DECISIONI DI GIUSTIZIA SPORTIVA • F.I.F.A. - CAMERA DI RISOLUZIONE DELLE CONTROVERSIE - CONTROVERSIE DI LAVORO

• Data decisione: 8 settembre 2017 • Stagione sportiva: 2016/2017

F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2016-2017) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 8 September 2016

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 8 September 2016,

in the following composition:

Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman

Eirik Monsen (Norway), member

Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member

Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member

Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member

on the claim presented by the player,

Player A, country B

as Claimant

against the club,

Club C, country D

as Respondent

regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 15 July 2015, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent) signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 23 July 2015 until 22 July 2017.

2. On 23 January 2016, the Claimant and the Respondent signed a document titled “Agreement for Termination of Contract” (hereinafter: the termination agreement) by means of which the parties mutually terminated the contract and the Respondent undertook the obligation to pay the Claimant the amount of USD 166,665, as follows:

 USD 66,666 on 1 March 2016;

 USD 66,666 on 1 April 2016;

 USD 33,333 on 1 May 2016.

3. On 26 January 2016, the player signed a document titled “Letter of Settlement” (hereinafter: the settlement), in which it is established that:

“I a professional player / Player A (country B nationalety) passport No. 047191450 with expiry date on 24/06/2020 hereby declare and confirm that I have signed contract with Club C dated 10/07/2015 for duration from 23/07/2015 to 22/07/2017 registered in professionalism & Players Affairs committee no 10163/9 dated 12/11/1436

I hereby voluntarily admit and consent with Club C on the termination of my above mentioned contract effective 26/01/2016

I hereby admit that I had fully received all my entitlements from Club C under this Contract and any rights that may resulted of the termination of this contract. And I do hereby declare that not to claim the Club/other party for any entitlement which may result from the termination of this contract.”

4. By correspondence dated 24 May 2016 and 9 June 2016, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of USD 166,665 setting a 12 days’ time limit and a 10 days’ time limit, respectively, in order to remedy the default.

5. On 8 June 2016, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA asking that the club be ordered to pay to him outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 166,665. The Claimant further asks to be awarded interest of 5% p.a. as of the relevant due dates.

6. According to the Claimant, the Respondent has not paid any of the instalments agreed in the termination agreement.

7. In its reply, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim. In this respect, the Respondent acknowledged signing the termination agreement on 23 January 2016, and provided a copy of the settlement signed by the Claimant on 26 January 2016. In this respect, the Respondent argued that “[The Claimant] sign [the settlement] and admit he had fully received all his entitlements from [the Respondent] under his contract, which is terminated on 23 January 2016, and any rights that may resulted of the termination of this contract. In addition, [the Claimant] declare that not to claim the club/other party for any entitlement, which may result from the termination of his contract”.

8. The Claimant submitted his replica, in which he repeated his initial position and request for relief. In respect to the settlement, the Claimant did not challenge having signed the document, however, he explained that he “does not speak or comprehend the English language” and that “he was not duly advised”.

9. Furthermore, the Claimant argued that based on a wrong interpretation of the settlement the Respondent wants to avoid the payment of its obligations as agreed in the termination agreement. In this respect, the Claimant sustained that the settlement only makes reference to the contract, which was already terminated, but makes no reference to the payment agreed in the termination agreement, which according to the Claimant, is the basis of the dispute.

10. The Claimant questioned the logic of why he would renounce to the right of claiming the amount established in the termination agreement just 3 days before, and pointed out that the settlement does not contain any reference to the termination agreement.

11. Moreover, the Claimant held that the most important thing in the matter at hand, is that up to date, the Respondent has not proven the payment of the instalments in accordance with the termination agreement.

12. The Respondent submitted its duplica, where it repeated its position.

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. First, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as 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 8 June 2016. Consequently, the 2015 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) are 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 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 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 country B and a club from country D.

3. The competence of the Chamber having been established, the Chamber analysed 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 (edition 2016), and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 8 June 2016, the 2016 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

4. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. 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. In this regard, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent signed an employment contract valid as from 23 July 2015 until 22 July 2017 and that on 23 January 2016, the parties signed the termination agreement, by means of which, on the one hand, the Claimant and the Respondent agreed to mutually terminate the contract, and on the other hand, the Respondent undertook the obligation to pay the Claimant the amount of USD 166,665.

6. The DRC further observed that on 26 January 2016, the Claimant signed the settlement. In this regard, the Chamber paid due consideration to the fact that the Claimant did not challenge or contest signing the settlement.

7. The Chamber then reviewed the claim of the Claimant, who maintained that the Respondent failed to fulfil its obligations in accordance with the termination agreement, and that, therefore, the amount of USD 166,665 remains outstanding.

8. The Chamber took into account that the Respondent, for its part, fully rejected the claim maintaining that the Claimant waived his right to claim any amounts from it by means of the settlement signed on 26 January 2016.

9. Having stated the aforementioned, the members of the DRC turned their attention to the arguments put forward by the Claimant in relation to the settlement signed on 26 January 2016, in particular to the Claimant’s assertion that said document cannot be interpreted as a waiver of his rights under the termination agreement. In this regard, the Chamber, duly observed that the Claimant argued, inter alia, that:

a) He “does not speak or comprehend the English language” and that “he was not duly advised”;

b) The Respondent wants to avoid the payment of its obligations as agreed in the termination agreement, based on a wrong interpretation of the settlement, as according to the Claimant, the settlement only makes reference to the contract but not to the payment agreed in the termination agreement;

c) It is illogical that he would renounce to the right of claiming the amount established in the termination agreement just three days before.

10. In light of the above and first of all, the Chamber highlighted, once again, that the Claimant did not deny having signed the settlement, and with respect to the Claimant’s allegations that he does not speak or understand the English language and that he was not duly advised, as a result of which the Claimant appears to imply that he had no knowledge of the content of the settlement, the Chamber deemed it fit to emphasise that a party signing a document of legal importance without knowledge of its precise contents, as a general rule, does so on its own responsibility. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that such arguments could not be upheld.

11. In continuation, the Chamber focused on the Claimant’s argument as to the alleged wrong interpretation of the settlement, as the Claimant held that the settlement does not mention that he waived his right to the amount established in the termination agreement and that it only refers to the contract, as well as the logic of renouncing to a right established just three days before. In this respect, the DRC deemed it important to recall the wording of the settlement, which establishes the following:

“Letter of Settlement

I a professional player / Player A (country B nationalety) passport No. 047191450 with expiry date on 24/06/2020 hereby declare and confirm that I have signed contract with Club C dated 10/07/2015 for duration from 23/07/2015 to 22/07/2017 registered in professionalism & Players Affairs committee no 10163/9 dated 12/11/1436

I hereby voluntarily admit and consent with Club C on the termination of my above mentioned contract effective 26/01/2016

12. After a thorough examination of the settlement, the Chamber stressed that the document in question can be understood as the result of negotiations conducted between the parties, as its signature was not contested by the Claimant. Moreover, the DRC highlighted that the document is unambiguously titled “Letter of Settlement”, which gives a clear indication that the parties intended to settle all claims that they might have against each other, without reserving any.

13. In the light of such context, the members of the Chamber were convinced that the abovementioned assertion is confirmed by the text of the settlement, which explicitly states that the Claimant declared “not to claim the Club/other party for any entitlement which may result from the termination of this contract”.

14. In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that the settlement constituted a valid and binding document by means of which the Claimant waived any claim he might have or have had against the Respondent.

15. On account of the above, the Chamber decided to reject the claim of the Claimant in its entirety.

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is rejected.

*****

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