F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2017-2018) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 21 September 2017

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 21 September 2017,

in the following composition:

Thomas Grimm (Switzerland),Deputy Chairman

John Bramhall (England),member

Johan van Gaalen (South Africa),member

Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member

Mohamed Al-Saikhan (Saudi Arabia),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 “5 August 2013”, the player of Country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 1 August 2013 until 30 June 2016.

2. According to Art. 4 of the contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the Claimant an amount “equivalent” to EUR 600,000 per season, payable as follows:

a. 12 monthly installments of EUR 50,000 as from 1 August 2013 until 30 June 2014 for the 2013/2014 season;

b. 12 monthly installments of EUR 50,000 as from 1 July 2014 until 30 June 2015 for the 2014/2015 season;

c. 12 monthly installments of EUR 50,000 as from 1 July 2015 until 30 June 2016 for the 2015/2016 season.

3. Furthermore, according to said article, the payment of such amounts “will be done in the currency of Country D according to the exchange rate of the date of signature of the contract officially established by the Central Bank of Country D” (free translation from French).

4. On 10 January 2017, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA requesting the total amount of EUR 218,904 broken-down as follows:

a. EUR 200,000 as outstanding salaries for the months of March, April, May and June 2016;

b. EUR 18,904.00 allegedly corresponding to 5% interest per annum from 1 March 2016 until the date of his claim, i.e. 10 January 2017.

c. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent referred to art. 4 of the contract, in particular, to the fact that according to said article, the payments due to the claimant are to be made in the currency of Country D considering the exchange rate determined by the Central Bank of Country D on the date of the conclusion of the contract.

5. With regard to this issue, the Respondent argued that according to the Central Bank of Country D, on 5 August 2013, i.e. the date of signature of the contract, the exchange rate was EUR 1 for 2.18 in the currency of Country D. In order to support its position, the Respondent enclosed to its reply an extract from the website of the Central Bank of Country D.

6. Consequently, the Respondent argued that any amount to be granted to the claimant should be calculated considering the aforementioned exchange rate.

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as DRC or Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 10 January 2017. Consequently, the 2017 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the 2014 edition of the Procedural Rules).

2. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 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 of Country B and a club of 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 10 January 2017, the 2016 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

4. Having established the foregoing, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber continued by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file in relation to the substance of the matter. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered for the assessment of the matter at hand.

5. First of all, the Chamber acknowledged that, on 5 August 2013, the parties concluded a contract valid until 30 June 2016 according to which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent, “the equivalent” to EUR 600,000 per season, payable as follows:

a. 12 monthly installments of EUR 50,000 as from 1 August 2013 until 30 June 2014 for the 2013/2014 season;

b. 12 monthly installments of EUR 50,000 as from 1 July 2014 until 30 June 2015 for the 2014/2015 season;

c. 12 monthly installments of EUR 50,000 as from 1 July 2015 until 30 June 2016 for the 2015/2016 season.

6. Having said this, the members of the DRC focused their attention on the claim of the Claimant who argues that the Respondent failed to pay him his salaries of March, April, May and June 2016 in the amount of EUR 200,000. Conversely, the Chamber took note that the Respondent asserted that the Claimant’s salaries were payable in the currency of Country D and not in EUR. In this respect, the Chamber noted that, according to the Respondent, the amounts owed to the Claimant would be paid in the currency of Country D using the exchange rate of the Central Bank of Country D on the date of signature of the contract, i.e 5 August 2013, as per Art. 4 of the contract which states that, the payment of the amounts due to the Claimant “will be done in the currency of Country D according to the exchange rate of the date of signature of the contract officially established by the Central Bank of Country D”.

7. In view of the foregoing considerations, the members of the DRC wished to highlight, first of all, that the Respondent did not dispute the fact that it did not pay the Claimant’s salaries of March, April, May, June 2016 but rather limited its defence to argue that the salary of the Claimant was payable in the currency of Country D and not in EUR. Therefore, according to the Respondent, the Claimant is entitled to 436,000 in the currency of Country D. Indeed, the Chamber emphasised that the only disputed point between the parties is to determine the currency in which the salaries of the Claimant were actually payable.

8. In doing so, the DRC recalled the principle of the burden of proof in accordance with art. 12 par. 3 of the Regulations which provides that any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof.

9. With the aforementioned in mind, the members of the Chamber referred to the content of art. 4 of the contract and, in this respect, were of the unanimous opinion that such is clear and leaves no room for interpretation; the payment of the salaries were made in the currency of Country D “according to the exchange rate of the date of signature of the contract officially established by the Central Bank of Country D”. What is more, the Chamber underlined that the Respondent had proved, to its satisfaction, that the exchange rate between currency of Country D and EUR on the date of signature, of the contract, i.e. 5 August 2013, was 2.18 in the currency of Country D per every EUR.

10. As such, and taking into account the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the members of the Chamber saw no reason to deviate from what was contractually agreed between the parties. In particular, that currency of Country D is the currency in which the salaries of the Claimant were supposed to be paid.

11. On account of all the above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amount of 436.000 in the currency of Country D, corresponding to his salaries of March, April, May and June 2016.

12. Moreover, and with regard to the Claimant's request for interest, the Chamber decided that he is entitled to receive interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the aforesaid amount as from the respective due dates until 10 January 2017.

13. The Chamber concluded its deliberations by establishing that any other claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.

*****

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is partially accepted.

2. The Respondent, Club C, is ordered to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of 436,000 in the currency of Country D plus 5% interest p.a. as follows:

d. 5% p.a. on the amount of 109,000 in the currency of Country D as of 1 April 2016 until 10 January 2017;

e. 5% p.a. on the amount of 109,000 in the currency of Country D as of 1 May 2016 until 10 January 2017;

f. 5% p.a. on the amount of 109,000 in the currency of Country D as of 1 June 2016 until 10 January 2017;

g. 5% p.a. on the amount of 109,000 in the currency of Country D as of 1 July 2016 until 10 January 2017.

3. Any further claim lodged by Claimant is rejected.

4. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid, in accordance with the above mentioned number 2. within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under points 2. to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received.

*****

Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):

According to art. 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 (CAS)

Avenue de Beaumont 2

CH-1012 Lausanne

Switzerland

Tel: +41 21 613 50 00

Fax: +41 21 613 50 01

e-mail: info@tas-cas.org

For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Omar Ongaro

Football Regulatory Director

Enclosed: CAS directives