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 (DRC) judge passed on 3 October 2016, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, A, country S as Claimant against the club, B, country C 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 (DRC) judge passed on 3 October 2016, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, A, country S as Claimant against the club, B, country C as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties in connection with overdue payables I. Facts of the case 1. On 25 August 2015, the player from S, A (hereinafter: Claimant), and the club from C, B (hereinafter: Respondent), signed an employment contract valid “for the period of one year for the football season 2015/2016”. 2. In accordance with the employment contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant a remuneration of EUR 2,600 in eight monthly instalments of EUR 325 each, the first one on 30 August 2015 and the last one on 30 March 2016. According to the employment contract, the parties agreed on a 60 days’ grace period for payment. 3. Moreover, the employment contract established that the Claimant is entitled to an accommodation allowance of EUR 300 for the contractual duration. 4. On the same date, i.e. 25 August 2015, the Claimant and the Respondent signed a “Supplementary Contract of Employment” (hereinafter: the supplementary employment contract), valid “for the period of one year for the football season 2015/2016”, in accordance with which the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 12,000 in eight monthly instalments of EUR 1,500 each, the first one on 30 August 2015 and the last one on 30 March 2016. According to supplementary employment contract, the parties agreed on a 60 days’ grace period for payment. 5. By correspondence dated 18 July 2016, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of EUR 4,500, setting a 10 days’ time limit in order to remedy the default. 6. On 10 August 2016, and completed on 25 August 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 4,500 net corresponding to EUR 900 for the month of January, EUR 1,800 for February and EUR 1,800 for March, all 2016, in accordance with both the employment contract and the supplementary employment contract. 7. The Claimant further asks to be awarded interest without further specification. 8. In spite of having been invited to do so, the Respondent has not replied to the 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 10 August 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 2016) he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player from S and a club from C. 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 2016), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 10 August 2016, the 2016 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, the DRC judge acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent signed an employment contract valid “for the period of one year for the football season 2015/2016”, in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent, inter alia, an accommodation allowance of EUR 300 for the contractual duration, as well as a remuneration of EUR 2,600 in eight monthly instalments of EUR 325 each, the first one on 30 August 2015 and the last one on 30 March 2016. 6. Moreover, it was observed by the DRC judge that the Claimant and the Respondent signed the supplementary employment contract, valid “for the period of one year for the football season 2015/2016”, in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to the amount of EUR 12,000 in eight monthly instalments of EUR 1,500 each, the first one on 30 August 2015 and the last one on 30 March 2016. 7. Furthermore, the DRC judge duly noted that, except for the accommodation allowance of EUR 300 established in the contract, a contractual 60 day grace period was applicable to the monthly instalments. 8. In continuation, the DRC judge duly noted that the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, maintaining that the Respondent has overdue payables towards him in the total amount of EUR 4,500 net corresponding to EUR 900 for the month of January, EUR 1,800 for February and EUR 1,800 for March, all 2016, in accordance with both the employment contract and the supplementary employment contract. 9. In this context, the DRC judge took particular note of the fact that, on 18 July 2016, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the aforementioned amount, setting a 10 days’ time limit in order to remedy the default. 10. 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). 11. Subsequently, the DRC judge 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. In this way, the DRC judge considered that the Respondent renounced its right to defence and thus accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 12. Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the DRC judge concurred that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules he 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. 13. Having said this, the DRC judge acknowledged that, in accordance with both the employment contract and the supplementary employment contract provided by the Claimant, the Respondent was obliged to pay to the Claimant, an accommodation allowance of EUR 300, a remuneration of EUR 2,600 in eight monthly instalments of EUR 325 each, the first one on 30 August 2015 and the last one on 30 March 2016, as well as the amount of EUR 12,000 in eight monthly instalments of EUR 1,500 each, the first one on 30 August 2015 and the last one on 30 March 2016. 14. Taking into account the documentation presented by the Claimant in support of his petition, the DRC judge concluded that the Claimant had substantiated his claim pertaining to overdue payables with sufficient documentary evidence. 15. 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 4,500 corresponding to EUR 900 for the month of January, EUR 1,800 for February and EUR 1,800 for March, all 2016. 16. 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. 17. 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 4,500. 18. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 4,500 as from 10 August 2016 until the date of effective payment. 19. In continuation, taking into account the consideration under number II./16. 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. 20. The DRC judge established that in virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations he has competence to impose sanctions on the Respondent. Bearing in mind that the Respondent did not reply to the claim of the Claimant and that the Respondent has previously been found by the DRC judge to have neglected its contractual obligations towards players on multiple occasions in the recent past, the DRC judge decided to impose a fine on the Respondent in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. c) of the Regulations. On this basis and taking into consideration the amount due of EUR 4,500, the DRC judge regarded a fine amounting to CHF 2,000 as appropriate and hence decided to impose said fine on the Respondent. 21. 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 accepted. 2. The Respondent, 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 4,500, plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as from 10 August 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 DRC judge of every payment received. 5. The Respondent is ordered to pay a fine in the amount of CHF 2,000. The fine is to be paid within 30 days of notification of the present decision to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. 16-01426/maa: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A ***** 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 DRC judge: Marco Villiger Deputy Secretary General Encl: CAS directives