Abbonati adesso Entra
DECISIONI DI GIUSTIZIA SPORTIVA • F.I.F.A. - CAMERA DI RISOLUZIONE DELLE CONTROVERSIE - CONTROVERSIE DI LAVORO
• Data decisione: • Stagione sportiva: 2018/2019

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 1 February 2019

Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 1 February 2019,
in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Roy Vermeer (Netherlands), member Stefano La Porta (Italy) member
on the matter between the player,
Miral Samardžić, Slovenia Represented by Mr Hrvoje Raić
as Claimant
and the club,
FC Anji Makhachkala, Russia Represented by Mr Igor Merkulov
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties
I. Facts of the case
1. On 31 August 2017, the Slovenian player, Miral Samardžić, (hereinafter: the Claimant) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) with the Russian club, FC Anji Makhachkala (hereinafter: the Respondent), valid, in accordance with its article 5, as from the date of signature until 31 August 2019.
2. Following article 7 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to a monthly salary in the amount of EUR 5,748, payable “every half month not later than on 25th of the month under review and advance payment and the remaining part - not later than on 10th of each month following the month under review”.
3. In reference to the aforementioned salary, the contract further included the following provision:
“Reference 2: the named amount of [the Claimant’s] salary includes all taxes payable by [the Claimant] (…) which (the taxes) must be calculated, withheld and transferred by the [Respondent] (…) to the (…) Russian Federation in accordance with the active legislation”
4. In addition, on 31 August 2017, the parties concluded an “Additional Agreement N°1” to the contract, which amended the contract with the inclusion of the following articles: “9.1. In addition to the salary set forth in the article 7 1. of the Employment contract, the [Respondent] shall pay to [the Claimant] a monthly mandatory incentive salary in amount of 30 652 euro (…)
9.4 The [Respondent] shall provide to the [Claimant] flat for living”
5. Moreover, art. 11.1 of the contract stipulated the following:
“11. According to FIFA and FUR Player’s Status and Transfer Regulations in case the present Agreement is terminated unilaterally on the initiative of Football Player without just cause or without sporting just cause (without good reasons) the disciplinary sanctions are applied and compensation is to be paid.”
6. On 9 August 2018, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA for breach of contract and requested the payment of the following amounts, plus 5% interest
p.a. as from the due dates:
- “EUR 117,676 net”, “EUR 18,727 gross” and “EUR 12,000 net”, as outstanding remuneration, further detailed as follows;
 EUR 12,103 net, for “the residual part of March 2018”, due on 10 April 2018;
 EUR 30,562 net, for the “April 2018 salary”, due on 10 May 2018;
 EUR 5,749 gross, for the “April 2018 salary”, due on 10 May 2018;
 EUR 30,562 net, for the “May 2018 salary”, due on 10 June 2018;
 EUR 5,749 gross, for the “May 2018 salary”, due on 10 June 2018;
 EUR 30,562 net, for the “June 2018 salary”, due on 10 July 2018;
 EUR 5,749 gross, for the “June 2018 salary”, due on 10 July 2018;
 EUR 7,887 net as “residual part of July 2018”, due on 10 July 2018;
 EUR 1,483 gross, for the “residual part of July 2018 salary”, due on 10 July 2018;
 EUR 12,000, corresponding to bonuses payable “according to the internal regulations and decisions of the [Respondent]”.
 EUR 7,000 net as “victory bonus for match against Amkar Perm”;
 EUR 5,000 net as “victory bonus for match against Yenisey”;
 EUR 6,000 net for “rental flat fee” from January 2018 until June 2018 (i.e. 6 payments of EUR 1,000 each).
- EUR 498,970 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause.
7. In addition, the Claimant requested the imposition of sporting sanctions against the Respondent.
8. According to the Claimant, on 20 June 2018, he sent a default notice to the Respondent, requesting the payment of the total amounts of “net total of EUR 66,124”, “gross total of EUR 11,496” and “net total of USD 12,000” within 15 days.
9. In this respect, the Claimant explained that, on 9 July 2018, he sent a termination letter to the Respondent, due to the existence of the outstanding amounts of net “EUR 78,407”, gross “EUR 11,496” and net “EUR 12,000”.
10. Subsequently, the Claimant attached a copy of a letter from the Respondent, dated 13 July 2018, by means of which the latter stated it had no outstanding liabilities towards him, and stating that it will consider “the actions of the [Claimant] as early termination of the employment contract without valid reasons”, inviting him, nonetheless, “to attempt a peaceful settlement of the conflict” and inviting him to the pre-season training camp in order for him to resume his duties.
11. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s allegations and considered that he terminated the contract without just cause on 9 July 2018.
12. Moreover, the Respondent stated that it fulfilled all its financial obligations towards the Claimant until May 2018.
13. Furthermore, the Respondent explained that, on 14 August 2018, the Claimant signed an employment contract with the Russian club, FC Krylia Sovetov (cf. point I. 19 below), and considered that it “has reason to believe that the [Claimant] acted in bad faith in order to move to a new team without compensation.”
14. In addition, the Respondent noted that the contract did not entitle him to compensation for rental costs in the amount of EUR 1,000 per month, and that “the requirement to pay bonuses is (…) not subject to satisfaction.”
15. In his replica, the Claimant considered that the Respondent’s allegations are “false, inaccurate and, to some extent, even absurd.”
16. In particular, the Claimant was of the opinion that “it is evident” that the severe breaches of the employment contract committed by the Respondent led him to unilaterally terminate the contract with just cause on 9 July 2018.
17. Moreover, the Claimant underlined that the Respondent failed to meet its burden of proof as to its allegations.
18. Despite being invited to do so, the Respondent failed to provide its final comments.
19. Finally, and after being invited to do so, the Claimant informed FIFA that, on 14 August 2018, he concluded an employment contract with the Russian club, Krylia Sovetov, valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2020. Following said contract, the Claimant was entitled to a monthly salary in the amount of EUR 11,500, as well as to a sign-on bonus in the amount of EUR 100,000, payable in two instalments in the amount of EUR 50,000 each, respectively, on 24 August 2018 and 3 October 2018.
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 9 August 2018. Consequently, the 2018 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 2018 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 and 2 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 employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Slovenian player and a Russian club.
3. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that contrary to the information contained in FIFA’s letter dated 28 January 2019 by means of which the parties were informed of the composition of the Chamber, the member Johan van Gaalen and the member Pavel Pivovarov refrained from participating in the deliberations in the case at hand, due to the fact that the member Pavel Pivovarov has the same nationality as the Respondent and that, in order to comply with the prerequisite of equal representation of club and player representatives, also the member Johan van Gaalen refrained from participating and thus the Dispute Resolution Chamber adjudicated the case in presence of three members in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 of the June 2018 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
4. 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 June 2018), and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 9 August 2018, the June 2018 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
5. 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 pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
6. In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that the parties to the dispute had signed an employment contract valid as from 31 August 2017 until 31 August 2019 and that the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent, maintaining that, after having put the Respondent in default on 20 June 2018, he had terminated the employment contract with just cause on 9 July 2018 by means of a termination letter due to the existence of the outstanding amounts of net “EUR 66,304”, gross “EUR 11,496” and net “EUR 12,000”, which were further detailed as follows:
- Monthly salary of net EUR 30,562, due on 10 May 2018;
- Monthly salary of gross EUR 5,748, due on 10 May 2018;
- Monthly salary of net EUR 30,562, due on 10 June 2018;
- Monthly salary of gross EUR 5,748, due on 10 June 2018;
- Victory bonus in match against Amkar Perm in net amount of USD 7,000;
- Victory bonus in match against Yenisey in net amount of USD 5,000;
- Flat rental fee of net EUR 1,000, due on 10 February 2018;
- Flat rental fee of net EUR 1,000, due on 10 March 2018;
- Flat rental fee of net EUR 1,000, due on 10 April 2018;
- Flat rental fee of net EUR 1,000, due on 10 May 2018;
- Flat rental fee of net EUR 1,000, due on 10 June 2018.
7. In this context, the DRC took particular note of the fact that, on 20 June 2018, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment, setting a 15 days’ time limit in order to fully comply with its financial obligations.
8. Consequently, the DRC concluded that the Claimant had duly proceeded in accordance with art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, which established that the creditor (player or club) must have put the debtor club in default in writing and have granted a deadline of at least 15 days for the debtor club to comply with its financial obligation.
9. In reply to the Claimant’s request, the Chamber noted that the Respondent asserted that it fulfilled all its financial obligations towards the player until May 2018.
10. However, in relation to said assertion, the Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as established 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.
11. In application of the aforementioned basic principle, the Chamber observed that the Respondent failed to provide any evidence in support of its allegation. As a result, the Chamber concluded that it could only presume the validity of the Claimant’s request as to the outstanding salaries.
12. As a result, the Chamber concluded that, as of 9 July 2018, the Respondent failed to pay without any valid justification the Claimant’s salaries of part of March 2018, April 2018, May 2018 and June 2018.
13. Therefore, considering that the Respondent had repeatedly and for a significant period of time been in breach of its (financial) obligations towards the Claimant and in accordance with art. 14 bis 1 of the Regulations and its longstanding jurisprudence, the Chamber unanimously established that the Respondent had a just cause to terminate the contract on 9 July 2018.
14. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber observed that, in his claim, the Claimant considered that part of the due amounts were payable “net”, whereas another part was payable “gross”.
15. In relation to the tax obligations to be met by the parties, the Chamber noted that the contract concluded between the parties stipulated the following:
“Reference 2: the named amount of [the Claimant’s] salary includes all taxes payable by [the Claimant] (…) which (the taxes) must be calculated, withheld and transferred by the [Respondent] (…) to the (…) Russian Federation in accordance with the active legislation”
16. In this respect, the Chamber noted that no other specific stipulation was included in the contract in relation to the tax obligations to be met by the parties. As a result, and reasoning by analogy, the Chamber understood that the aforementioned stipulation is applicable to all forms of remuneration included in the contract. Therefore, in accordance with said stipulation, the Chamber unanimously concluded that all amounts payable to the Claimant by the Respondent are gross amounts.
17. Moreover, the Chamber noted that, according to art. 7 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive his remuneration “every half month not later than on 25th of the month under review and advance payment and the remaining part - not later than on 10th of each month following the month under review”.
18. In view of the aforementioned considerations, the Chamber consequently established that, at the date of termination of the contract (i.e. 9 July 2018), the Respondent failed to pay him the gross amount of EUR 102,880, detailed as follows:
 EUR 12,103 gross, for “the residual part of March 2018”, due on 10 April 2018;
 EUR 30,562 gross, for the “April 2018 salary”, due on 10 May 2018;
 EUR 5,749 gross, for the “April 2018 salary”, due on 10 May 2018;
 EUR 30,562 gross, for the “May 2018 salary”, due on 10 June 2018;
 EUR 5,749 gross, for the “May 2018 salary”, due on 10 June 2018;
 EUR 15,281 gross, for half of the “June 2018 salary”,
 EUR 2,874 gross, for half of the “June 2018 salary”.
19. In this respect, and for the sake of clarity, the Chamber noted that, in accordance with art. 7 of the contract, at the date of termination of the contract (i.e. 9 July 2018), the Claimant’s remuneration for the second half of June 2018 had not yet fallen due, without prejudice, however, to the consideration of this amount as part of a possible payable compensation to the Claimant.
20. Therefore, in application of the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber established that the Respondent must pay the amount of EUR 102,880 to the Claimant as outstanding salaries.
21. Moreover, the Chamber observed that, in addition to the payment of outstanding salaries, taking into consideration art. 17 of the Regulations, the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent compensation for breach of contract on the basis of the relevant employment contract.
22. In continuation, the Chamber outlined that, in accordance with said provision, 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.
23. 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.
24. In this regard, the Chamber observed that art. 11.1 of the contract stipulated the following: “11. According to FIFA and FUR Player’s Status and Transfer Regulations in case the present Agreement is terminated unilaterally on the initiative of Football Player without just cause or without sporting just cause (without good reasons) the disciplinary sanctions are applied and compensation is to be paid.”
25. In relation to the aforementioned clause, the Chamber noted that it does not stipulate any clear criteria for any payable compensation, and noted its unilateral nature, since it only mentions in a very generic way the consequences of a unilateral termination “on the initiative [of the Claimant]”. Thus, the Chamber agreed that the contents of said clause cannot be taken into account in order to establish the amount of payable compensation.
26. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in application of the parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable. Therefore, other objective criteria may be taken into account at the discretion of the deciding body.
27. 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 Claimant under the terms of the employment contract, from the second half of June 2018 until 31 August 2019 (i.e. the original date of termination of the contract). In this regard, the members of the Chamber observed, as detailed above, that under the contract, as from the date of termination of the contract until its original expiration date, the Claimant would have received the total amounts of EUR 83,348 (i.e. 14.5*5,748), and EUR 444,454 as salary (i.e. 14,5*30,652).
28. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 527,802 serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
29. In continuation, the Chamber noted, following art. 17 par. 1 ii of the Regulations, that the Claimant signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income.
30. Within this context, the DRC remarked that, following the termination of the contract, on 14 August 2018, the Claimant concluded an employment contract with the Russian club, Krylia Sovetov, valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2020, for a monthly salary in the amount of EUR 11,500, as well as a sign-on bonus in the amount of EUR 100,000, payable in two instalments in the amount of EUR 50,000 each, respectively, on 24 August 2018 and 3 October 2018.
31. In this respect, the members of the DRC established that, accordingly, from 14 August 2018 until 31 August 2019, the Claimant would have earned from said contract the amount of EUR 238,000.
32. As a result of the difference between the above-mentioned amounts, the members of the Chamber highlighted that, at this stage, the basis of the payable compensation due by the Respondent would correspond to EUR 289,802 (i.e. the Mitigated Compensation).
33. Moreover, in application of the criteria outlined in art. 17 par. 1 ii of the Regulations, and considering that the early termination of the contract was due to overdue payables, the Chamber noted that, in addition to the Mitigated Compensation, the Claimant is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries.
34. Within this context, the Chamber observed that, following the contract, the Claimant was entitled to a monthly salary in the amount of EUR 5,748, as well as to a “monthly mandatory incentive salary” in the amount of EUR 30,652. Therefore, the Chamber calculated that the corresponding amount as established in the previous paragraph is equal to EUR 108,933.
35. Consequently, and with the addition of the three monthly salaries to the Mitigated Compensation, the Chamber established that the payable compensation corresponds to the gross amount of EUR 398,735.
36. For all the above reasons, the Chamber decided to partially accept the Claimant’s request and that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 398,735 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause, which is considered by the Chamber to be a reasonable and justified amount as compensation.
37. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the Chamber decided that the Claimant must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the outstanding remuneration as from the due dates and interest of 5% p.a. on the compensation as of the date of the claim.
38. Subsequently, the Chamber turned its attention to the other requests made by the Claimant.
39. In particular, the Chamber noted that the Claimant requested the payment of EUR 6,000 net for “rental flat fee” from January 2018 until June 2018 (i.e. 6 payments of EUR 1,000 each).
40. In this respect, the Chamber observed that art. 9.4 of the contract stipulated that “The
[Respondent] shall provide to the [Claimant] flat for living”.
41. However, while taking into account the Claimant’s (financial) request, the Chamber observed that the contractual obligation of the Respondent as to housing was an in-kind benefit. Moreover, the Chamber observed that, in this context, the Claimant also failed to provide any specific valuation supported by evidence as to the possible incurred costs for housing.
42. Therefore, in view of the contents of the aforementioned contractual stipulation, as well as in consideration of the Claimant’s (lack of) evidence in this regard, the Chamber decided to reject the Claimant’s request for “rental flat fee[s]”.
43. In addition, the Chamber noted that the Claimant requested the payment of the amount of EUR 12,000, corresponding to bonuses payable “according to the internal regulations and decisions of the [Respondent]”.
44. In this respect, the Chamber referred to the contents of 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.
45. In application of the aforementioned principle, the Chamber noted that no evidence was provided as to the legal basis that would entitle the Claimant to the requested bonuses. Moreover, and after carefully examining the contents of the contract, the Chamber observed that no contractual stipulation was established in this regard.
46. As a result, the Chamber decided to dismiss the Claimant’s request as to the alleged bonuses.
47. Furthermore, taking into account the aforementioned considerations, the Chamber referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or compensation in due time.
48. In this regard, the Chamber established that, in virtue of the aforementioned provision, it has competence to impose a sanction on the Respondent. More in particular, the DRC pointed out that, against clubs, the sanction shall consist in a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods.
49. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the Respondent does not pay the amount due to the Claimant within 45 days as from the moment in which the Claimant, following the notification of the present decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become effective on the Respondent in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
50. Finally, the Chamber recalled that the above-mentioned sanction will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis par. 3 of the Regulations.
51. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected.
III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. The claim of the Claimant, Miral Samardžić, is partially accepted.
2. The Respondent, FC Anji Makhachkala, has to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the gross amount of EUR 102,880, plus interest calculated as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. as of 11 April 2018 over the gross amount of EUR 12,103 until the date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. as of 11 May 2018 over the gross amount of EUR 30,562 until the date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. as of 11 May 2018 over the gross amount of EUR 5,749 until the date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. as of 11 June 2018 over the gross amount of EUR 30,562 until the date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. as of 11 June 2018 over the gross amount of EUR 5,749 until the date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. as of 26 June 2018 over the gross amount of EUR 15,281 until the date of effective payment;
- 5% interest p.a. as of 26 June 2018 over the gross amount of EUR 2,874 until the date of effective payment.
3. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant, compensation for breach of contract in the gross amount of EUR 398,735, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 9 August 2018 until the date of effective payment.
4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent, immediately and directly, preferably to the e-mail address as indicated on the cover letter of the present decision, of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the amounts mentioned under points 2. and 3. above.
6. The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amounts in accordance with points 2. and 3. above to FIFA to the e-mail address psdfifa@fifa.org, duly translated, if need be, into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).
7. In the event that the amounts due plus interest in accordance with points 2. and 3. above are not paid by the Respondent within 45 days as from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the Respondent, the Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players).
8. The ban mentioned in point 7. above will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving, once the due amounts are paid.
9. In the event that the aforementioned sums plus interest are still not paid by the end of the ban of three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.
*****
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 www.tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero Chief Legal Officer
Enclosed: CAS directives
Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport
DIRECTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE APPEALS PROCEDURE BEFORE CAS
(Code of Sports-related Arbitration, 2019 edition)
The CAS appeals arbitration procedure is provided by articles R47 et seq. of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (2019 edition, hereafter: the Code). This procedure can be summarised as follows:
1. Any party intending to challenge a final motivated decision issued by a FIFA legal body, in accordance with the FIFA Statutes, must file a statement of appeal with CAS within a twenty-one- day time limit starting from the receipt of the decision challenged (article 58 of the FIFA Statutes). In order to file an appeal at CAS, it is necessary to have first requested that a full decision with the grounds be issued by FIFA. An appeal against the operative part of a FIFA decision only is not admissible.
The exact address of the Court of Arbitration for Sport is:
Court of Arbitration for Sport Château de Béthusy
Avenue de Beaumont 2 CH-1012 Lausanne Tel. (41.21) 613 50 00
Fax (41.21) 613 50 01
procedures@tas-cas.org www.tas-cas.org
2. To be admissible, the statement of appeal shall be drafted in English or in French (article R29 of the Code) and contain the following elements :
- the name and full address of the Respondent(s);
- a copy of the decision appealed against;
- the Appellant's request for relief;
- the appointment of the arbitrator chosen by the Appellant from the CAS list, unless the Appellant requests the appointment of a sole arbitrator (clause 3 below); the list of CAS members is published on www.tas-cas.org;
- if applicable, an application to stay the execution of the decision appealed against, together with reasons (the statement of appeal filed with CAS does not stay automatically the execution of the decision challenged, save for decisions which are exclusively of a financial nature);
- a copy of the provisions of the statutes or regulations or the specific agreement providing for appeal to the CAS;
- the evidence of the payment of the Court Office fee of CHF 1’000 (Crédit Suisse, Rue du Lion d'Or 5-7, C.P. 2468, 1002 Lausanne; account n°: 0425-384033-71).
3. The arbitration procedure is allocated to a Panel composed of three arbitrators and constituted pursuant to the rules provided by article R54 of the Code. The Appellant may however request that a sole arbitrator be appointed by the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division.
4. Within ten days following the expiry of the time limit for the filing of the statement of appeal, the Appellant shall file with the CAS an appeal brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal, together with all exhibits and specifications of other evidence upon which it intends to rely, failing which the appeal shall be deemed withdrawn (article R51 of the Code). Furthermore, in its written submissions, the Appellant shall specify any witnesses, including a brief summary of their
Tribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for Sport
- 2 -
expected testimony, and experts, stating their area of expertise, whom it intends to call at the hearing and state any other evidentiary measure which it requests.
5. Within twenty days from the receipt of the appeal brief, the Respondent shall submit to the CAS an answer containing the following elements :
- a statement of defence;
- any defence of lack of jurisdiction;
- any exhibits or specification of other evidence upon which the Respondent intends to rely, including the names of the witnesses, including a brief summary of their expected testimony, and experts, stating their area of expertise, whom it intends to call at the hearing.
6. The statement of appeal and any other written submissions, printed or saved on digital medium, must be filed by courier delivery to the CAS Court Office by the parties in as many copies as there are other parties and arbitrators, together with one additional copy for the CAS itself, failing which the CAS shall not proceed. If they are transmitted in advance by facsimile or by electronic mail at the official CAS email address (procedures@tas-cas.org), the filing is valid upon receipt of the facsimile or of the electronic mail by the CAS Court Office provided that the written submission and its copies are also filed by courier within the first subsequent business day of the relevant time limit (article R31 of the Code).
The time limits fixed under the Code shall begin from the day after that on which notification by the CAS is received. Official holidays and non-working days are included in the calculation of time limits. The time limits fixed under the Code are respected if the communications by the parties are sent before midnight, time of the location of their own domicile or, if represented, of the domicile of their main legal representative, on the last day on which such time limits expire. If the last day of the time limit is an official holiday or a non-business day in the location from where the document is to be sent, the time limit shall expire at the end of the first subsequent business day (article R32 of the Code).
7. In accordance with articles R64 and R65 of the Code, the CAS determines the possible advance of costs that the parties must pay to the CAS within a certain time limit. In the absence of payment of such advance of costs, the appeal shall be deemed withdrawn and the CAS shall terminate the arbitration.
8. For individuals, the CAS has created a legal aid fund. The form and the legal aid guidelines are available on www.tas-cas.org. However, the payment of the Court Office fee of article R64.1 or R65.2 of the Code remains mandatory before any procedure may be initiated even though a request for legal aid has been filed.
9. At the end of the written proceedings, the CAS summons the parties to a hearing, without prejudice to article R57 §2 of the Code.
10. The CAS shall have full power to hear the case de novo. It may issue a new decision which replaces the decision challenged or annul the decision and/or refer the case back to the competent authority for a new decision.
11. The award, a summary and/or a press release setting forth the results of the proceedings shall be made public by the CAS, unless both parties agree that they should remain confidential. A copy of the award is notified to FIFA if the latter is not a party to the proceedings.
In case of discrepancy between the present document and the Code, the provisions of the Code shall prevail.
Tribunal Arbitral du Sport
Court of Arbitration for Sport
- 3 -
Schedule of arbitration costs in force as of 1 January 2019 (extract)
Administrative costs
The CAS fixes the administrative costs for each case of arbitration subject to Article R64 of the Code in accordance with the table below, or at its discretion when the amount disputed is not declared or there is no value in dispute. The value in dispute taken into consideration is the one indicated in the statement of claim/appeal brief or in the counterclaim, if any, if it is higher. If the circumstances of a given case make this necessary, the CAS may fix administrative costs at an amount above or below that shown on the table below.
For a disputed sum
(in Swiss francs) Administrative costs
up to 50'000 CHF 100.- to CHF 2'000.-
From 50'001 to 100'000 CHF 2'000.- + 1.50% of amount in excess of 50'000.-
From 100'001 to 500'000 CHF 2'750.- + 1.00% of amount in excess of 100'000.-
From 500'001 to 1'000'000 CHF 6'750.- + 0.60% of amount in excess of 500'000.-
From 1'000'001 to 2'500'000 CHF 9'750.- + 0.30% of amount in excess of 1'000'000.-
From 2'500'001 to 5'000'000 CHF 14'250.- + 0.20% of amount in excess of 2'500'000.-
From 5'000'001 to 10'000'000 CHF 19'250.- + 0.10% of amount in excess of 5'000'000.-
Above 10'000'000 CHF 25'000.-
Arbitrators' costs and fees
The amount of fees to be paid to each arbitrator is fixed by the Secretary General of the CAS on the basis of the work provided by each arbitrator and on the basis of time reasonably devoted to their task by the members of each Panel. In principle, the following hourly fees are taken into account:
For a disputed sum
(in Swiss Francs) Fees
Up to 2'500'000 CHF 300.-
From 2'500'001 to 5'000'000 CHF 350.-
From 5'000'001 to 10'000'000 CHF 400.-
From 10'000'001 to 15'000'000 CHF 450.-
Above 15'000'000 CHF 500.-

Share the post "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 1 February 2019"

DirittoCalcistico.it è il portale giuridico - normativo di riferimento per il diritto sportivo. E' diretto alla società, al calciatore, all'agente (procuratore), all'allenatore e contiene norme, regolamenti, decisioni, sentenze e una banca dati di giurisprudenza di giustizia sportiva. Contiene informazioni inerenti norme, decisioni, regolamenti, sentenze, ricorsi. - Copyright © 2024 Dirittocalcistico.it