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 7 July 2016, by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, A, country C represented by Mr xxxx as Claimant against the club, B, country B 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 7 July 2016, by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, A, country C represented by Mr xxxx as Claimant against the club, B, country B as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties in connection with overdue payables I. Facts of the case 1. On 28 September 2015, the player from country C, A (hereinafter: Claimant), and the club from country B, club B (hereinafter: Respondent) signed an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 28 September 2016. 2. On 8 December 2015, the Claimant and the Respondent signed an agreement by means of which they terminated the employment contract (hereinafter: termination agreement). 3. In accordance with the termination agreement, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant the amount of xxxxx (x) 2,000 within 8 days from the signing of the termination agreement. Moreover, the termination agreement established that if the Respondent fails to make the relevant payment, the additional amount of x 2,000 will be due until 24 December 2015. 4. By correspondence dated 26 January 2016, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of x 4,000 setting a 10 days’ time limit in order to remedy the default. 5. On 9 May 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 x 4,000 corresponding to the principal amount of x 2,000 established in the termination agreement as well as the additional amount of x 2,000 in accordance with the termination agreement. 6. According to the Claimant, the amounts of x 2,000 “matured” respectively on 17 December 2015 and 25 December 2015. 7. The Claimant further asks to be awarded interest of 5% p.a. as of the respective due dates and that the Respondent be ordered to pay legal and procedural costs. 8. In reply to the claim, the Respondent stated that it does not dispute the allegations of the Claimant, but held that it is in large financial difficulties and thus, requested to make the payment in four monthly instalments of x 1,000. 9. The Claimant rejected the proposal of the Respondent and insisted on his 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 9 May 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 country C and a club from country B. 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 9 May 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, the DRC judge acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent signed an employment contract valid for the period between 28 September 2015 and 28 September 2016 and, subsequently, on 8 December 2015, the Claimant and the Respondent signed a termination agreement, in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent the amount of x 2,000 within 8 days from its signature. In addition, the DRC judge took note that, in accordance with the termination agreement, if the Respondent fails to make the payment of x 2,000 within the agreed deadline, an additional amount of x 2,000 would be due until 24 December 2015. 6. 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 x 4,000 corresponding to the amounts established in the termination agreement. 7. In this context, the DRC judge took particular note of the fact that, on 26 January 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. 8. 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). 9. Subsequently, the DRC judge took into account that the Respondent accepted the allegations of the Claimant. However, it held being in large financial difficulties and thus, it requested to make the payment of the amount due in 4 instalments of x 1,000 each. 10. Finally, the DRC judge acknowledged that the Claimant rejected the Respondent’s proposal and insisted on his claim. 11. In this regard, the DRC judge considered that the argument related to financial difficulties raised by the Respondent cannot be considered a valid reason for nonpayment of the monies claimed by the Claimant, in order words, the reasons brought forward by the Respondent in its defence do not exempt the Respondent from its obligation to fulfil its contractual obligations towards the Claimant. 12. Moreover, the DRC judge emphasised that the Claimant expressly rejected the offer of the Respondent to pay the amount in instalments. 13. 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 x 4,000. 14. 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. 15. 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 x 4,000. 16. 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 each of the relevant payment(s), as of the day following the day on which the relevant payment(s) fell due, until the date of effective payment. 17. Furthermore, the DRC judge decided to reject the Claimant’s claim for legal expenses and procedural compensation in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the respective longstanding jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard. 18. In continuation, taking into account the consideration under number II./14. 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, 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 x 4,000, plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows: a. 5% p.a. on the amount of x 2,000 as from 17 December 2015; b. 5% p.a. on the amount of x 2,000 as from 25 December 2015. 3. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant, plus interest, 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. 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 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