employment contract and an addendum, in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent, inter alia, a monthly salary of xxxxx (xxx) 29,844 / EUR 5,000 during the period as from 7 July 2015 until 31 May 2016. Furthermore, the Claimant was entitled to receive EUR 300 as a bonus for every draw and EUR 900 for each win if the player was in the first line-up for a minimum of 45 minutes. In addition, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 5,000 on 25 January 2016. 6. The Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, which claim was amended during the proceedings in light of the Respondent having made certain payments and further contractual instalments allegedly having fallen due, maintaining that the Respondent has overdue payables towards him in the total amount of EUR 12,976 corresponding to his salary for January 2015 (EUR 5,000), the payment due on 25 January 2016 (EUR 5,000), and match bonuses totalling EUR 2,976. 7. In this context, the DRC judge took particular note of the fact that, on 25 January 2016, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of inter alia the aforementioned match bonuses, setting a time limit expiring on 4 February 2016 in order to remedy the default. 8. In addition, the DRC judge took into account that, on 18 March 2016, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of inter alia his salary for January 2015 (EUR 5,000), the payment due on 25 January 2016 (EUR 5,000), and of said match bonuses, totalling EUR 12,976, setting a time limit expiring on 28 March 2016 in order to remedy the default. The DRC judge further took into consideration that in his amended claim of 2 March 2016, the Claimant asked that the Respondent be ordered to pay this amount of EUR 12,976. 9. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the Claimant had duly proceeded in accordance with art. 12bis par. 3 of the Regulations, which stipulates that the creditor (player or club) must have put the debtor club in default in writing and have granted a deadline of at least ten days for the debtor club to comply with its financial obligation(s). 10. Subsequently, the DRC judge took into account that the Respondent, for its part, held that it is facing financial difficulty and that it made partial payments to the Claimant, outlining that further payments would soon follow. 11. In this regard, the DRC judge considered that the argument raised by the Respondent cannot be considered a valid reason for non-payment of the monies claimed by the Claimant, in order words, the reason brought forward by the Respondent in its defence does not exempt the Respondent from its obligation to fulfil its contractual obligations towards the Claimant. 12. Consequently, the DRC judge decided to reject the argumentation put forward by the Respondent in its defence. 13. At this point, the DRC judge recalled that, on 31 March 2016, the Claimant confirmed having received a payment of EUR 2,100 from the Respondent in connection with match bonus payments. The DRC judge further took into account that, in his amended claim as well as his second default notice dated 18 March 2016, as opposed to match bonuses, the Claimant no longer referred to his salary for December 2015. 14. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC judge established that the Respondent failed to remit the Claimant’s remuneration in the total amount of EUR 10,876 corresponding to the Claimant’s salary for January 2015, the payment that fell due on 25 January 2016 as well as the remainder of EUR 876 in connection with match bonuses. 15. In addition, the DRC judge established that the Respondent had delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis. 16. Consequently, the DRC judge decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant overdue payables in the total amount of EUR 10,876. 17. Furthermore, as regards the claimed legal expenses, the DRC judge referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as to its long-standing and well-established jurisprudence, in accordance with which no procedural compensation shall be awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Consequently, the DRC judge decided to reject the Claimant’s request relating to legal expenses. 18. In continuation, taking into account the consideration under number II./15. above, the DRC judge referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations which stipulates that any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis may be sanctioned in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations. 19. The DRC judge established that in virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations he has competence to impose sanctions on the Respondent. Therefore, bearing in mind that the Respondent duly replied to the claim of the Claimant and in the absence of the circumstance of repeated offence, the DRC judge decided to impose a warning on the Respondent in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. a) of the Regulations. 20. In this respect, the DRC judge wished to highlight that a repeated offence will be considered as an aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty in accordance with art. 12bis par. 6 of the Regulations. III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, B, has to pay to the Claimant overdue payables in the amount of EUR 10,876 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, 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. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 5. 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 DRC judge of every payment received. 6. A warning is imposed on the Respondent. ***** 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 DRC judge: Markus Kattner Acting Secretary General Encl: CAS directives