F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2017-2018) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision25 January 2018

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 January 2018,

in the following composition:

Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman

Roy Vermeer (Netherlands), member

Tomislav Kasalo (Croatia), member

Pavel Pivovarov (Russia), member

Daan de Jong (Netherlands), 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. Allegedly, on 20 July 2016, 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 25 July 2016 until 31 May 2017.

2. A copy of the contract signed by both parties is available in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), in the context of the transfer of the Claimant “Engage permanently (out of contract)” to the Respondent.

3. According to the contract, the parties agreed that it can be extended for the period from 1 June 2017 until 31 May 2018. In this respect, the contract stipulated that the conditions for the extension are specified in the “Appendix 1 of this contract (hereinafter: the appendix)”, as well as that “both parts must to confirm the extension”.

4. In accordance with the contract, the Claimant was entitled inter alia to a monthly salary in the amount of EUR 2,716, payable “no later than on the last day of the following month”.

5. Moreover, the contract established that the individual bonuses for the Claimant’s performances in official matches are set out in the appendix.

6. According to art. 7 lit e) of the contract, the Respondent is obliged to “provide the [Claimant] with appropriate medical and health care, regeneration procedures and rest”.

7. Art 10 par 5. lit a) of the contract provided that the Respondent may cancel the contract unilaterally, if “the [Claimant] is not capable of performing his sporting duties under his contract for a long period of time; the incapability of the [Claimant] to perform sporting duties due to health conditions shall be supported by an opinion of the [Respondent]’s medical advisers.”.

8. Moreover, the contract established that in case of unilateral termination, the contract will be terminated by “the expiration of the termination period”, and that the termination period is “one calendar month and starts to run on the first day of the following month”.

9. The contract does not contain a clause relating to compensation for breach of contract.

10. In accordance with the appendix to the contract, the contract is automatically extended if the player “enters at least 70% of all competition matches in the year 2016/2017”. Moreover, in accordance with the appendix, the Claimant was entitled inter alia to the following bonuses:

 EUR 148 for “goal bonus”;

 EUR 123 for “assist bonus”;

 EUR 148 for ”Team bonus for winning match (the coach decides)”;

 EUR 86 for ”Team bonus for away draw (the coach decides)”.

11. On 20 February 2017, and subsequently completed on 23 October 2017, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent before FIFA for outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract, requesting the total amount of EUR 77,327.24, plus 5% interest p.a. “as of the date of termination until the date of effective payment”. The requested amount was broken down by the Claimant as follows:

 EUR 8,148 as outstanding remuneration corresponding to the monthly salaries of August, September and October, all 2016, in the amount of EUR 2,716, each;

 EUR 19,012, as compensation for breach of contract, for the time frame from 1 November 2016 until 31 May 2017;

 EUR 35,556, as compensation for breach of contract, for the time frame from 1 June 2017 until 31 May 2018;

 EUR 5,000 for “goals, assists, wins and away draws” bonuses that “will not be received as consequence of the injury while rendering services for the club”.

 EUR 9,611.24 as reimbursement of medical and rehabilitation costs. In this regard, the Claimant provided 6 invoices for the amounts of EUR 2,579.54, EUR 500, EUR 916.67, EUR 539.84, EUR 575.19 and EUR 4,000, respectively, corresponding to medical costs of a surgery and subsequent rehabilitation for the period between August 2016 and October 2016.

12. According to the Claimant, on 14 August 2016, he suffered an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury in his right knee while rendering his services for the Respondent in a match against the club of Country D, Club E. Along this line, the Claimant held that, on 18 August 2016, the Respondent authorized him to leave to Country B to receive further medical assessment and undergo medical treatment, enclosing to his claim the corresponding Respondent’s authorization.

13. Subsequently the Claimant explained that after receiving the authorization from the Respondent, he underwent surgery on 29 August 2016. The Claimant further declared that according to the medical report, which was enclosed to his claim, the estimated timetable for recovery would be 6 months.

14. In this context, the Claimant explained that, on 2 September 2016, he received a letter from the Respondent, by means of which the Respondent unilaterally terminated the contract with effect as from 31 October 2016 (hereinafter: the termination letter).

15. The termination letter reads as follows:

“Re: Termination of the Professional employment contract

Dear Sir,

We must inform you that the Board of [the Respondent] has decided to unilaterally terminate [the contract].

The termination period is one month and starts to run on 1st day of the following month (on 1 October 2016). Consequently, your professional employment contract with [the Respondent] shall end on 31 October 2016.

The reason for the unilateral termination is your incapability to perform your sporting duties under the professional employment contract due to the character of your present injury and expected duration of treatment (8 months), which was confirmed by two independent medical advisers of [the Respondent].

In compliance with art. 10 para. 5 lit. a) of your professional employment contract, [the Respondent] is entitled to unilaterally terminate your contract, in case you are incapable of performing your sporting duties for a long period of time.

We would like to thank you and wish you all the best in your further career.

On behalf of [the Respondent],

(Signature)

“

16. The Claimant held that he replied to such letter informing the Respondent that he disagreed with the termination of the contract, since the reason for not being able to render his services to the Respondent was an injury, that he had the authorization of the club to leave to undergo medical treatment and the he expected to be recovered by March 2017.

17. In his claim, the Claimant asserted that the unilateral termination of the contract cannot be considered valid since the Respondent had given him authorization to leave to undergo medical treatment. Moreover, the Claimant deemed that art. 10 par 5. lit a) of the contract cannot be considered valid, as an injury is part of the risks linked to a player’s football career. Hence, the Claimant argued that the club terminated the contract without just cause.

18. As a consequence of the Respondent’s alleged breach of contract, the Claimant affirmed that he should be entitled to outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract.

19. In this regard, the Claimant held that the contract should be considered valid until 31 May 2018, and not only until 31 May 2017, i.e. the original end date of the contract, since the extension of the contract was subject to the fulfilment of several objectives during the 2016-2017 season, which due to the unilateral termination by the Respondent, became impossible to fulfil for reasons beyond his control.

20. After being requested to provide a signed copy of the contract by the FIFA administration, the Claimant argued that although he was unable to provide a copy signed by the Respondent since, allegedly, the Respondent did not provide him with a duly signed copy, a contract between the parties was indeed concluded. In order to support his argumentation, the Claimant provided a copy of a payment performed by the Respondent to him dated 26 August 2016, which allegedly corresponds to his salary for July 2016. Moreover, the Claimant held that the termination letter has to be considered as proof of the existence of an employment relationship and as proof of the contract, since the termination letter refers to the contract.

21. By means of its letter dated 1 November 2017, FIFA invited the Respondent to provide its position to the claim lodged by the Claimant within 20 days as of receipt of said correspondence by DHL. In accordance with the DHL tracking report on file, the Respondent received said correspondence on 2 November 2017.

22. The Respondent requested an extension to reply to the claim lodged by the Claimant by means of its correspondence dated 21 November 2017, which FIFA received on 23 November 2017.

23. By means of its correspondence dated 27 November 2017, FIFA informed the Respondent that in accordance with art. 16 par. 12 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, it could not grant an extension of the time limit to present its position to the claim of the Claimant as requested in its fax submitted on 23 November 2017, since its request was submitted after the expiry of the deadline granted to do so. Furthermore by means of its letter of 27 November 2017, FIFA informed the parties that the investigation-phase of the matter at hand was closed.

24. On 24 January 2018, and after the parties were already notified of the closure of the investigation-phase, the Respondent replied to the claim.

25. Upon request of FIFA, the Claimant indicated that he signed a contract with the club of Country F, Club G, valid as from 15 February 2017 until 31 December 2017, according to which he was entitled to receive a monthly salary of EUR 2,000.

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 20 February 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) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the 2017 and 2018 editions 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 2018) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an alleged 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 (editions 2016 and 2018), and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 20 February 2017, 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. In particular, the Chamber recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, FIFA may use, within the scope of proceedings pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS).

5. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that according to the Claimant, he had, on 20 July 2016, signed an employment contract with the Respondent valid as from 25 July 2016 until 31 May 2017, in accordance with which the Respondent allegedly had undertaken to pay him a monthly salary of EUR 2,716. Furthermore, the Chamber took note that said contract established an option to extend it until 31 May 2018.

6. In continuation, the members of the Chamber noted that the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent maintaining that the Respondent should be held liable for breach of contract. In this respect, the Claimant argued that after suffering an injury on 14 August 2016 while rendering his services to the Respondent and after being explicitly allowed by the Respondent to go back to his home country to undergo medical treatment, the Respondent unilaterally terminated the contract without just cause by means of the termination letter described in point I.15. above. Consequently, the Claimant asks to be awarded with his outstanding dues, the payment of compensation for breach of the alleged employment contract, the reimbursement of the medical and rehabilitation costs in relation with the injury, as well as a payment related to the estimated loss for bonuses.

7. Subsequently, the DRC observed that the Respondent, in spite of having been invited to do so, had failed to present its reply to the claim of the Claimant, or to timely request an extension of the deadline within the relevant time limit set by FIFA, i.e. 22 November 2017, taking into account that the time limit set by FIFA was within 20 days as of receipt of its correspondence dated 1 November 2017 by DHL, and in accordance with the DHL tracking report on file, said correspondence was received by the Respondent on 2 November 2017. In fact, the club only requested an extension of the deadline on 23 November 2017. What is more, after the investigation phase in the matter at hand was subsequently closed, the Respondent submitted unsolicited comments.

8. Based on the foregoing, bearing in mind the Chamber’s constant jurisprudence in this regard and in application of art. 9 par. 3 and art. 16 par. 12 of the Procedural Rules, first of all the Chamber decided that the Respondent’s request for an extension of the deadline was correctly denied by the FIFA Administration, as it was submitted outside the deadline granted to the Respondent and that in the absence of a timely answer of the Respondent, the investigation phase of the matter at hand was closed in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules.

9. What is more, the members of the Chamber recalled art. 9 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, which provides inter alia the following: ‘The parties shall not be authorised to supplement or amend their requests or their arguments, to produce new exhibits or to specify further evidence on which they intend to rely, after notification of the closure of the investigation.’ In this respect, the members of the Chamber decided to not take into account the unsolicited comments of the Respondent.

10. In view of the foregoing, the DRC established that it shall take a decision on the basis of those documents on file that were provided prior to the deadline set by FIFA and prior to the subsequent closure of the investigation phase, in casu, on the statements and documents presented by the Claimant.

11. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute was to first determine if an employment contract between the parties had been concluded. Subsequently, if established by the Chamber that an employment contract had been concluded, it would need to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by the Respondent and to determine the financial consequences for the party that is to be held liable for the early termination of the pertinent employment contract.

12. In order to establish if an employment contract between the Claimant and the Respondent had been concluded or not, the members of the Chamber firstly referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. The application of the said principle in the present matter led the members of the Chamber to conclude that it was up to the Claimant to prove that the employment contract, on the basis of which he claims compensation for breach of contract from the Respondent, indeed existed.

13. Having stated the above, the DRC recalled that the Claimant maintained that he never received a signed copy of the employment contract he asserts having signed with the Respondent. However, the Claimant had submitted documentation, as well as arguments in support of his claim that he was bound to an employment contract.

14. In this regard, the DRC took note that the Claimant provided a copy of a payment performed by the Respondent to him dated 26 August 2016, which allegedly corresponds to his salary for July 2016. Furthermore, the Claimant held that the termination letter dated 2 September 2016, a copy of which was adduced to his claim, has to be considered as proof of the existence of an employment relationship and as proof of the contract.

15. In addition, the members of the Chamber observed that a copy of the contract signed by both the Claimant and the Respondent is available in the TMS, in the context of the transfer of the Claimant “Engage permanently (out of contract)” to the Respondent.

16. In light of the foregoing considerations, the DRC had to conclude that in view of the documentation and arguments presented by the Claimant, which have remained uncontested by the Respondent, the Respondent and the Claimant had validly entered into an employment contract.

17. As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that, since the Claimant had been able to prove that an employment contract had validly been concluded between himself and the Respondent, it could enter into the question whether or not such employment contract had been breached.

18. In this respect, the DRC deemed it crucial to outline that it remained uncontested that, on 14 August 2016, the Claimant suffered an injury and that, subsequently, he was explicitly allowed by the Respondent to go back to his home country to undergo medical treatment. Furthermore, the Chamber emphasized that it also remains uncontestested that the Respondent unilaterally and prematurely terminated the contract by means of its termination letter dated 2 September 2016.

19. Having said that, the Chamber turned its attention to the content of the termination letter, which established that the contract must be considered terminated as from 31 October 2016 and where it is explicitly stated that the reason for the unilateral termination is the Claimant’s injury, based on art. 10 par. 5 lit a) of the contract.

20. Along this line, the Chamber turned its attention to art. 10 par. 5 lit a) of the employment contract, which was invoked by the Respondent in its termination letter.

21. As stated above, according to art. 10 par. 5 lit a of the contract, the Respondent may cancel the contract unilaterally, if “the [Claimant] is not capable of performing his sporting duties under his contract for a long period of time; the incapability of the [Claimant] to perform sporting duties due to health conditions shall be supported by an opinion of the [Respondent]’s medical advisers.”.

22. In this respect, the Chamber highlighted that in accordance with the well-established jurisprudence of this Chamber, an injury or health condition of a player cannot be considered a valid reason to cease the payment of a player’s remuneration and even less so to terminate an employment contract. Furthermore, the Chamber held that it could not accept art. 10 par. 5 lit a of the contract as being valid, as it provides for a unilateral termination right to the benefit of the club only. In addition to the unilateral character of art. 10 par. 5 lit a of the contract, the application of said article appears to be linked to the Claimant’s physical condition, which, in accordance with the Chamber’s constant jurisprudence, in itself cannot be considered a valid reason to terminate an employment contract. Therefore, the Chamber decided that the Respondent could not legitimately terminate the contractual relation with the Claimant by making use of art. 10 par. 5 lit a of the contract.

23. On account of the above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent had no just cause to unilaterally terminate the contract between the Claimant and the Respondent as from 31 October 2016 and that, consequently, the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contact without just cause.

24. In continuation, having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract without just cause, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequences of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent an amount of money as compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding payments on the basis of the relevant employment contract.

25. The Chamber then reverted to the Claimant’s financial claim, which includes outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 8,148, corresponding to the salaries as from August 2016 until October 2016. Moreover, it was duly noted by the Chamber that the Claimant requested the reimbursement of medical and rehabilitation costs related to a surgery, which was a consequence of his injury, in the amount of EUR 9,611.24.

26. In this respect, the members of the Chamber noted that it remained uncontested that the Respondent had not honoured fully its financial obligations towards the Claimant up until the date of termination of the contract.

27. Therefore and taking into account the effective date of termination of the second contract, i.e. 31 October 2016, the DRC, while referring to the principle of “pacta sunt servanda”, deemed that the Claimant is entitled to outstanding remuneration due at the time of termination, i.e. for the months of August 2016 until October 2016, in the amount of EUR 8,148.

28. Subsequently, the DRC analyzed the request of the Claimant corresponding to the reimbursement of medical and rehabilitation costs and recalled that since it remains uncontested that the Respondent terminated the contract due to the Claimant’s injury and did not cover the costs incurred by the Claimant in this regard, and taking into account art. 7 lit e) of the contract, which provides that the Respondent is obliged to “provide the [Claimant] with appropriate medical and health care, regeneration procedures and rest”, it therefore cannot validate the non-payment of these costs by the Respondent. Notwithstanding, taking into account the documentation presented by the Claimant in support of his petition, the DRC concluded that the Claimant had only partially substantiated his claim with pertinent documentary evidence in accordance with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, since the Claimant provided satisfactory evidence related to the medical and rehabilitation costs of his injury up to the amount of EUR 9,111.24, and not EUR 9,611.24 as claimed.

29. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 8,148 and EUR 9,111.24, respectively, as from the date of termination until the date of effective payment, as requested.

30. In continuation, the Chamber decided that, taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is entitled to receive from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding salaries on the basis of the relevant employment contract.

31. Subsequently, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation payable to the Claimant by the Respondent in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.

32. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify whether the pertinent employment contract contained any clause, by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon a compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.

33. Subsequently, and in order to evaluate the compensation to be paid by the Respondent, the members of the Chamber took into account the remuneration due to the Claimant in accordance with the employment contract as well as the time remaining on the same contract, along with the professional situation of the Claimant after the early termination occurred. In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that the Claimant asserted that the contract was to run until 31 May 2018. In this respect, the DRC took note that the contract established an option to the parties to extend its duration until 31 May 2018.

34. In this respect, the Chamber was unanimous in its decision that, as it remained undisputed that the contract was terminated before both parties could provide their respective consent to agree on the contract renewal, 31 May 2017 should be considered as the end date of the contract, as originally agreed by the parties.

35. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the employment contract until 31 May 2017. Consequently the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 19,012 (i.e. salary as from November 2016 until 31 May 2017 under the contract) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.

36. In continuation, the Chamber remarked that the Claimant informed FIFA that following the early termination of the employment contract at the basis of the present dispute, he had found new employment with the club of Country F, Club G, which ran as from 15 February 2017 until 31 December 2017, in accordance with which he would be remunerated with a monthly salary of EUR 2,000. Consequently, in accordance with the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber and the general obligation of the Claimant to mitigate his damages, such remuneration under the new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.

37. In view of all of the above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of EUR 12,012 to the Claimant as compensation for breach of contract without just case, which is considered by the Chamber to be a reasonable and justified amount as compensation.

38. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of compensation as of the date on which the claim was lodged, i.e. 20 February 2017, until the date of effective payment.

39. As regards the Claimant’s claim relating to the estimated loss for bonuses in the amount of EUR 5,000, the members of the Chamber stressed that the payment and the amount of such bonuses are linked to matches to be played in the future, i.e. after the termination of the relevant contract, and, therefore, are fully hypothetical. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject such claim.

40. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further 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, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 8,148, plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 31 October 2016 until the date of effective payment.

3. Within the same deadline, the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 9,111.24, plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 31 October 2016 until the date of effective payment.

4. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 12,012 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 20 February 2017 until the date of effective payment.

5. In the event that the amounts plus interest due to the Claimant in accordance with the above-mentioned numbers 2., 3., and 4. are 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.

6. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.

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

*****

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).

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

For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Omar Ongaro

Football Regulatory Director

Encl. CAS directives