F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2012-2013) – controversie allenatori – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2012-2013) – coach disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 15 August 2012, by Mr Geoff Thompson (England), Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the coach Coach D, from country S as “Claimant” against the Football Association of country S as “Respondent” regarding an employment-related contractual dispute arisen between the parties.

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2012-2013) – controversie allenatori – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2012-2013) – coach disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 15 August 2012, by Mr Geoff Thompson (England), Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the coach Coach D, from country S as “Claimant” against the Football Association of country S as “Respondent” regarding an employment-related contractual dispute arisen between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 25 December 2007, the coach D (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the Football Association of country S (hereinafter: the Respondent) signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid from 1 January 2008 until 31 December 2009, which provided for the Claimant to receive as salary a “monthly amount of EUR 20,000, that is the net equivalent in dinars, according to the average exchange rate valid the day of payment”. 2. Article 5 of the contract stipulated that “The contracting parties agree that the Football Association of country S [i.e. the Respondent] has the right to unilaterally terminate this contract, subject to the obligation to pay out to the coach [i.e. the Claimant] the monthly salaries pursuant to article 3 […] for the period from the date of the unilateral termination of the contract until 31.12.2009”. 3. On 18 September 2009, the Claimant, who presented himself as a country T national residing in country T, lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent for having allegedly terminated the contract without just cause. 4. In this respect, the Claimant alleged that after having worked as coach of the national team of the Respondent from January until August 2008 and after having been paid by the Respondent according to the contract, the latter had declared in August 2008 that he would no longer work for them. Moreover, the Claimant declared that, following the alleged termination of his contract by the Respondent, the latter had appointed another coach in his position. 5. Consequently, the Claimant deemed that the Respondent had breached the contract without just cause and should therefore be requested to pay him, as compensation for the breach, the total amount of EUR 280,000, corresponding to the remaining value of the contract, together with an interest of 5% per year on the said amount as from 21 August 2008. 6. On 10 November 2008, FIFA invited the Claimant to confirm under which nationality he had signed the contract and to be provided with additional documents regarding his actual nationality. In response to this, the Claimant provided a copy of a document entitled “Country T Nationality Certificate” dated 30 May 2007, which mentioned that he had renounced to his country S nationality. In this respect, the Claimant argued that since he had to renounce to his country S nationality in order to become a country T citizen, the dispute in question had an international dimension and FIFA was therefore competent to pass a decision in the matter. 7. On 13 September 2009, the Respondent provided its position in response to the Claimant’s claim and argued that the dispute did not contain any international element since at the time the contract was concluded between the parties, the Claimant had “appeared before Football Association of country S [i.e. the Respondent] as a country S citizen, as he presented his country S passport for his identity confirmation”. 8. In order to corroborate its allegations, the Respondent submitted a copy of a birth certificate as well as a “Certificate of Citizenship” and argued that since both documents were issued on 8 September 2009, the Claimant was still considered by the relevant authorities in country S as a country S national. In addition, the Respondent claimed that the fact that the Claimant had acquired another nationality was irrelevant as “at the moment of conclusion of the contract, he was citizen of Republic of country S”. 9. Furthermore and in response to the allegations raised by the Claimant as to the substance of the matter, the Respondent declared that although he was dismissed on 20 August 2008 “as selector of the A selection […] he was not dismissed as selector of the Olympic selection of country S” and “continued to receive his salary after the date of his dismissal, i.e. 20 August 2008, until he himself terminated the contract by not acting because from 20 August 2008 until October 2008 neither he showed up for once in the premises of the Football Association of country S nor he justified his absence”. In view of this, the Respondent concluded that it had been the Claimant who had failed to respect his obligations under the contract. 10. Finally, the Respondent added that FIFA was not the competent body since the contract mentioned that “In case of dispute regarding this contract, the relevant bodies of Football Association of country S [i.e. the Respondent], UEFA or the court in country S will be the appropriate jurisdiction”. Consequently, the Respondent asked FIFA to declare itself incompetent to deal with the present matter. 11. On 16 December 2009, the Claimant provided additional comments in the matter at hand and reiterated the fact that, at the moment of signature of the contract with the Respondent, he only held the country T citizenship. The Claimant further argued that based on the documents he had already provided, it was clear that he could only have had one nationality at the time of signature, that this nationality was the country T one and that it was therefore “not a case of double nationality”. 12. Furthermore, the Claimant rejected the assertion of the Respondent that FIFA was not competent on the basis of the specific wording of the contract and maintained that the Respondent should compensate him for the alleged breach of contract. 13. In its final comments, the Respondent reiterated its previous allegations and added that, based on an additional document entitled “Application on work commencement - cancellation”, it was clear that the Claimant was still a citizen of country S at the time he had concluded the contract on 25 December 2007. The Respondent also provided a copy of the country S passport of the Claimant issued on 24 July 2003 and valid until 24 July 2013. 14. Furthermore, the Respondent argued that the contract clearly established which entities would be competent in case of a dispute and specifically referred to article 8 of the contract according to which “In case of any dispute […] the parties agree to be subject to the arbitration of the pertinent bodies of Football Association of country S, UEFA as well as the competent tribunal in country S”. 15. On account of the above, the Respondent reiterated that FIFA should not be competent to deal with the present dispute. 16. In view of the final comments of the Respondent and, in particular, the additional documents remitted by the latter, FIFA informed the parties, on 29 June 2012, that it did not appear to be in a position to intervene in this matter since the dispute apparently involved parties of the same nationality and hence had to be considered as a purely internal matter. 17. On 7 July 2012, in response to FIFA’s letter dated 29 June 2012, the Claimant asserted again that FIFA was competent to hear the case as he was allegedly no longer holding the country S nationality at the time the contract was signed. In this respect, the Claimant referred again to the wording of the “Country T Nationality Certificate” dated 30 May 2007 he had submitted at the beginning of the proceedings, according to which he had renounced to his country S nationality and therefore concluded that he could only have held the country T nationality at the time the contract was concluded. Consequently, the Claimant insisted that FIFA is competent to pass a decision in the present dispute. II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter also referred to as: the Single Judge) analysed which Procedural Rules were applicable to the matter at hand. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008). Consequently, and since the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 18 September 2009, the Single Judge concluded that the 2008 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 present matter. 2. Subsequently, the Single Judge 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, he referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010 and 2009) and, on the other hand, to the fact that the claim was lodged by the Claimant in front of FIFA on 18 September 2009. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee concluded that the 2008 edition of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance. 3. Having established the applicable Procedural Rules and Regulations, the Single Judge turned his attention to the issue of his competence. In this context, the Single Judge recalled that the Respondent had argued that FIFA should not be competent to decide the matter for two reasons: 1) The Claimant was a country S national at the time the contract was signed and that, therefore, the dispute did not contain any international element, and; 2) Article 8 of the contract established that the parties should refer any dispute to the arbitration of the “relevant bodies of the Football Association of country S [i.e. the Respondent], UEFA, as well as the competent tribunal in country S”. 4. On account of the above, the Single Judge referred to art. 22 of the Regulations which provides that, without prejudice to the right of a party to seek redress before a civil court for employment-related disputes, FIFA is competent to hear “c) employment-related disputes between a club or an association and a coach of an international dimension, unless an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings exists at national level”. 5. With this in mind, the Single Judge underlined that the wording of the article in question implies that the first condition that is absolutely necessary for FIFA to be competent to hear an employment-related dispute between a club or an association and a coach is that said dispute has to have an “international dimension”. In other words, FIFA is only competent to hear an employment- related dispute between a club or an association and a coach when the parties have different nationalities. Consequently, as soon as the parties share a common nationality, such dispute has to be considered a purely internal matter to be decided by the competent authorities in the country of the nationality of the parties. 6. After having established the aforementioned, the Single Judge reverted to the arguments and documents provided by the parties in support of their allegations. In this respect, he noted that the Claimant had argued that, based on the “country T Nationality Certificate” dated 30 May 2007, he had only held the country T nationality and no other nationality on the day of the conclusion of the contract with the Respondent as the document clearly stated that he had renounced to his country S nationality in order to become a country T citizen. Equally, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent had argued, based on the documentation it had provided FIFA with, that the Claimant was still a country S nationality at the time of the conclusion of the contract and had not subsequently renounced to it. 7. In continuation, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee was keen to underline the content of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules according to which “any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof”. In other words, only allegations supported by clear documentary evidence can be taken into consideration by the deciding body. 8. In this respect, the Single Judge held that although the “country T Nationality Certificate” dated 30 May 2007 stated that the Claimant had renounced to his country S nationality as far as the relevant country T authorities were concerned, this, in itself, could not demonstrate that the country S authorities had confirmed that the Claimant had given up his country S nationality and that he was, according to the country S authorities, no longer a country S national. As a matter of fact, the “Certificate of Citizenship” issued on 8 September 2009 (i.e. after the “Country T Nationality Certificate”) confirmed that the Claimant was still considered a “citizen of the Republic of country S” as far as the relevant country S authorities were concerned. Equally, the Single Judge noted that the Respondent had provided a copy of the country S passport of the player, valid from 24 July 2003 until 24 July 2013, as well as a document dated 8 January 2008 entitled “Application on work commencement - cancellation”, which confirmed that the Claimant was a citizen of “country S and country M”. 9. In view of this, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant had not been able to successfully demonstrate that he had de facto relinquished his country S nationality and that the only nationality that he had at the time the contract was signed with the Respondent was his country T one. 10. Consequently, and in view of the fact that the Claimant was still holding the country S nationality on the day the contract with the Respondent was signed (i.e. 25 December 2007), the Single Judge concluded that the matter has to be considered as an internal matter to be decided by the competent authorities at national level in country S and that FIFA is thus not competent to pass a decision in the present case. 11. Therefore, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee decided that that the claim of the Claimant has to be considered as inadmissible. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee The claim of the Claimant, Coach J, is not admissible. Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 67 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 / www.tas-cas.org For the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives