F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2014-2015) – controversie tra società – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2014-2015) – club vs. club disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 14 January 2015, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club C, from country R as Claimant against the club Club M, from country D as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties and relating to the player O

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2014-2015) – controversie tra società – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players' Status Committee (2014-2015) – club vs. club disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 14 January 2015, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club C, from country R as Claimant against the club Club M, from country D as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties and relating to the player O I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 December 2009, Club C, from country R (hereinafter: the Claimant) and Club M, from country D (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded a transfer agreement for the transfer of the player O (hereinafter: the player) from the Respondent to the Claimant against the payment of transfer compensation in the amount of EUR 1,000,000, thereof the amount of EUR 500,000 payable by no later than 20 January 2010 and the further amount of EUR 500,000 payable by no later than 15 March 2010. 2. Moreover, said agreement also stipulated that “[the Respondent] is obliged to make the payment of solidarity contribution connected with the transfer of the player to any third party (…). In this respect, the transfer fee has been paid by our club to [the Respondent] (…) without any deductions. We would like to draw your attention that 100% of the transfer fee has been paid by [the Claimant] and it is [the Respondent] who have assumed a duty to distribute solidarity contribution to involved third parties.” 3. On 7 June 2013, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: DRC) of FIFA decided that the Claimant had to pay to the Club G, from country L, the amount of EUR 13,330 as solidarity contribution, plus 5% interest on the amount of EUR 6,665 as of 10 February 2010 and on the amount of EUR 6,665 as of 15 April 2010, until the date of effective payment. 4. On 5 March 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA, requesting from the Respondent the reimbursement of the solidarity contribution it had to pay to Club G. In particular, the Claimant stated that the relevant amount payable by the Respondent to it is EUR 13,431.47. Furthermore, the Claimant requested “to impose sanctions on the respondent in the amount of 5% p.a. on the whole sum of the main debt since 3 August 2013 until the day of lodging this claim.” 5. In support of its claim, the Claimant stated that it paid 100% of the transfer compensation in the amount of EUR 1,000,000 to the Respondent as it was stipulated in the transfer agreement. In this context, the Claimant referred to the jurisprudence of the DRC, indicating that in such cases where 100% of the transfer compensation has been paid to the former club of the player, “the player’s new club should then be ordered to remit the relevant proportion of the 5% solidarity contribution to the club(s) involved in the player’s training in strict application of the relevant provisions of the Regulations. At the same time, the player’s former club should be ordered to reimburse the same proportion(s) of the 5% of the compensation that it received from the player’s new club.” Consequently, the Claimant stressed that it should be reimbursed by the Respondent for the amount it was ordered by the DRC to pay to Club G as solidarity contribution. 6. In its reply, the Claimant argued that the Claimant, by accident, has paid the full 5% as compensation to Club G. In this context, the Respondent stressed that Club G was only entitled to receive solidarity contribution for the training of the player for the seasons of the player’s 12th and 13th season. Therefore, the Claimant should not be able to claim any amounts from it. 7. In its replica, the Respondent reiterated its previous argumentation, however stressing that the amount it had to pay to Club G was established and confirmed by the DRC in its decision and by the Claimant itself. Therefore, the claimed amount should not be revised with regard to the principle of res judicata. 8. In its final position, the Respondent reiterated its previous position, emphasizing that Club G received amounts it was not entitled to, which is why the matter only concerns the Claimant, Club G and FIFA. II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter: the Single Judge) analysed which Procedural Rules were applicable to the matter at hand. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 of the 2012 and 2014 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) as well as to the fact that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 5 March 2014, thus after 1 December 2012. Therefore, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand. 2. Subsequently, the Single Judge analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players was 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 2014 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and, on the other hand, to the fact that the claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 5 March 2014. In view of the foregoing, the Single Judge concluded that the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the case at hand as to the substance. 3. Furthermore, the Single Judge confirmed that, on the basis of art. 3 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Procedural Rules in connection with art. 23 par. 1 and par. 3 as well as art. 22 lit. f) of the Regulations, he was competent to deal with the present matter since it concerned a dispute between two clubs affiliated to two different associations. 4. The competence of the Single Judge and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Single Judge started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the Single Judge emphasized that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and the documentary evidence which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. In this respect, and first of all, the Single Judge noted that on 1 December 2009, the parties had concluded a transfer agreement for the transfer of the player from the Respondent to the Claimant against the payment of transfer compensation in the amount of EUR 1,000,000, thereof the amount of EUR 500,000 payable by no later than 20 January 2010 and the further amount of EUR 500,000 payable by no later than 15 March 2010. 6. Moreover, the Single Judge noted that said agreement also stipulated that “[the Respondent] is obliged to make the payment of solidarity contribution connected with the transfer of the player to any third party (…). In this respect, the transfer fee has been paid by our club to [the Respondent] (…) without any deductions. We would like to draw your attention that 100% of the transfer fee has been paid by [the Claimant] and it is [the Respondent] who have assumed a duty to distribute solidarity contribution to involved third parties.” 7. Likewise, the Single Judge recalled that on 7 June 2013, the DRC decided that the Claimant had to pay to Club G the amount of EUR 13,330 as solidarity contribution, plus 5% interest on the amount of EUR 6,665 as of 10 February 2010 and on the amount of EUR 6,665 as of 15 April 2010, until the date of effective payment. 8. Furthermore, the Single Judge noted that on 5 March 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA, requesting from the Respondent the reimbursement of the amount of EUR 13,431.47 it had to pay to Club G as solidarity contribution. 9. In this regard, the Single Judge pointed to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations where it is inter alia stipulated that the Single Judge shall not hear any case subject to these regulations if more than two years have elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute. In this regard, the Single Judge in a first step concluded that the event giving rise to the present dispute arose on the 31st day following the due date of the respective instalments of the transfer compensation, as stipulated in art. 2 par. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations. In this context, the Single Judge further noted that the two year deadline for the Claimant to request the reimbursement started on 22 February 2010 and 15 April 2010, respectively, whereas the Claimant requested the reimbursement of the solidarity contribution it paid to Club G only on 5 March 2014. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the claim of the Claimant regarding the reimbursement of solidarity contribution is prescribed and therefore not admissible. 10. Finally, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in combination with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which in proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee including its Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of currency of country H 25,000 are levied and which states that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and are normally to be paid by the unsuccessful party. 11. Taking into account that the claim of the Claimant is not admissible, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant has to bear the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. According to Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. On that basis, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is over EUR 13,330. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 5,000. 12. Considering the particular circumstances of the present matter, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 1,000 and concluded that said amount has to be paid by the Claimant in order to cover the costs of the present proceedings. III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club C, is not admissible. 2. The costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 1,000 are to be paid by the Claimant, Club C. Given that the latter already paid an advance of costs of currency of country H 1,000 at the beginning of the present proceedings, it is exempted from paying the aforementioned costs of the proceedings. ***** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to article 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 Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives