F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2018-2019) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 24 August 2018

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 24 August 2018,

in the following composition:

Geoff Thompson (Country F), Chairman (did not take part in the deliberations)

Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member

Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member

Todd Durbin (USA), member

Stefano La Porta (Italy), member

on the matter between the player

Player A, Country B

as Claimant

and the club,

Club C, Country D

as Respondent

and the club,

Club E, Country F

as Intervening party

regarding an employment-related dispute

between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 18 June 2013, the player from Country B, Player A (hereinafter: the player or Claimant) and the club from Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the club or Respondent) concluded an employment agreement (hereinafter: the contract), valid from 28 June 2013 until 30 June 2017, as well as two addendums to said contract (hereinafter: addendum 1 and addendum 2).

2. According to article 1 of addendum 2 to the contract, the player was entitled to receive a ‘irrevocable sign-on fee’ of EUR 2,250,000, payable as follows:

- EUR 562,500, due ‘within a period of maximum 30 days from the day the player has moved his centre of vital interest to Country D’;

- EUR 562,500, due on 10 September 2013;

- EUR 562,500, due on 20 July 2014;

- EUR 562,500, due on 20 August 2014.

Furthermore, also according to article 1 of addendum 2 to the contract, the player was entitled to receive EUR 2,000,000 net ‘per contractual year (the period from 1 July till 30 June next year’, payable as follows:

For the season 2013/2014 a yearly salary of EUR 2,000,000 net:

 a monthly salary of EUR 500,000 for the month of July 2013, due on 20 July 2013;

 10 monthly salaries of EUR 150,000, due on the 20th day of every month in the period between August 2013 and June 2014.

For the season 2014/2015:

 a monthly salary of EUR 500,000 for the month of July 2014, due on 20 July 2014;

 10 monthly salaries of EUR 150,000, due on the 20th day of every month in the period between August 2014 and June 2015.

For the season 2015/2016:

 a monthly salary of EUR 500,000 for the month of July 2015, due on 20 July 2015;

 10 monthly salaries of EUR 150,000, due on the 20th day of every month in the period between August 2015 and June 2016.

For the season 2016/2017:

 a monthly salary of EUR 500,000 for the month of July 2016, due on 20 July 2016;

 10 monthly salaries of EUR 150,000, due on the 20th day of every month in the period between August 2016 and June 2017.

3. Further, article 1 of addendum 2 to the contract contains the following clause: ‘For the avoidance of doubt, any ‘net’ amounts stated as payable to the player under this agreement are stated net of any income taxes and/or wage taxes and/or national insurance premiums and/or withholding taxes and/or equivalent payment obligations assessed by the relevant tax authorities, and net of deduction of any other compensation payable under applicable laws and/or football regulations. The club will be responsible for the payment and transfer of all amounts which are required to be made in respect of any taxes, withholdings or compensations arising under or from this agreement. The club shall indemnify and hold harmless the player, from and against possible claims from any tax authority or other competent body with regard to the payments due to the player under this agreement and against all damages, claims, losses, expenses, costs, obligations and liabilities, including, but not limited to, reasonable legal fees and disbursements, suffered or incurred by the player directly or indirectly as a result of non-fulfilment by the club of its responsibility for the payment and transfer of all amounts which are required to be made in respect any taxes, withholdings or compensations arising under or from this agreement. In the event the player is obligated or sentenced to pay any income taxes and/or wage taxes and/or national insurance premiums and/or withholding taxes and/or equivalent payment obligations assessed by the relevant tax authorities in respect of this agreement, irrespective the amount due, a claim from the player to the club will arise at the same time and for the same amount. The club hereby guarantees to pay this amount immediately to the player upon the first request (by written notice) of the player. All the above-mentioned payments and/or instalments shall be paid by transfer/remittance by the club to the player in full, in cleared funds and without banking costs whatsoever to the bank account(s) indicated from time to time by the player in writing’.

4. Moreover, article 2 of addendum 2 to the contract contains the following clause: ‘The player shall be entitled to the (match) bonus scheme (for matches and otherwise) in accordance with the collective bonus system applicable for all the players of the first team of the club’.

5. Article 4 of addendum 2 to the contract, stipulates the following: ‘The club shall provide the player with and pay for a suitable first-class furnished serviced apartment up to the amount of USD 5,000 (five thousand US dollars) net per month. Any applicable taxes here will be paid by the club, including but not limited to taxation of benefits’.

6. Article 6 of addendum 2 to the contract, stipulates the following: ‘In addition to the established general penalty sanctions applied to the players of the club for violations of labor discipline and sports regime, the following penalty sanctions may be applied to the player: for unjustified failure of the player to comply with the team schedule (i.e. unjustified absence from the club): penalty in the amount of EUR 20,000 (twenty thousand euros) for every missed day (including for every incomplete day) […]’.

7. On 15 July 2015, the club and the club from Country F, Club E (hereinafter: Club E), concluded a transfer agreement for the transfer of the player to Club E.

8. On 14 July 2017, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA, requesting that the club has to be ordered to pay him the amounts of USD 58,000, EUR 261,250.48 and 3,431,268.89 in the currency of Country D (approximately EUR 115,070 on 14 July 2017), specified as follows:

 EUR 241,935.48 as outstanding salary payment for the period between 1 July and 15 July 2015, according to the player due on 20 July 2015;

 EUR 19,315 as ‘currency difference between the net amount as agreed to be paid to the Claimant’s bank account in Country B and the net amounts as received by the Claimant’;

 USD 50,000 as outstanding part of the premiums for winning the national cup of Country D and the national championship of Country D;

 USD 8,000 as ‘security deposit’, the player had to pay for his apartment but which costs were never reimbursed to him;

 3,431,268.89 as ‘unpaid taxes’ for the year 2015, specified as follows:

- 3,191,835.55 as unpaid ‘income tax’;

- 239,433.34 as unpaid ‘military tax’.

In addition, the player requests 5% interest p.a. on the abovementioned amounts as from the respective due dates. Moreover, the player requested that sporting sanctions as well as a fine of EUR 1,000,000 be imposed on the club.

9. In his claim, the player explains that after he was transferred to Club E on 15 July 2015, the club failed to pay him the pro rata part of the salary for the period between 1 July and 15 July 2015. According to the player, this pro rata part corresponds to the amount of EUR 241,935.48.

10. Further, the player explains that during his employment with the club, ‘a discrepancy occurred in net salary received on the Claimant’s bank account in Country B on the one hand and the salary as agreed per contract on the other hand, due to currency differences’. In this respect, the player explains that he and the club agreed that his salary would be partially paid on his bank account in Country B and partially on his bank account in Country D. According to the player, as a result of the foregoing, he suffered a significant loss of income, for which the club, based on article 1 of addendum 2 to the contract, is to be held responsible, as it was agreed that the club would pay the player’s receivables without any deduction of banking costs. As a result, the player claims an additional amount of EUR 19,315 to be paid by the club.

11. Moreover, the player explains that in the 2014/2015 season, the club won both the national cup of Country D and the national championship in Country D and that as a result, based on article 2 of addendum 2 to the contract, all players were awarded with two separate premiums of USD 50,000. In this respect, the player holds to have only received one payment of USD 50,000, and as a result, claimed the remaining amount of USD 50,000 as premium for winning both the cup and the championship, which according to the player had fallen due at the end of the 2014/2015 season.

12. What is more, according to the player, he had to pay a security deposit of USD 8,000 for his apartment in Country D. The player explains that he assumed that this amount would be refunded after he left the apartment in July 2015 ‘in perfect condition’, based on article 4 of addendum 2 to the contract, however, despite several requests, he never received this amount from the club.

13. Furthermore, the player explains that the club failed to pay his taxes for the year 2015, even though it was obliged to do so as per article 1 of addendum 2 to the contract. As a result of this, the player explains that the club ‘shall be obligated to make the relevant tax payments for the year 2015’. In this respect, the player submitted an overview dated 26 June 2017, calculated by the ‘Tax Specialist X from Country D’, indicating the amount of taxes that should be paid by the player for the year 2015, i.e. the total amount of 3,431,268.89.

14. In conclusion, the player explains that on 3 July 2017, he put the club in default and requested the payment of the amounts of USD 58,000, EUR 261,250.48 and 3,431,268.89, however to no avail.

15. In its reply to the player’s claim, on 5 October 2017, the club submitted its response, asking for the rejection of the player’s claim. First of all, the club explains that the player’s salary was not calculated on a monthly basis, but on a yearly basis. In this respect, the club argues that the player was entitled to a yearly salary of EUR 2,000,000 net, and that therefore, the pro rata part of the player’s salary for the month of July 2015, i.e. for the period between 1 July and 15 July 2015, amounted to (15/365) x EUR 2,000,000 = EUR 82,191.78.

16. Moreover, the club explains that it validly imposed a fine of EUR 100,000 on the player, because allegedly, the player was absent for 5 days, i.e. a fine of EUR 20,000 for each missed day. In this respect, the club explains that ‘at the beginning of the 2015/2016 season’, all the players were obliged to arrive in Country D on 27 June 2015, and that as an exception, some players were authorized by the club to arrive on 29 June 2015 in Country G where the club had a training camp. However, the player requested, via his agent, for permission to arrive on 6 July 2015 only, which request was denied by the club. According to the club, the player’s agent confirmed in reply to this denial that the player would join the team on 29 June 2015.

17. However, according to the club, the player did not show up on 29 June 2015 in Country G, and did not reply to the club’s email dated 30 June 2015, in which it requested the player to join the club immediately for the training camp. The club explains that the player only arrived on 3 July 2015 at the club’s training camp.

18. As a result of the foregoing, the club deems that the fine of EUR 100,000 was validly imposed on the player, and that therefore, ‘Club C has the right to claim the difference between the imposed fine and the due salary’, i.e. EUR 17,808.22 as the difference between EUR 100,000 and EUR 82,191.78.

19. With regard to the currency difference of EUR 19,315 as claimed by the player, the club argues that the salary of the player was paid in three parts, i.e.:

(a) the first part to the player’s bank account in Country B by the Company H;

(b) the second part to the player’s bank account in Country D by the Company H and;

(c) the third part to ‘another bank account in Country D’ by the LLC “Club C”.

In this respect, the club claims that the player only considered the first and second parts, while calculating and claiming the currency difference, and ignored the third part. As a result of the foregoing incorrect calculations, the club argues that it does not owe the player any amounts in this respect. Furthermore, the club considers the claim related to the currency differences time-barred, as the ‘alleged underpayments’ happened more than two years before the player lodged his claim.

20. Regarding the player’s claim for the total amount of USD 100,000 for winning the national cup of Country D and the national championship of Country D, the club holds that the player did not prove that he was entitled to a bonus payment of USD 50,000 for each title. The club argues that all its players only received one bonus payment of USD 50,000 for winning the national cup of Country D and the national championship of Country D, and that therefore, this part of the player’s claim has to be rejected.

21. In addition, the club explains that the player did not submit any evidence that he is entitled to receive an amount of USD 8,000 as ‘security deposit’ from the club, neither that the player submitted any evidence that the club should be obliged to reimburse him the ‘allegedly unpaid taxes’. The club points out that the alleged declaration of the Tax Specialist X from Country D is not signed and therefore, cannot be considered as valid evidence.

22. In conclusion, the club asks for the rejection of the player’s claim and lodges a counterclaim against him, requesting the payment of the total amount of EUR 1,142,808.22, specified as follows:

 EUR 17,808.22 as ‘residual part of the imposed fine’;

 EUR 1,125,000 as ‘non-amortized part of the sign-on fee’, as the player only served two years out of his four years contract. In this respect, the club explained that in June 2013, when entering into the contract with the player, it paid the player a sing-on fee of EUR 2,250,000. Since in July 2015, the player was transferred to Club E, the cub argues that ‘50% of the signing-on fees […] should be considered as received by the player without any relevant reciprocation’.

Moreover, the club requests that the player has to be ordered to pay its legal costs, as well as procedural costs.

23. In his replica, the player argues that it is a fact that based on article 1 of annex 2 for the month of July 2015, he was entitled to a total salary of EUR 500,000 net, as said amount was also paid to him in July 2013 and July 2014. Further, the player argues that the contract stipulates that the salary is due in equal instalments or on a daily basis. Based on the foregoing, the player argues that the club had to pay him the amount of EUR 241,935.48 for the days he worked during the month of July 2015.

24. Regarding the fine of EUR 100,000 imposed on him, the player first of all argues that said fine cannot be upheld, as the penalty is excessive and is not in line with the DRC’s jurisprudence, which dictates that a fine cannot be used to effect outstanding financial obligations. Furthermore, the club’s claim submitted to FIFA on 5 October 2017 for the amount of EUR 17,808.22 as residual part of the fine, is according to the player, time-barred as it is connected to the July 2015 salary, and the club’s counterclaim was only lodged on 5 October 2017.

25. As to the currency differences, the player holds that the club was aware of the problem as it was addressed by the player’s agent on 19 November 2017 to the club. Further, the player denies that his salary was paid on three different bank accounts, as indicated by the club and explains that the first part of his salary was paid to the bank account in Country B at the Bank Y. The second part of his salary was paid, until May 2014, to the Bank Z in Country D, and after the insolvency of said bank, as from May 2014 to the Bank J in Country D. Furthermore, the player states that this part of his claim cannot be considered time-barred, as the event giving rise to the dispute concerning the currency differences was the termination of the employment relationship in July 2015.

26. In addition, the player explains that he was entitled to two bonuses in the amount of USD 50,000 each, however that the club only paid him one bonus of USD 50,000. In this respect, the player argues that other players confirmed to him via WhatsApp that they received the bonus amounts they were entitled to. Further, the player explains that in an email dated 14 July 2015, his agent addressed the issue about the unpaid bonuses to the club.

27. In respect to the claimed security deposit, the player refers to an e-mail dated 22 August 2013, sent by his agent to the club, in which the agent confirmed towards the club that the player would pay the deposit of USD 8,000 and that said amount would be refunded within 10 days of leaving the apartment. The player further argues that he paid the deposit in cash, and that he left the apartment in a perfect state, as a result of which the club is obliged to reimburse him the amount of USD 8,000.

28. With regard to the unpaid taxes, the player holds that this circumstance is confirmed by the statement of his tax consultant ‘Tax Specialist X’ dated 25 May 2015, indicating that the 2013 and 2014 taxes were duly paid, however that for the year 2015 an amount of 3,431,268.89 still needed to be paid. Furthermore, the player submitted a statement of the tax authority of Country D dated 2 November 2017, in which it is confirmed that the player did not file his tax declaration for the year 2015. What is more, the player also submitted an e-mail dated 2 June 2015 of Mr T, international affairs manager of the club, in which it is confirmed that the club will take care of all necessary tax obligations of the player.

29. Finally, the player requests the rejection of club’s counterclaim. First of all, the player argues that the club’s counterclaim is time-barred, as it was lodged more than two years after the event giving rise to the dispute, i.e. the termination of the employment relationship in July 2015. Furthermore, the player explains that he only received correspondence from the club, in which it announced that it was ‘considering to apply appropriate financial sanctions’ and that a final sanction was never imposed on him. In conclusion, the player reiterates that the penalty is excessive and is not in line with the DRC’s jurisprudence.

30. In relation to the club’s counterclaim for the reimbursement of the non-amortized part of the sign-on fee, the player argues that said claim cannot be upheld, as the sign-on fee was ‘irrevocable’ and cannot be considered as an advance payment. Furthermore, the player argues that the ground for payment of the irrevocable sign-on fee was the ‘moving of his centre of vital interest’ to Country D, which condition was fulfilled by him. Finally, the player points out that based on article 67 of the Swiss Code of obligations, the club’s claim for EUR 1,125,000 as unjust enrichment, is time-barred.

31. In its duplica, the club argued that in his replica, the player failed to meet his burden of proof. In relation to the salary for the month of July 2015, the club reiterates that the player was only entitled to the amount of EUR 82,191.78, and for the imposed fines of EUR 100,000 in total, the club points out that based on the contract, the club had the opportunity ‘to withdraw such amount from his salary’.

32. Moreover, as to the currency difference, the club points out that the documentation provided by the player only shows the ‘foreign income’, that is, the amounts paid by Company H. Therefore, the club concludes that the player did not provide information regarding the ‘incomes to the accounts in the Bank J, which would clearly show that there are no any underpayments’.

33. In relation to the claimed bonus payment of USD 50,000, which allegedly was outstanding, the club argues that none of the player’s teammates provided a witness statement and that it never confirmed towards the player that he was entitled to two bonus payments of USD 50,000. Also, it stated that the player failed to submit evidence that he is entitled to the reimbursement of the security deposit in the amount of USD 8,000.

34. For the allegedly unpaid taxes, the club argues that the documents provided by the player do not prove that the club is obliged to pay the unpaid taxes. What is more, the club explains that it could only reimburse to the player the tax payments, ‘after player submit the declaration about property status and income to the appropriate tax authority’.

35. Moreover, the club reiterates that the player should reimburse the amount of EUR 1,125,000, as the sign-on fee paid ‘for the execution of the present four-year agreement’ and which should be considered as ‘advance payments’.

36. Furthermore, Club E confirmed that on 15 July 2015, it signed a contract with the player and explained that it had no further comments to the matter at hand.

II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. First of all, 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 14 July 2017. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2017; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 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 and 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2016 and 2018) 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, with the involvement of an club from Country F.

3. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that contrary to the information contained in FIFA’s letter dated 17 August 2018 by means of which the parties were informed of the composition of the Chamber, the Chairman, Mr Geoff Thompson, refrained from participating in the deliberations in the case at hand, due to the fact that Mr Geoff Thompson is from the same country as the Club E from Country F and thus, the Dispute Resolution Chamber adjudicated the case in presence of four members in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations.

4. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which regulations 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 claim was lodged on 14 July 2017, the 2016 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

5. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, 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.

6. In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that on 18 June 2013, the parties signed an employment contract valid between 28 June 2013 and 30 June 2017. In accordance with said contract, the player was entitled to receive, inter alia, a sing-on fee of EUR 2,250,000, payable in four instalments of EUR 562,500 each. Furthermore, the player was entitled to receive a yearly salary of EUR 2,000,000, payable in 10 monthly instalments of EUR 150,000 each in the period between August of the respective year and June of the following year and a yearly payment of EUR 500,000 in the month of July of the respective year.

7. What is more, the Chamber further noted that on 15 July 2015, the player was transferred to the Club E from Country F, and that the contract signed on 18 June 2013 between the player and the club was as such terminated.

8. In continuation, the members of the Chamber noted that the player alleged that after he was transferred to Club E, the club failed to pay him several amounts he was contractually entitled to. In this respect, the player explains that an amount of EUR 241,935.48, consisting of a part of the salary for July 2015, as well as an amount of EUR 19,315 related to currency differences, had remained unpaid. What is more, the player also explains that the club failed to pay him an amount of USD 50,000 related to bonuses, an amount of USD 8,000 connected with the reimbursement of a security deposit, as well as an amount of 3,431,268.69 related to unpaid taxes. Consequently, the player asked to be awarded these outstanding amounts.

9. Equally, the members of the Chamber took note of the reply of the club, which asserted that it fulfilled its financial obligations in relation to the July 2015 salary, as it deems that the player was only entitled to the amount of EUR 82,191.78 as pro rata part of the July 2015 salary. Furthermore, the club argues that it validly imposed a fine of EUR 100,000 on the player, because of several unjustified absences in the month of July 2015, as a result of which the player has to pay an amount of EUR 17,808.22 to the club. In addition to this, the club was of the opinion that it was also entitled to EUR 1,125,000, as part of the ‘non-amortized part of the sign-on fee’, because the player only served two years out of the four-year contract, and lodged a counterclaim against the player, together with its reply, on 5 October 2017 .

10. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the club also argued that the player is not entitled to the claimed currency difference, first because it considered this part of the player’s claim as time-barred and second because it alleges to have fulfilled all its financial obligations towards the player. What is more, the club explains that also the player’s claims for bonus payments for winning the national championship of Country D and the national cup of Country D, as well as his claims for reimbursement of a security deposit and allegedly unpaid taxes, have to be rejected, as the player failed to submit evidence that he is entitled to these amounts.

11. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber first noted that a few preliminary issues related to the timeliness of the player’s claim and the club’s counterclaim were still to be addressed, before entering the substance of the matter. In this respect, the members of the Chamber noted that the club’s counterclaim was only lodged on 5 October 2017, whereas the contract between the player and the club had already been terminated as per 15 July 2015, the day when the player was transferred to Club E. Equally, the Chamber also noted that player, in his claim of 14 July 2017, had inter alia claimed bonuses related to winning the national league of Country D and the national cup of Country D in the season 2014/2015, which had ended on 30 June 2015, according to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS) (cf. art. 6 par. 3 of the Annexe 3 to the Regulations).

12. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations, which, in completion to the general procedural terms outlined in the Procedural Rules, clearly establishes that the decision-making bodies of FIFA shall not hear any dispute if more than two years have elapsed, since the event giving rise to the dispute arose and that the application of this time limit shall be examined ex officio in each individual case.

13. As a consequence, and by recalling that the player’s claim to FIFA was submitted on 14 July 2017 and that the club’s counterclaim was submitted on 5 October 2017 only, the Chamber first of all established that the time limit of two years for the player to claim the bonuses requested by him, had expired on 30 June 2017. Furthermore, the Chamber established that the time limit for the club to lodge its counterclaim had elapsed on 15 July 2017, i.e. 2 years after the termination of the employment contract between the parties, at the latest. Consequently, the members of the Chamber decided that the part of the player’s claim related to outstanding bonuses in the amount of USD 50,000, payable at the latest on 30 June 2015, as well as the club’s entire counterclaim, are time-barred and have to be considered inadmissible.

14. Having established the aforementioned preliminary issue, the Chamber went on to analyse the substance of the matter. In this respect, it turned its attention to the residual requests contained in the player’s claim. In this regard, the members of the Chamber deemed it appropriate to recall the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof.

15. In this context, the Chamber noted that the contract concluded between the club and the player indeed mentions that the player is entitled to a yearly salary of EUR 2,000,000, however that the contract also clearly mentions that for the month of July 2015, the player is entitled to a salary of EUR 500,000. In this respect, the Chamber had no other option than to conclude that the pro rata part of the player’s salary for the period between 1 July and 15 July 2015 amounted to (14/31) x EUR 500,000 = EUR 225,806.45, as claimed by the player. Therefore, in line with the legal principle of pact sunt servanda, the clear terms of the contract and the player’s well-founded request, the club’s argument that the player was only entitled to an amount of EUR 82,191.78 must be rejected.

16. Subsequently, the Chamber turned its attention to the club’s argument that it validly imposed a fine of EUR 100,000 on the player, for his absence from training sessions in the period between 29 June 2015 and 3 July 2015.

17. In this respect, the Chamber noted that, from the information on file, it appears that the club imposed said fine based on article 6 of addendum 2 of the contract, which was signed by the player. The members of the Chamber, however, also noted that the club did not provide any evidence of having followed a due process for the imposition of such fine, or of having requested the player at all to present his defence as to the imposed fine. The imposition of the fine is also contested by the player. In fact, from the documentation on file, the Chamber noted that such proceedings and the relevant decision to fine the player in the amount of EUR 100,000 had not been clearly communicated to the player by the club, or at least no evidence of such was provided by the club. Based on the foregoing, the Chamber deemed that the fine of EUR 100,000 appears to have been unilaterally imposed on the player, who thus was not in the position to defend himself, in the context of a due process of law. Furthermore, the Chamber emphasised that a fine amounting to EUR 100,000 for an absence of 5 days is manifestly excessive and disproportionate and cannot be upheld. Hence, the Chamber was unanimous in its conclusion that the fine of EUR 100,000 must be disregarded, due to the fact that its imposition did not follow a due process of law and that its amount is manifestly disproportionate in comparison with the alleged offense.

18. In addition to the foregoing circumstances, the Chamber deemed it vital to point out that the imposition of fines, or any other available financial sanction in general, shall not be used by clubs as a means to set off outstanding financial obligations towards players.

19. In conclusion, the Chamber determined that the club could not set-off its debt towards the player by means of the fine of EUR 100,000, it alleges to have duly imposed on him and that as such, the amount of EUR 225,806.45 for the month of July 2015 is due to the player as per the contract.

20. Turning its attention to the other requests of the player, the Chamber noticed that the player also claimed an amount of EUR 19,315 as difference due to the currency exchange rate. In this respect, the player alleged that he and the club agreed that a part of his salary would be paid on his bank account in Country B and another part on a bank account in Country D, however that due to currency exchange rates, he did not receive the entire amount due, EUR 19,315 having allegedly remained unpaid. The club contested this circumstance and explained that the player did not mention that another part of his salary was paid to a third bank account in Country D. As a result, the club argues that it paid the player all the monies he was entitled to receive.

21. Turning to the documentation provided by the parties, the members of the Chamber however noticed that the player indeed confirmed that it had been agreed between him and the club that his remuneration would be paid in part to his bank account in Country B and in part to his bank account in Country D. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the player only submitted a plain excel sheet produced by himself, as well as a copy of an article published in the Ukrainian media, confirming that the Bank Z went bankrupt, as proof of his claim, however without submitting documentary evidence of an actual loss of the specific amount of EUR 19,315, corresponding to alleged currency differences. Taking into consideration art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the members of the Chamber decided to reject this part of the player’s claim, in view of the lack of documentary evidence provided.

22. In addition, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the player’s claim for the reimbursement of an amount of USD 8,000, he allegedly paid as a security deposit for his apartment in Country D. According to the player, after leaving the apartment in a perfect condition, the club was obliged to reimburse said security deposit to him, based on the contents of article 4 of the contract as well as based on an agreement his agent made with the club.

23. In this respect, the members of the Chamber however noted that article 4 of the contract does not contain any mention at all to security deposits related to the rent of an apartment. Furthermore, the player only submitted a copy of an e-mail conversation between his agent and an alleged representative of the club, in which the agent proposed to the club that the security deposit would be reimbursed within 10 days after leaving the apartment. There is however no explicit confirmation of the club, agreeing with this condition, on file. In view of the foregoing, and by again referring to the contents of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber decided to also reject this part of the player’s claim.

24. Finally, with respect to the player’s request for reimbursement of income taxes in the amount of 3,431,268.69, the DRC pointed out that, in spite of the wording of article 1 of addendum 2 of the contract, the corresponding calculation produced by the player’s tax advisor is only an overview of the amount he would hypothetically need to pay, if he would receive a tax invoice from the tax authorities of the State of Country D. What is more, the members of the Chamber noted that the player did not submit any documentary evidence that he was in fact requested by the tax authorities in Country D to fulfil his tax obligations, or that he had already made the payment of said taxes to relevant tax authorities in Country D. As a result, the members of the Chamber were of the opinion that this part of the player’s claim should also be rejected, in view of the fact that there was no documentary evidence on file that the player had to bear the costs of these unpaid taxes.

25. In view of all the above-mentioned circumstances, the members of the Chamber concluded that the club, until 15 July 2015, had failed to pay to the player the total amount of EUR 225,806.45, in relation to pro rata salary payments for the month of July 2015.

26. Consequently, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the club must fulfil its obligations as per the contract concluded with the player and, consequently, is to be held liable to pay the outstanding amount of EUR 225,806.45 to the player.

27. Furthermore, in accordance with its well-established jurisprudence and taking into account the request of the player, the Chamber further decided that interest at the rate of 5% p.a. was to be applied over the amount of EUR 225,806.45 as from 20 July 2015, as requested by the player.

28. What is more, the Chamber decided to reject the player’s claim for imposing an additional fine of EUR 1,000,000 on the club, due to the lack of a legal and regulatory basis.

29. Finally, the Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by concluding that the player’s claim is partially accepted, insofar as it is admissible, and that the counterclaim of the club is inadmissible.

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

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

2. The counter-claim of the Respondent, Club C, is inadmissible.

3. The Respondent 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 225,806.45, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 20 July 2015 until the date of effective payment.

4. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant in accordance with the above-mentioned number 3. 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.

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

6. 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 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

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