F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2019-2020) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 17 January 2020
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 17 January 2020,
in the following composition:
Omar Ongaro (Italy), Deputy Chairman
Stefano Sartori (Italy), member
José Luis Andrade (Portugal), member
on the claim presented by the player,
Plesan Mihalta Paunel, Romania
represented by Ms Monica Doriana Nagele
as Claimant
against the club,
FC Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute
arisen between the parties
I. Facts of the case
Contractual basis:
1. On 9 August 2010, the Romanian player, Plesan Mihaita Paunel, (hereinafter: “the player”) and the Russian club, FC Volga Nizhny Novgorod (hereinafter: “Volga”), signed an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 1 August 2013.
2. Pursuant to arts. 6.1 and 7 of the contract, the player was entitled to a total salary of USD 905,000, payable in Russian Rouble (RUB) “at the exchange rate of the Central Bank of Russian Union”, in accordance with the following schedule:
USD 25,000 until 31 December 2010;
USD 30,000 from 1 January until 31 December 2011, in the event the club participated in ‘’the higher league” in the 2011 season;
USD 35,000 from 1 January 2012 until 1 August 2013, in the event the club participated in “the higher league” in the 2012 season.
3. Art. 6.2 provided that “the club is entitled to establish various systems of awards, additional incentives, allowances, as well as similar payments”.
4. According to art. 9.5. of the contract, Volga was to pay the amount of RUB 25,000 as monthly compensation for expenses related to housing.
5. As per art. 9.6. of the contract, Volga was “bound to compensate the expenses related to moving to the new place of work’’ in the total amount of USD 345,000, payable in RUB in instalments as from 15 December 2010 until 15 July 2013.
The first claim:
6. On 1 November 2013, the player lodged a claim before FIFA against Volga, requesting the payment of “USD 406,223.14” as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a..
7. In particular, the player stated that Volga only paid him the amount of USD 1,154,408, allegedly corresponding to salaries, as well as the amount of USD 88,176.42 as match bonuses in accordance with art. 6.2 of the contract. Yet, the player asserted that he was entitled to receive the total amount of USD 1,560,310.27. In particular, the player provided the following table:
Season
Salary agreed
Sign-on fee
(art. 9.6)
Rent
(art. 9.5)
Total due
Salaries received
Unpaid
2010
USD 125,000
USD 37,500
USD 4,084
USD
USD 119,020
USD 47,565
166,585
2011
USD 360,000
USD 81,000
USD 10,214
USD 451,214
USD 221,868
USD 229,346
2012
USD 420,000
USD 121,500
USD 9,976
USD 551,477
USD 397,708
USD 153,768
2013
USD 280,000
USD 105,000
USD 6,355
USD 391,355
USD 415,812
-USD 24,457
TOTAL
USD 1,185,000
USD 345,000
USD 30,632
USD 1,154,408
USD 406,223
8. In its statement of defence, Volga held having paid the total amount of RUB 54,060,627 “after taxes” (approx. USD 1,560,000) that it deemed to correspond to RUB 31,511,585.16 as salary as per art. 6.1 and art. 7 of the contract, plus RUB 783,701.45 as reimbursement of the player’s expenses for rent in accordance with art. 9.5 of the contract, plus RUB 15,000,000 as reimbursement, in cash, of the player’s expenses related to the move to Nizhny Novgorod, and “other payments”.
9. In this regard, Volga submitted a statement of its bank dated 1 April 2014, asserting the payment of the total amount of RUB 33,668,118 corresponding to the player’s salaries for the period as from 14 September 2010 until 13 May 2013.
10. In addition, FC Volga provided the following “Cash payment vouchers”, in Russian language and translated into English reportedly containing the player’s signature:
Nr. of voucher
Date
Amount
Reason for payment
917
13 August 2010
RUB 65,000
advance for July
1005
1 September 2010
Rub 65,000
advance for August
1051
9 September 2010
RUB 18,900
Bonus payment
1039
6 September 2010
RUB 22,050
Bonus payment
1230
12 October 2010
RUB 15,000,000
Compensation for relocation
11. Volga also presented “Funds register” lists stamped by the bank and the club, in order to evidence further alleged payments to the player in the total amount of RUB 4,240,498.
12. Finally, Volga submitted an internal list of the amounts allegedly paid to the player as rent allowance totalling the amount of RUB 783,701.
13. On account of the above, Volga deemed having paid all amounts due to the player during the course of their contractual relationship and, therefore, the club rejected the player’s claim in full.
14. In his replica, the player acknowledged all the payments listed in the statement of the club’s bank dated 1 April 2014 (cf. point 9 above). Consequently, the player amended his previous submission and alleged having received the total amount of USD 1,128,681.27 as salary and USD 109,076.82 as match bonuses as per art. 6.2 of the contract. The player also explained that his salaries should not include any “personal income tax” which was to be borne by the club.
15. Regarding the “Cash payment vouchers” (see table above) the player confirmed the payment of the amounts of the vouchers Nr. 917, 1005, 1051 and 1039 but alleged that these payments corresponded to match bonuses granted by the club by virtue of art. 6.2 of the contract and shall not be regarded as part of the salary payments. The player mentioned that the handwriting reference to “advance for July” in the original Russian version of the “cash payment voucher” issued for the payment of RUB 65,000 on 13 August 2010 was introduced ex post by Volga, thus evidencing its bad faith, since the player had no contract in July 2010.
16. The player further acknowledged having received the amounts contained in the “funds register” documents (point 11 above).
17. With regard to the reimbursement of the housing expenses, the player held that the club only paid him once the rent allowance and disputed all other amounts, which the club alleged having paid in accordance with art. 9.5 of the contract (point 9 above).
18. Furthermore, the player referred to the payment of the relocation compensation as per art. 9.6 of the contract (see point 5 above) which was agreed in different instalments within the term of the contract and, consequently, underlined that there was no reason for Volga to pay in cash such a significant amount two months prior to the first instalment being due. As such, the player denied having received RUB 15,000,000 on 12 October 2010 (see voucher nr. 1230 in the table above). In this respect, the player held that Volga forged his signature contained in said voucher.
19. On account of all the above, the player reiterated his claim and deemed that the amount of USD 431,950.19 remained outstanding to date.
20. In its duplica, Volga held that the amounts paid in cash in accordance with the “cash payment vouchers” are bonus payments and advances of salary.
21. Moreover, Volga sustained that it was responsible for the payment of taxes in excess of the amount specified in art. 6.1 of the contract. Volga also underlined that the contract did not indicate that the relevant amounts were to be paid net.
22. Regarding the housing expenses, Volga asserted that they should be calculated over 36 months and emphasised that the relevant housing expenses were reimbursed and included in the player’s wages.
23. As regards the payment of the relocation compensation foreseen in art. 9.6 of the contract, Volga explained that both parties had agreed upon the payment in advance of RUB 15,000,000 on 12 October 2010. Volga argued that such amount was withdrawn in cash in several denomination of bank notes and provided bank statements dated 11 and 12 October 2010 confirming the withdrawal from the club’s personal account of the respective amount of RUB 6,000,000, RUB 4,575,000 and RUB 4,500,000. Volga also submitted an original specimen of the voucher of 12 October 2010 and stated that it was open for an expert examination of the player’s signature contained therein.
24. The player equally requested an expert examination.
25. In view of the above considerations, FIFA informed the parties that it was indeed possible to have a graphologist expert to analyse the disputed voucher, the costs of which would need to be borne by the parties. As such, the parties were invited to confirm their wish for such examination.
26. Volga replied to said FIFA’s letter this time objecting to the examination and arguing that an independent expertise had already been conducted on the voucher “within a matter of a criminal inspection”. Volga enclosed a letter dated 16 December 2014 apparently issued by the “Police Department no. 2 of the Ministry of Interior of Russia” which reports that “on 21 September 2012 during the inspection connected with a theft of funds [it was] conducted the handwriting research” of the voucher. According to the letter, “the results of this research showed that the signature in this document was made” by the player.
27. The player subsequently provided an expert report dated 21 September 2015 conducted by an alleged independent criminologist authorised by the Romanian Ministry of Justice, who came to the conclusion that the relevant signature was not placed by the player.
28. On 1 July 2016, The Football Union of Russia (FUR) informed FIFA that, in accordance with a decision of the Football National League, Volga “is not professional football club and is not affiliated to FUR”.
29. Upon explicit request of the player, on 30 September 2016, the DRC passed a decision declaring the claim of the player against Volga inadmissible due to the latter’s loss of affiliation to the FUR.
The second claim:
30. On 11 June 2018, the player contacted FIFA and lodged a new claim, this time against the club “FC Olimpiyets Nizhny Novgorod” (hereinafter: Olimpiyets). The player argued that Olimpiyets and Volga should be considered one and the same club.
31. To substantiate his position, the player first recalled that according to the jurisprudence of the DRC and CAS on sporting succession, the following elements are decisive to establish a sporting succession: i) the city in which the club is located, ii) the stadium, iii) the colours of the club, iv) the emblem and v) the officials and staff.
32. In casu, the player stressed that both clubs are from the city of Nizhny, they play in the same stadium, both clubs wear blue and white and the emblem is “practically identical”.
33. Moreover, the player explained that many staff and players were employees of both clubs. In particular, the player provided a list of 12 persons who worked for Volga and Olimpiyets. Furthermore, 8 out of those 12 persons ended up working for Volga in June 2016 and joined Olimpiyets in July 2016.
34. Furthermore, the player provided a list of 8 players who played for Olimpiyets after having played for Volga right before the alleged disaffiliation of the latter.
35. The player further provided a news report issued by Manuel Veth, “journalist at Bundesliga.com” who, inter alia, stated that Olimpiyets “succeeded” Volga since “the local administrators of the Nizhny Novgorod region decided that it would be better to dissolve the insolvent club playing in the FNL and to transfer all existing structures to the club’s farm team”. The note further explains that Olympiyets was the “farm team” of Volga that played in Russia’s third division.
36. Finally, the player assured that both clubs were owned by the government of Nizhny Novgorod.
37. On account of all the above, the player concluded that it is evident Olimpiyets is the sporting successor of Volga and therefore requested the DRC to pass a decision as to the substance of his original claim.
38. On 19 November 2018, the FIFA administration requested the FUR to inform whether there was any legal and/or sporting relationship between Volga and Olimpiyets.
39. On 3 December 2018, the FIFA Administration received an e-mail sent from the address azarova@rfs.ru submitted by Ms Galina Doumbia from the FUR’s Professional Football Department enclosing a letter dated “03.11.2018” with the letterhead of the FUR allegedly submitted by Mr Sergey Kulikov, Head of Professional Football Department which reads “Following your request for information, the Football Union of Russia informs you that FC Volga Nizhny Novgorod and FC Olimpiyets Nizhny Novgorod are the same football club that changed its name. Besides, FC Olimpiyets Nizhny Novgorod change its name to Autonomous non-profit organization FC Nizhny Novgorod…” (“Nizhny”) (hereinafter: the first FUR letter). This letter is not signed. The e-mail had enclosed another letter dated 6 September 2018 sent by Nizhny to FIFA TMS requesting the change of its name from Olimpiyets to Nizhny.
40. On 4 December 2018, a new e-mail was received from the address prokofieva_ns@rfs.ru submitted by Ms Natalia Prokofieva, Deputy Head of the FUR International Department enclosing a letter signed by Mr Denis Rogachev, Legal Advisor to the FUR President, in which it is explained that Volga and Olimpiyets are “two independent and not related to each other clubs”, the former being in the process of liquidation (hereinafter: the second FUR letter).
41. To elaborate further, the second FUR letter explained that Volga and Olimpiyets have different tax reference numbers, primary state registration numbers and were founded on 1 June 1998 and 28 April 2016 respectively.
42. In addition, the second FUR letter provided the following information:
Volga Nizhny (former Olimpiyets) Founders of the club
Vladimir Anatolievich Alexander Yurievich
Vladimir Valentinovich Maxim Egvenyevich Current head of the club
Mr Alexander Yurievich
Mr Maxim Egvenyevich Performance in competitions under the auspices of FUR
Finished its performance after the end of the “2016/2017” season.
In the 2017/2018 season, participated in the third division and in the season 2018/2019 in the “championship of the FNL”.
43. More in particular, the second FUR letter explains that Volga’s last season was the 2016/2017 season at the FNL Championship (second division) and that “from the season 2017/2018 it did not apply for the licensing procedure to participate in any professional football competition in Russia”.
44. The second FUR letter additionally clarifies that, after Volga stopped participating in organised football, Olimpiyets did not replace it in the FNL Championship but “started to perform in the lowest professional competitions […] moving to the higher Championship of FNL in accordance with sporting rules”.
45. The second FUR letter also stresses that, in accordance with the FUR’s club licensing rules, “[Nizhny] got the license from the FUR as a new football club but not an assignee of [Volga] that, as mentioned above, did not apply for the license in the 2017-2018. As such, the second FUR letter concluded that [Nizhny] is definitely not the assignee of [Volga] and is [an] independent football club”.
46. On 24 January 2019, the FIFA administration received a third letter from the FUR (hereinafter: the third FUR letter), signed by Mr Rogachev and Mr Kulikov whereby said persons affirmed that the first FUR letter “is a forgery” and that the FUR is “currently conducting the internal check regarding the origin of this letter”.
47. Upon FIFA’s request, the FUR submitted further information. In particular, that Olimpiyets was registered as a legal entity on 28 April 2016 by reorganising the “Football Club Regional Training Centre Volga-Olimpiyets”.
48. The FUR further clarified that during the 2015/2016 season, Volga participated in the FNL Championship (second division) and Olimpiyet’s predecessor, the “Training Centre Volga-Olimpiyets”, in the PFL Championship (third division). According to the FUR, this proves that Volga and Nizhny (former Olimpiyets) are different clubs since they “simultaneously participated in FUR competitions”.
49. The reply was submitted by Nizhny which first confirmed that it should be considered as the same club as Olimpiyets that just changed name in July 2018.
50. Regarding the claim of the player, Nizhny stressed that it is clearly not the same club as Volga. In particular, Nizhny extensively referred to the contents of the second FUR letter.
51. Furthermore, Nizhny also explained that from the date of its creation it has participated as an “independent football club which was not a structure of Volga as its farm team” and that the Lokomotiv stadium is the only one in the region of Nizhny Novgorod. In this regard, Nizhny argued that many different clubs have played in said stadium.
52. As to the colours of Nizhny, the latter stated that they were a “choice of its founders” and that, in any case, contrary to what the player alleges, its primary colours are grey and not blue.
53. As to the club’s emblem, Nizhny argued that its own is completely different from Volga’s. Nizhny provided the following picture:
54. Nizhny further addressed the question of the staff and argued that it “invited some part of former employees of Volga” as they considered that “natives of our city shall work in our club”. What is more, Nizhny emphasised that many former employees of Volga “showed their initiative” to work with Nizhny since they did not wish to leave the city.
55. In this context, Nizhny assured that the majority of Volga’s players left the city after the club disappeared.
56. Nizhny also claimed as false the statement of the player that both clubs were owned by the government of Nizhny.
57. Finally, the club denounced the news report as fake.
58. In his replica, the player first emphasised that it is undisputed that Olimpiyets and Nizhny are the same club.
59. In continuation, the player referred to the FUR letters and stressed that the first one was sent from the official e-mail account of the Russian FA directly to FIFA. Hence, according to the player, if one was to believe the statement of the FUR, it would entail that “someone either hacked their computer or mysteriously entered the offices of the Russian FA to send the [first FUR letter]”. The player also pointed out that there was a second enclosure to that e-mail which undisputedly was sent by Nizhny to FIFA TMS (see point 39 above).
60. The player claimed that the above scenario is “inconceivable” and argued that a more likely explanation is “that an overenthusiastic employee of the FUR actually looked at the documentation at disposal and perfectly knew that Volga and Nizhny are one and the same club”.
61. In this context, the player pointed out that another inconsistency from the statements of the FUR is that, whilst it confirmed to FIFA that Volga was disaffiliated in July 2016, in the second FUR letter, it was stated that Volga participated in the 2016/2017 season.
62. In view of the above, the player concluded that the information provided by the FUR is highly questionable and should be “scrutinized with the utmost care”.
63. The player then addressed the reply of Nizhny and explained that he has no difficulties in believing that Volga and Nizhny may well be different legal entities and have different owners. Yet, the player argued that this issue is not the point. On the contrary, according to the player, “the determination that needs to be made is whether Nizhny is the sporting successor of Volga, which can even be the case when legal entities and ownership has changed”.
64. The player stressed that, from the documents on file, it is clear that once Volga stopped its participation in FUR competitions, Nizhny began its own.
65. As to the emblem, the player underlined that it does not make any sense that Nizhny argues that it is not the same club as Volga because the emblems are different while at the same time confirming that it is the same club as Olimpiyets, which also has a different emblem.
66. For the player, one of the main points is that Nizhniy “took over at least 18 employees” from Volga.
67. Finally, the player addressed the colours of the uniform and highlighted that grey is the away colour of Nizhny only.
68. In light of the above, the player reiterated the entirety of his claim.
69. In its final comments, Nizhny referred to the FUR letters and stressed that the first one is clearly invalid as it is not signed and “does not contain a registration number”. According to Nizhny, “a piece of paper without such important attributes can’t be recognised as an official document, even if it was sent from the official e-mail of FUR”. As such, Nizhny stressed that “FIFA has no reason not to trust the FUR and use only the [second and third FUR letters] as the only explanations of FUR on this case”.
70. Finally, Nizhny rebutted all the allegations of the player basically arguing that:
- It began to compete in the lowest professional league and was promoted to other competitions only on a sporting basis;
- The Lokomotiv stadium is and has been used by many different clubs;
- The emblems of Volga and Nizhny are clearly different and;
- Grey is “one of the official colours” of Nizhny.
71. According to the information contained in the TMS, the account of Volga changed to “not participating” on 15 July 2016.
72. The account of Nizhny was created on 6 August 2015 under the name “FC Volga Olimpiyet”. On 5 July 2016, the name of the club under that account changed to “FC Olimpiyet” and on 3 December 2018 to “FC Nizhny Novgorod” (club ID 8524). Furthermore, up to the present date, the contact e-mails of this account are info@fcnn2018.ru and info@volga-olympic.ru.
73. The case was submitted to the FIFA DRC meeting of 14 June 2019 but eventually withdrawn from the agenda.
74. Upon input from the FIFA administration, the parties were required to provide their position on the following points:
1. Does the fact that the DRC has already passed a decision of the player against Volga prevent it from entering into the merits of the case at hand due to res judicata?
2. Which would be the event(s) giving rise to the dispute of the present claim?
3. Provide comments as to the possible effects of the principle of estoppel in the current dispute.
75. Nizhny replied that it could not explain the impact of principles of res judicata and estoppel because, being a different entity, it did not participate in the original proceedings with the player.
76. In extremely simplified terms, the player replied as follows:
1. No. There can be no issue of res judicata as the FIFA DRC never passed a decision on the merits of the original claim. Furthermore, the player pointed out that, at the time, the DRC wrongly decided not to enter into the merits of his claim, since when he lodged it Volga was still affiliated.
2. The player pointed out that his current claim is a continuation of the one against Volga. Therefore, according to the player, the event giving rise to the dispute is the non-payment of his salaries.
3. Said principle is not applicable to the present case. On a separate note, the player underlined that the FUR has contradicted itself and “it would be unrealistic to expect from a football player to keep track of all Russian football clubs in the second professional league and lower, the information of which is often impossible to gather as it is not publicly available”.
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 case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 11 June 2018 and decided on 17 January 2020. Taking into account the wording of art. 21 of the 2019 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
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 par. 2 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Dispute Resolution Chamber, in principle, would be competent to deal with an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Romanian player and a Russian club.
3. However, the Chamber noted that the case at stake presented a rather long procedural history, which must be addressed before entering the substance of the case, if at all. In particular, the Chamber noted that this procedural background and the specific circumstances of the case demand a preliminary analysis of its admissibility.
4. In this respect, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to first list in a chronological order the most relevant procedural events, which took place up until this moment, in order to address in a clear manner the matter of the admissibility of the present dispute. These key procedural events are the following:
9 August 2010: the player and Volga conclude an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 1 August 2013.
1 November 2013: the player lodges a first claim in front of FIFA against Volga, claiming outstanding remuneration as per the aforementioned contract;
1 July 2016: the FUR informs FIFA of Volga’s disaffiliation.
30 September 2016: upon explicit request of the player, the DRC passes a decision declaring the claim against Volga inadmissible due to the latter’s loss of affiliation to the FUR. This decision is not appealed at CAS and becomes consequently final and binding.
11 June 2018: the player lodges a new claim, this time against Olimpiyets, the alleged legal successor of Volga.
5. Bearing in mind the aforementioned and in particular all questions related to the admissibility of the present dispute, the Chamber first deemed it necessary to establish that since the first decision of the DRC on 30 September 2016 was to declare the claim inadmissible, without entering the merits of the dispute, the question of res judicata is not raised in relation to the admissibility of the second claim lodged by the player.
6. Having said that, the Chamber concluded that the key preliminary issue to be addressed in the present dispute relates to its timeliness, i.e. whether the second claim, lodged on 11 June 2018, is barred by the statute of limitations.
7. In this respect, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, which, in completion to the general procedural terms outlined in the Procedural Rules, clearly establishes that the Dispute Resolution Chamber 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.
8. In view of the above, the DRC deemed it fundamental to underline that in order to determine whether the Chamber could hear the present matter and even before establishing which is “the event giving rise to the dispute”, it should first focus on the consequences of the procedural path of the present dispute, detailed above. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that it is undisputed that there was a first claim of the player lodged on 9 August 2010, which was decided on 30 September 2016. It is also an undisputed fact that such decision was not appealed by any of the parties in front of CAS and, therefore, 21 days after its notification it became final and binding. As a consequence of that, the case was archived. The player’s new claim of 11 June 2018 is a new claim, which cannot be considered as a continuation of the first one, as the latter was closed, following a decision which was not appealed and consequently became final and binding.
9. Having established the foregoing, the Chamber pointed out that in the new claim of 11 June 2018, the event giving rise to the dispute, i.e. the starting point of the counting of the two years as set out in art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations, is the alleged non-payment of the player’s remuneration under the employment contract valid from 9 August 2010 to 1 August 2013.
10. As a consequence, referring to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the DRC concluded that the time limit of two years for the Claimant to claim outstanding remuneration related to the aforementioned contract had already elapsed at the time he lodged his new claim in front of FIFA on 11 June 2018.
11. Therefore, the Chamber decided that the claim of the Claimant is barred by the statute of limitations and, consequently, inadmissible.
*****
III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
The claim of the Claimant, Plesan Mihalta Paunel, is inadmissible.
*****
Note related to the publication:
The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the Players’ Status Committee or the DRC. Where such decisions contain confidential information, FIFA may decide, at the request of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 20 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).
Note related to the appeal procedure:
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. 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.
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:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer