F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2013-2014) – indennità di formazione – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2013-2014) – training compensation – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 February 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Todd Durbin (USA), member Mohamed Al Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member on the claim presented by the club, Club B, from country F as Claimant against the club, Club M, from country S as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2013-2014) - indennità di formazione – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2013-2014) - training compensation – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 February 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Todd Durbin (USA), member Mohamed Al Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member on the claim presented by the club, Club B, from country F as Claimant against the club, Club M, from country S as Respondent regarding training compensation in connection with the player P I. Facts of the case 1. The country F Football Federation confirmed that the player, Player P, born in December 1987, was registered with its affiliated club, Club B (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 16 September 2002 until 30 June 2006 as an amateur. 2. The player was registered as amateur with the following country F clubs: - Club V, from 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007; - Club N, from 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008; and - Club A, from 1 July 2008 until 30 August 2009. 3. The football season in country F lasts from 1 July to 30 June of the following year. 4. On 31 August 2009, the player was registered with Club M (hereinafter: the Respondent) as a professional player. 5. The country S Football Federation confirmed that the Respondent belonged to the category I (indicative amount of EUR 90,000 per year) during the season when the player was registered with it. 6. On 15 February 2010, the Claimant contacted FIFA asking for its proportion of training compensation from the Respondent. In particular, the Claimant is requesting EUR 160,000 from the Respondent. 7. On 6 November 2010, the Respondent informed FIFA that it was under administration and provided a copy of the relevant decision passed by the country S court on 8 June 2010. 8. On 29 November 2010, having been informed about the situation of the Respondent, the Claimant insisted on its claim. 9. On 31 January 2011, FIFA referred the Claimant to the country S Football Federation in order to receive indications so as to protect its interests before the competent authorities in country S. 10. On 14 February 2011, the Claimant submitted a request, stating that “nous avions procédé au versement d’une indemnité permettant l’ouverture d’un dossier devant la chambre de resolution des litiges de la FIFA. Cette démarche n’ayant pas eu le résultat escompté, nous vous demandons de bien vouloir solliciter la FIFA afin que cette dernière procède au remboursement des 5 000 monnaie du pays H engagés”. 11. Free translation into English: “we made the payment of the advance of costs to start proceedings before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber. Since the proceedings did not have the desired result, we request FIFA the reimbursement of the amount of currency of country H 5,000 paid as advance of costs”. 12. On 5 March 2012, the Claimant reverted to FIFA stating that it had contacted a lawyer to follow up with the claim in front of the relevant court in country S, but was advised by the lawyer to proceed with its claim in front of FIFA. 13. On 20 June 2012, FIFA reiterated the content of its correspondence of 31 January 2011. 14. On 2 April 2013, The Claimant insisted on its claim by asserting that, since the right on the basis of the claim is only recognized in the FIFA regulations and not in the country S Law or Civil Law, the country S courts would not recognize a training compensation debt and, consequently, the Claimant would not be included in the list of creditors of the Respondent in the proceedings before the ordinary courts. 15. On 25 July 2013, the Claimant insisted again on its claim. In particular, it asserted that its request to be a creditor in the proceeding before the country S court was dismissed since it was requested too late. In this respect, the Claimant reiterated its request to proceed with the matter in front of FIFA. 16. On 11 November 2013, the Respondent reiterated that the club was under administration as of 1 July 2010 and that, in that moment, all the creditors had the obligation to inform the country S court of their credits. In this regard, and since the Claimant failed to inform the court that it allegedly had the right to receive training compensation, the Respondent is not allowed to pay any debt which was not communicated in due time and included in the creditors’ agreement. 17. As to the impossibility to recognize debts based on FIFA Regulations, the Respondent provided FIFA with a report of the commission that controls the compliance with the creditors’ agreement, which stated that other members of the “football family” were included, upon request, in the Respondent’s creditors list for football-related debts based on FIFA regulations. 18. In addition, in the same report, said commission stressed that it would be impossible now to recognize and enforce an alleged right which already existed before the Respondent was put under administration. 19. As a result, the Respondent requested the closure of the file due to the impossibility to pay any alleged debt which fell due before the declaration of administration and was not included in the creditors’ agreement. 20. On 8 January 2014, upon FIFA request as to the substance, the Respondent reiterated its previous arguments regarding the impossibility to pay the alleged outstanding training compensation. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as DRC or Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 15 February 2010. Consequently, 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 matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the 2008 and 2012 editions 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, in principle, competent to deal with the matter at stake relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations. 3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and after a careful analysis of the file, the DRC noted that on 14 February 2011 the Claimant requested to have its advance of costs reimbursed, stating that the proceedings before the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber did not have the desired result (cf. point I.10). 4. In this respect, the DRC referred to arts. 9 par. 1 lit. h) as well as 17 par. 1 and 5 of the Procedural Rules, in combination with art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and stated that the payment of the advance of costs in accordance with the relevant regulations is a conditio sine qua non in order to lodge a valid claim before FIFA decision-making bodies. A contrario, should a party request the reimbursement of the advance of costs paid in order to lodge its claim, such request would be deemed a manifestation of the party’s wish to withdraw the claim it initially lodged. 5. Having established the above, the Chamber considered that in casu the Claimant, when requesting the reimbursement of the advance of costs, had clearly withdrawn its claim in front of FIFA’s deciding bodies. 6. In continuation, the Chamber acknowledged that, following the withdrawal of its claim, the Claimant had lodged again the same claim against the same Respondent. 7. As a result of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC found it important to analyse the consequences of such withdrawal and subsequent renewal of the Claimant’s claim. 8. In this context, the members of the DRC referred to the well-established procedural principle according to which, once a claim has been sent to the Respondent but is subsequently withdrawn by the Claimant, such withdrawal has the same legal effect as a rejection of the claim. Thus, should the Claimant subsequently re-lodge a claim regarding the same issue and against the same Respondent as in the claim it had previously withdrawn, such renewed claim is to be considered a res iudicata. 9. In view of all of the above, and taking into account that the claim was notified to the Respondent on 14 May 2010, the DRC concluded that the Claimant clearly withdrew its claim after the Respondent was notified of the claim and that, afterwards, it renewed its claim against the same Respondent and on the same subject. 10. Therefore, the DRC concluded that the claim of the Claimant is admissible. 11. Lastly, the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in conjunction with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which, in proceedings before the DRC relating to disputes regarding training compensation and the solidarity mechanism, costs in the maximum amount of currency of country H 25,000 are levied. The relevant provision further states that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and that, in accordance with Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. 12. In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 160,000 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 20,000 (cf. table in Annexe A of the Procedural Rules). 13. As a result, and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant is inadmissible, the DRC judge concluded that the Claimant has to bear the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA. 14. Considering that the case at hand did not compose any complex factual or legal issues, the Chamber determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of country H 10,000. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club B, is inadmissible. 2. The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of country H 10,000 are to be paid by the Claimant to FIFA, within 30 days of notification of the present decision, to the following bank account with reference to case nr.: ***** 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: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Enclosed: CAS directives