F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2012-2013) – indennità di formazione – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2012-2013) – training compensation – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of theDispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 18 December 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Philippe Diallo (France), member on the claim presented by the club, Club V, from country A as Claimant against the club, Club D, from country S as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player Player C

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2012-2013) - indennità di formazione – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2012-2013) - training compensation – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of theDispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 18 December 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Philippe Diallo (France), member on the claim presented by the club, Club V, from country A as Claimant against the club, Club D, from country S as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player Player C I. Facts of the case 1. According to country A Football Association, the Player C, from country A (hereinafter: the player), born in June 1987, was registered with the Club S, from country A (hereinafter: the Claimant), from 1 March 1999 until 24 June 2008 as an amateur, and from 25 June 2008 until 12 August 2008 as well as from 7 April 2009 until 2 July 2009 as a professional. 2. The country A Football Association also confirmed that the player was registered with its affiliated Club P on a loan basis from 13 August 2008 until 6 April 2009 as a professional. 3. The football season in country A for amateurs follows the calendar year, this is, it starts in January and ends in December of each year. For professionals the football season in country A starts on 1 July and ends on 30 June of the following year. 4. According to the country S Football Association, the player was registered with its affiliated Club D (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 20 July 2009 as a professional player. 5. The country S Football Association also confirmed that the Respondent belonged to category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year) at the time the player was registered with the Respondent. 6. On 14 October 2009, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA requesting the payment of training compensation from the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant requested EUR 400,000 plus default interest rate of 5% p.a. calculated from 21 August 2009. 7. The Respondent rejected the claim in its reply dated 14 January 2011, stating that the country A Football Association, at the moment of the transfer, provided the country S Football Association with a player passport which disclosed the player’s first registration date with the Claimant being 11 March 2005 and thus not 1 March 1999. 8. In this respect, the Respondent provided a statement signed by the player, affirming that he began playing with the Claimant in “early 2005 as an amateur […] and had absolutely no joins or contracts with Club V (the Claimant) before joining the club in 2005”. Therefore, according to the Respondent, no training compensation should be payable, because of “there having been a misrepresentation by the Claimant of the playing history in order to increase the level of training compensation”. The Respondent added that the player was no longer employed by it at the time of giving the statement and, thus, owed no obligation to the Respondent. 9. Moreover, the Respondent pointed out that the player was registered as a professional with Club P before being registered again for the Claimant and that, therefore, the chain of registrations for transfer compensation purposes was broken by the player’s registration with Club P. Hence, the player’s registration as a professional with the Claimant from 7 April 2009 until 3 July 2009 would be “the only potentially relevant period for payment of training compensation”. However, the Respondent asserted that the statement of the player confirmed that during said period of time, he did not receive any training. 10. In addition, the Respondent enclosed a copy of the termination agreement of the employment contract, signed by the Claimant and the player, according to which “both parties declare that they have nothing to claim mutually by any concept or matter inherent to the employment contract that would bind both and by this act is no longer applicable”. The Respondent claimed that, with this declaration, the Claimant had discharged any right to seek payment of training compensation. Equally, the Respondent argued that the player was not registered with the Respondent during or at the end of the player’s contract, but that said registration took place on a date following the end of the player’s contract and that, therefore, no training compensation is payable. 11. Furthermore, the Respondent submitted a copy of the country I passport of the player and asserted that due to his European Union (EU) citizenship and by entering a “host” Member State to take up employment, he is entitled to all of the rights and protections of EU law. In this respect, the Respondent referred to, and presented, several decisions of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). 12. The Respondent concluded that, in view of all the above, no training compensation should be payable, since a) no contract was offered to the player by the Claimant, according to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Player (hereinafter: the Regulations); b) the player and the Claimant mutually “agreed to waive and discharge all claims, including claims for training compensation”, and c) with regards to art. 5 par. 4 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations: “no training compensation should be payable or any amount payable should be adjusted as disproportionate given the circumstances of this case”. 13. Finally, the Respondent held that, if in any event training compensation is due, the period of registration of the player to be taken into consideration “should be the time during 2009, approximately 3 months, […] the earliest date from which training compensation could be calculated should be 11 March 2005” and “it should be based on the average of the training costs relevant to the Claimant and the Respondent”. 14. In its response thereto, the Claimant alleged that the special provisions in the Regulations for the EU/EEA, exclusively apply to transfers within the territory of the EU/EEA, which are independent of the player’s nationality. In this respect, the Claimant referred to the CAS jurisprudence (CAS 2009/A/XXXX Club W v/ Club E), which states that “There is therefore no reason to depart from the unambiguous wording of art. 6 annex 4 to the FIFA regulations which is obviously not applicable in the case of a player moving from a country outside the EU/EEA to a country within the EU/EEA”. 15. Furthermore, the Claimant pointed out that the Respondent should prove the alleged disproportion of the claimed training compensation to the effective costs of the training of the player. 16. Finally, and regarding the discrepancies of the player passport issued by the country A Football Association, the Claimant referred to a decision taken by the Dispute Resolution Chamber on 23 October 2009, which stated that “…the Chamber […] did not see any valid reason to suppose that the aforementioned dates of registration, which were confirmed by the Football Association of R, would be incorrect…The respondent did not provide any evidence at all that the registration dates mentioned in the player passport provided by the Football Association of R would be inaccurate”. Therefore, according to the Claimant, the player’s statement, enclosed to the Respondent’s correspondence, would not support the allegation of the invalidity of the passport. 17. In its duplica, the Respondent made reference to Article 39 of the EU Treaty, which “accords workers the right to move freely within the territory of member states in order to accept offers of employment actually made” and “lays down a general prohibition against discrimination in respect of such workers as regards employment, remuneration or other conditions of work or employment”. 18. Moreover, the Respondent contested the jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport in relation to the freedom of movement, referred to several decisions of the ECJ and emphasized that in the “Bosman” judgement it was established that “rules laid down by sport governing bodies, which would include the Player Regulations with which this case is concerned, required to be examined […], in accordance with the provisions of Article 39 and the 1968 Regulations”. 19. Once again, the Respondent underlined that the player holds the Italian nationality, therefore being a “Community Citizen”. Hence, he would be entitled to the rights and protection given to him by Article 39 and the 1968 Regulation. 20. Moreover, the Respondent deemed that the requirement to pay training compensation would be considered as a barrier to the employment of the player and, while referring to the training compensation “regime” in the country U, stressed that there is “manifest and substantial discrimination” comparing the circumstances of the player to another player in country U in respect of whom no compensation would be payable. 21. Furthermore, the Respondent pointed out that art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations only addresses issues related to the transfer of players within different Member States and omits issues of an EU citizen being transferred from outside the EU to a club within the EU, which is why article 39 and the 1968 Regulation should be applicable. 22. Therefore, either art. 6 of Annexe 4 applies in this case, which would result to no liability to pay training compensation or otherwise “the DRC must apply […] all the relevant provisions of the 2008 regulations on the basis that they are not consistent with Article 39 and the 1968 Regulation”. 23. Moreover, the Respondent asserted that the player passport, provided by the country A Football Association at the moment of registration with the country S club, confirmed a registration in 2005, which was the documentation considered by the Respondent, which is why it would be “invidious if the Club were to be held liable for training compensation in relation to a period not disclosed to the Respondent on the Player Passport when the Player was first engaged by the Respondent”. 24. Finally, the Respondent underlined that it would have never registered such a young and unproven player, who only played for one season for the Respondent, knowing that they would have been liable to pay training compensation. In this respect, two witness statements were submitted, one of the former manager and one of the secretary of the Respondent. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as the Chamber or DRC) analyzed 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 14 October 2009. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, edition 2008 (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 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 in combination with art. 22 lit. (d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2009, 2010 and 2012), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 14 October 2009 as well as that the player was registered with the Respondent on 20 July 2009, the 2008 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. The members of the Chamber started by acknowledging the facts of the case as well as the documentation on file. 5. First of all, the Chamber recalled that the player was born on 6 June 1987 and, according to a confirmation of the country A Football Association, was registered with the Claimant as from 1 March 1999 until 24 June 2008 as an amateur, and from 25 June 2008 until 12 August 2008 as well as from 7 April 2009 until 2 July 2009 as a professional. Equally, the Chamber recalled that the Respondent however disputed the validity of the information provided by the country A Football Association, indicating that, at an earlier stage, it was provided with a different player passport containing other registration details. Finally, the DRC noted that both player passports indicated that the player was loaned to Club P between 13 August 2008 and 6 April 2009. 6. In continuation, the Chamber took note that the Claimant maintained that it is entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount of EUR 400,000 plus 5% default interest, indicating that the player was transferred internationally as a professional from the Claimant to the Respondent before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. 7. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant, arguing that the player was a citizen of the EU and therefore the special provisions for the transfers of players within the EU/EEA, contained in the Regulations, had not been complied with, as the Claimant did not offer any contract to the player. 8. Equally, the members of the Chamber took note that the Respondent invoked article 39 of the EU Treaty as well as several decisions of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), in particular the decision “Bosman” of the ECJ. 9. In this regard, the members of the Chamber noted that the Respondent pointed out that art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations only addresses issues related to the transfer of players within different Member States and omits issues of an EU citizen being transferred from outside the EU/EEA to a club within the EU/EEA. 10. In this respect, the Chamber remarked that the nationality of the player is actually irrelevant with regard to the applicability of art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. Said provision is limited to a well-defined geographic scope of the associations between which the player is being transferred, this is, it is limited to players moving from one association to another inside the territory of the EU/EEA. Since country A is neither a member of the European Union (EU), nor of the European Economic Area (EEA), the Chamber found it evident that art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations does not apply in the present case as lex specialis. Hence, the Respondent cannot invoke non-compliance of the Claimant with art. 6 of Annexe 4 and all arguments presented by the Respondent in this respect are therefore rejected by the Chamber. 11. In continuation, the Chamber noted that the Respondent held that the player and the Claimant had signed a termination agreement waiving its right to claim anything from the other party, and that the Respondent alleged that the registration of the player with the Respondent did not take place either during or at the end of the player’s contract. 12. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that, according to art. 2 par. 1 lit. ii) of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the transfer of the player can take place either during or at the end of his contract. Thus, the members of the Chamber highlighted the fact that the wording “at the end of the player’s contract” includes that the relevant transfer of the player can occur after the expiry, mutual or justified termination of the player’s previous employment contract, without the training club losing its entitlement to training compensation. 13. Likewise, and referring to the assertion of the Respondent that the Claimant had waived and discharged all claims, including claims for training compensation, by means of the termination agreement it had signed with the player, the Chamber pointed out that the pertinent agreement did i) not explicitly stipulate that the Claimant would waive its entitlement to training compensation, ii) merely indicated that the Claimant and the player would no longer have any claim towards each other in relation to the employment contract previously concluded between them, and iii) that said agreement was concluded between the Claimant and the player and not between the Claimant and the Respondent. As such, the Chamber considered that the Respondent could not derive any rights from the relevant agreement and deemed that said document could not be considered as a document by means of which the Claimant had indeed waived its right to claim training compensation from the Respondent. 14. Having established the above, the Chamber referred to the rules applicable to training compensation and stated that, as established in art. 20 of the Regulations as well as in art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 in combination with art. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, training compensation is payable, as a general rule, for training incurred between the ages of 12 and 21 when a player is registered for the first time as a professional before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday or when a professional is transferred between clubs of two different associations before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday. In case the latter occurs, art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations sets forth that training compensation will only be owed to the player’s former club for the time he was effectively trained by that club. 15. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the Respondent deemed that due to the registration of the player as a professional with the country A club, Club P, the “chain of registrations for transfer compensation purposes (…) was broken”. Equally, the Chamber noted that, on this basis, the Respondent argued that, if training compensation was payable, it would only be payable for the period of the registration of the player with the Claimant between 7 April 2009 and 2 July 2009. 16. Hence, the Chamber understood that the Respondent was of the opinion that the Claimant is not entitled to any training compensation for the period of time prior to the period of registration of the player with Club P, implying that the transfer of the player from the Claimant to Club P constituted a subsequent transfer of a professional and, consequently, deprived the Claimant from its potential entitlement to training compensation for the period of time prior to 7 April 2009. 17. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that the player was, between 13 August 2008 and 6 April 2009, registered as a professional with Club P, however, considered it at the same time vital to underline that the player was registered on a loan basis with Club P i.e. the player was loaned as a professional by the Claimant to Club P and not transferred on a definitive basis to Club P 18. In view of the above, the Chamber referred to art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations, which stipulates that professionals may be loaned to another club on the basis of a written agreement between the professional and the clubs concerned. Moreover, the last sentence of said article stipulates that any such loan is subject to the same rules as apply to the transfer of players, including the provisions on training compensation and the solidarity mechanism. 19. Having said that, the Chamber, stressed that one of the aims of the last sentence of art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations is to ensure that training clubs which register a player on a loan basis also benefit from the solidarity mechanism and training compensation, provided that the relevant prerequisites in the pertinent provisions of the Regulations are fulfilled. This approach is also in line with the Chamber’s well-established jurisprudence that all clubs which have in actual fact contributed to the training and education of a player as from the age of 12 until the age of 21 are, in principle, entitled to training compensation for the timeframe that the player was effectively trained by them. 20. In this respect, the Chamber deemed it at this point essential to emphasise that, as to the liability to pay training compensation, the analogy established in art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations could not be extended to the case in which a player is loaned to a club and thus is not being definitively transferred to the latter club. In other words, the transfer of a player from the club of origin to the club that accepts the player on loan, as well as the return of the player from the club that accepted him on loan to the club of origin, do not constitute a “subsequent transfer” in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. The Chamber was eager to point out that it could not have been the intention of the legislator of the relevant regulatory provision (i.e. art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations) to trigger the consequences of art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the occasion of a transfer on a loan basis and, thus, potentially deprive the loan of its essential flexibility and, in connection with the training and education of players, its purpose of providing young players with the opportunity to gain practical experience in official matches for another club in order to develop in a positive way. 21. What is more, and while recalling that art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations stipulates that “In the case of subsequent transfers of the professional, training compensation will only be owed to his former club for the time he was effectively trained by that club”, the Chamber, once again referring to its well-established jurisprudence, pointed out that, within the framework of loans and for the purposes of the rules governing training compensation, the period of time that the player was registered with Club P on loan and the period of time that the player was registered with the Claimant, should be considered as one entire timeframe. 22. Hence, the Chamber came to the firm conclusion that for the purposes of the provisions of the Regulations governing training compensation, the loan of a young player from his club of origin to other clubs does not interrupt the ongoing training period of the player and the obligation to pay training compensation arises only in case a player is transferred on a definitive basis, with the effect that, at that moment, the club which transferred the player on a loan basis to another club is entitled to training compensation for the entire period of time during which it effectively trained the player, however, excluding the period of time of the loan. 23. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber reiterated that the loan of the player from the Claimant to Club P cannot be considered to constitute a subsequent transfer which would trigger the consequences stipulated in art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 24. Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber concurred that it had to reject the Respondent’s argumentation in relation to the registration of the player with Club P. 25. On account of the above considerations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations. 26. Turning its attention to the calculation of the training compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant, the Chamber referred to the FIFA circular no. 1185 dated 22 April 2009 which provides details for the calculation of training compensation as well as to art. 5 par. 1 and par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulate that as a general rule, to calculate the training compensation due to a player’s former club, it is necessary to take the costs that would have been incurred by the new club if it had trained the player itself. 27. In continuation, the Chamber took into account that according to the documentation on file, the Respondent belonged to the category II and that the player, born on 6 June 1987, was, according to a confirmation of the country A Football Association, registered with the Claimant as from 1 March 1999 until 24 June 2008 as an amateur, and as from 25 June 2008 until 12 August 2008 as well as from 7 April 2009 until 2 July 2009 as a professional. 28. Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber pointed out that, on the basis of the above-mentioned registration details, the Claimant deemed it was entitled to the amount of EUR 400,000. However, the Chamber noted that the Respondent, basing itself on a previously issued player passport by the country A Football Association, challenged this amount indicating that the first registration date of the player with the Claimant was in March 2005, instead of March 1999, as held by the Claimant and the second player passport issued by the country A Football Federation. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber deemed it necessary to examine the contradictory allegations of the parties regarding the first registration date of the player with the Claimant. 29. Accordingly, the members of the Chamber noted that the Respondent held that, at the moment of the transfer of the player (i.e. July 2009), the country A Football Federation provided the country S Football Association and thus, the Respondent, with a player passport which indicated the player’s first registration date with the Claimant as being 11 March 2005. Moreover, the Chamber took note that, in contrast, when asked by FIFA to confirm the exact first registration date of the player with the Claimant, the country A Football Federation submitted a player passport which disclosed such first registration date being 1 March 1999. 30. In this respect, the Chamber, taking into consideration the arguments with regards to the first registration date of the player set forth by the Respondent, acknowledged the good faith of the Respondent when assuming that the first registration date of the player with the Claimant was on 11 March 2005, as the country A Football Federation had confirmed when issuing the relevant International Transfer Certificate (ITC). The Chamber considered that there were valid reasons for the Respondent to assume that the dates disclosed in the player passport issued by the country A Football Federation at the time of the transfer, were the correct dates. This is, the members of the Chamber agreed on the good faith of the Respondent when interpreting the player passport sent by the country A Football Federation. Consequently, the Chamber duly noted that, according to the documentation on file, it could be established that the player had been registered with the Respondent on 20 July 2009, that the Respondent belonged to the club category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year) and that the Claimant is only entitled to training compensation for the period as from 11 March 2005 until 12 August 2008. Therefore, and while taking into account that due to change of the player’s status from amateur to professional in June 2005 and the subsequent change of the starting and ending dates of the seasons in country A, the Claimant is entitled to training compensation for 10 months of the season of the player’s 18th birthday and for the complete seasons of the player’s 19th, 20th and 21st birthday, whereby, due to the earlier-mentioned change of the season dates, the season of the player’s 21st birthday only lasted 6 months. 31. Consequently, and in light of the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber decided to partially accept the Claimant’s claim and decided that the Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in the amount of EUR 230,000. 32. Furthermore, for the sake of completeness, the Chamber referred to the burden of proof contained in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, and deemed that the Respondent had not provided any compelling evidence which would support that the amount payable as training compensation was clearly disproportional to the matter at hand (cf. art. 5 par. 4 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations) 33. Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent has to pay, in conformity with its longstanding practice, interest at 5% p.a. over the amount payable as training compensation as of the 31st day of the registration of the player with the Respondent, i.e. as of 21 August 2009, until the date of effective payment. 34. Lastly, the Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in proceedings before the DRC relating to disputes regarding training compensation costs in the maximum amount of currency of country H 25’000 are levied. It is further stipulated that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and that, in accordance with Annex A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. 35. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 400,000 related to the claim of the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H 25,000 (cf. table in Annex A). 36. As a result, and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been partially accepted as well as the complexity of the case, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 25,000, which shall be borne by the Respondent in the amount of currency of country H 15,000 and by the Claimant in the amount of currency of country H 10,000. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club V, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club D, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 230,000 plus default interest of 5% p.a. on said amount as from 21 August 2009 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 5. The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 25,000 are to be paid within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision as follows: 5.1. The amount of currency of country H 15,000 has to be paid by the Respondent to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case no.: 5.2. The amount of currency of country H 10,000 has to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA. Given that the Claimant has already paid the amount of currency of country H 5,000 as advance of costs at the start of the present proceedings, the Claimant has to pay the amount of currency of country H 5,000 to FIFA to the above-mentioned bank account with reference to case no. 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under point 2. above is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received. ***** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives