F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2016-2017) – debiti scaduti – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2016-2017) – overdue payables – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 29 July 2016, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Santiago Nebot (Spain), member John Bramhall (England), member Guillermo Saltos (Ecuador), member Wouter Lambrecht (Belgium), member on the claim presented by the player, A, country N represented by Ms xxxx as Claimant against the club, B, country T 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 (2016-2017) – debiti scaduti – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2016-2017) – overdue payables – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 29 July 2016, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Santiago Nebot (Spain), member John Bramhall (England), member Guillermo Saltos (Ecuador), member Wouter Lambrecht (Belgium), member on the claim presented by the player, A, country N represented by Ms xxxx as Claimant against the club, B, country T as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties in connection with overdue payables I. Facts of the case 1. On 5 January 2012, the player form country N, A (hereinafter: player or Claimant), and the T club from country T, club B (hereinafter: club or Respondent), signed an employment contract valid as from 5 January 2012 until 31 May 2016. 2. According to the employment contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent, inter alia, the amount of EUR 600,000 for the 2015-16 season, payable as follows: a. EUR 250,000 on 22 August 2015; b. EUR 100,000 on 22 November 2015; c. EUR 125,000 on 22 February 2016; d. EUR 125,000 on 22 May 2016. 3. By correspondence dated 23 March 2016, sent to the Respondent on 25 March 2016, the Claimant put the club in default of payment of the amount of EUR 75,000 setting a 10 days’ time limit in order to remedy default. 4. On 14 April 2016, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent before FIFA asking to be awarded payment of outstanding receivables in the total amount of EUR 75,000 as well as 5% interest p.a. as of 22 February 2016. 5. According to the Claimant, the Respondent only paid EUR 50,000 out of the EUR 125,000 instalment that fell due on 22 February 2016 and that, thus, the amount of EUR 75,000 has remained unpaid. 6. In spite of having been invited to do so, the club has not responded to the claim of the Claimant. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 14 April 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 Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2016), it is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player from country N and a club from country T. 3. In continuation, the DRC 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 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2016), and considering that the present claim was lodged 14 April 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 and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on 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. Having said this, the DRC acknowledged that, on 5 January 2012, the Claimant and the Respondent signed an employment contract, which was valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2016. 6. The Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, maintaining that the Respondent has overdue payables towards him in the amount of EUR 75,000 in connection with the instalment of EUR 125,000 that fell due on 22 February 2016 in accordance with the employment contract. According to the Claimant, the Respondent had only paid him the amount of EUR 50,000 in relation to said instalment and that, therefore, the amount of EUR 75,000 remains outstanding. 7. In this context, the DRC took particular note of the fact that with his correspondence dated 23 March 2016, sent to the Respondent on 25 March 2016, the Claimant put the club in default of payment of the amount of EUR 75,000 setting a 10 days’ time limit to remedy default. 8. Consequently, the DRC 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). 9. Subsequently, the DRC took into account 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. The Chamber considered that, in this way, the Respondent renounced its right to defence and accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 10. Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the DRC concurred that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, it shall take a decision upon the basis of the documents already on file, in other words, upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant. 11. Having said this, the DRC acknowledged that, in accordance with the employment contract provided by the Claimant, the Respondent was obliged to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 125,000 on 22 February 2016. 12. 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 overdue payables with sufficient documentary evidence. 13. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC established that the Respondent failed to remit the Claimant’s remuneration in the total amount of EUR 75,000 in relation with the instalment that fell due on 22 February 2016. 14. In addition, the DRC established that the Respondent had delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis. 15. Consequently, the DRC 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 amount of EUR 75,000. 16. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the Chamber’s constant jurisprudence, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amount as of the day following the day on which it fell due. 17. In continuation, taking into account the consideration under number II./14. above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber 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. 18. The DRC established that in virtue of the aforementioned article, it has competence to impose sanctions on the Respondent. In this context, the DRC highlighted that, on 17 April 2015, the Respondent had already been found by the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis and without the Respondent having responded to the relevant claim, as a result of which a fine had been imposed on the Respondent. The Chamber further took into account that, on 4 February 2016, the Respondent had been found by the DRC, for the second time, to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis without having responded to the claim, as a result of which a ban from registering any new players for 1 registration period, effective in the event of non-payment within the time limit set, was imposed on the Respondent. 19. Consequently, the Chamber established that, in the present matter, the Respondent is found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis for the third time. 20. Along these lines, the DRC referred to art. 12bis par. 6 of the Regulations, which establishes that a repeated offence will be considered as an aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty. 21. Moreover, the members of the Chamber wished to underline and took into account that the Respondent has been found by the Dispute Resolution Chamber as well as the DRC judge responsible for not complying with its financial obligations towards players on various other occasions in the recent past. 22. Therefore, bearing in mind the considerations under numbers II./18. to II./21. above, the DRC decided that in the event that the Respondent does not pay the amount due to the Claimant within 30 days following the notification of the present decision, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the next two entire registration periods following the notification of the present decision shall become effective on the Respondent in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. d) of the Regulations. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, club B, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, overdue payables in the amount of EUR 75,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 23 February 2016 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the amount plus interest due to the Claimant is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, 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. 5. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 6. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant is not paid by the Respondent within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the two next entire and consecutive registration periods following the notification of the present decision. ***** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to article 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 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