F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2012-2013) – contributo di solidarietà – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2012-2013) – solidarity contribution – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 17 May 2013, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the club, Club R, from country C as Claimant against the club, Club P, from country G as Respondent regarding a solidarity contribution dispute related to the international transfer of the player L

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2012-2013) - contributo di solidarietà – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2012-2013) - solidarity contribution – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 17 May 2013, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the club, Club R, from country C as Claimant against the club, Club P, from country G as Respondent regarding a solidarity contribution dispute related to the international transfer of the player L I. Facts of the case 1. The Football Association of country C (hereinafter: FAC) confirmed that the player L (hereinafter: the player), born on 27 January 1976, was registered with its affiliated club, club R (hereinafter: the Claimant), as from 5 August 1991 until 31 July 1997. 2. The football season in country C during the period of time the player was registered with the Claimant started on 1 July and ended on 30 June of the following year. 3. The Football Federation of country G (hereinafter: FFG) informed FIFA that the player was registered with its affiliated club, P (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 22 August 2005. 4. According to the information provided by the Claimant, the country C club, club X, and the Respondent agreed upon the transfer of the player from club X to the Respondent. 5. On 31 March 2006, the Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA, claiming its proportion of the solidarity contribution in connection with the abovementioned transfer. In this respect, the Claimant requested 2,7679% of the total compensation. 6. On 18 August 2006, the Respondent firstly stated that it was willing to pay its debt to the Claimant and proposed to pay the solidarity contribution in five monthly instalments. Subsequently, on 12 February 2007, the Respondent requested FIFA to help to calculate the amount due. 7. However, on 6 March 2012, the Respondent changed its position and alleged that the claim of the Claimant was time-barred. Alternatively, the Respondent alleged that the player was “a free player and no transfer fee was paid” and that, for this reason, no amount is payable as a solidarity contribution. 8. On 11 May 2012, the Claimant provided an e-mail it received from club X, which confirmed that “The player was in the time of the transfer under professional contract, which was cancelled because of the transfer. The transfer fee of this transfer, dated on 10.07.2005 on the basic of signed contract was EUR 30,000.” 9. On 11 June 2012, the Respondent reiterated its position that no transfer compensation had been paid and, in relation to the e-mail, stressed that no contract or any evidence whatsoever was actually produced to support that a transfer compensation was indeed paid. Finally, the Respondent referred to a statement of the Football Association of country C (“It is clear that the transfer agreement, if any”) asserting that even the Football Association of country R acknowledged that it has doubts regarding the existence of any transfer agreement. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First of all, the DRC judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 31 March 2006. Consequently, the 2005 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. article 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012) the DRC judge is competent to decide on the present litigation which is of an international dimension, and concerns the distribution of solidarity contribution between two clubs belonging to different Associations in connection with the international transfer of the player. 3. Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with the Respondent on 22 August 2005, the DRC judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012) and considering that the present claim was lodged on 31 March 2006, the 2005 edition of said Regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the present matter as to the substance. 4. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, the DRC judge started to acknowledge the facts of the case as well as the documents contained in the file. 5. The DRC judge started by acknowledging that the Claimant claimed solidarity contribution in the proportion of 2,7679% for the transfer of the player L from club X to the Respondent. 6. In this respect, the DRC judge referred to art. 21 as well as art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations which stipulate that if a professional is transferred before the expiry of his contract, 5% of any compensation, with the exception of training compensation, paid to his former club shall be deducted from the total amount of this compensation and distributed by the new club as a solidarity contribution to the club(s) involved in the training and education of the player between the seasons of the player’s 12th and 23rd birthdays. 7. As a preliminary remark, the DRC judge noted the Respondent’s allegations regarding the prescription of the matter at hand. In this regard, the DRC judge pointed out that the player was registered with the Respondent on 22 August 2005 as well as that the claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 31 March 2006. Consequently and pursuant to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations and considering that according to art. 2 par. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations the new club shall pay the solidarity contribution to the training club(s) no later than 30 days after the player’s registration, the DRC judge found no basis for concluding that the matter is time-barred. 8. The DRC judge then acknowledged that the player was registered with the Claimant as from 5 August 1991 until 31 July 1997, this is, from the season of the player’s 16th birthday until the beginning of the season of the player’s 22th birthday. In this context, the DRC judge noted that an international transfer took place when the player moved from the country C club, club X, to the Respondent. 9. In continuation, the DRC judge observed that the Respondent initially affirmed its willingness to pay the outstanding solidarity contribution as well as requested assistance from FIFA in order to make the calculation. However, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent eventually contested the claim arguing that no transfer fee was paid and that, thus, the Claimant is not entitled to receive solidarity contribution for the training and education of the player in accordance with art. 21 and Annexe 5 of the Regulations. 10. Equally, the DRC judge carefully considered the evidence provided by the Claimant, in particular the e-mail sent by the former club of the player, which had confirmed that the player was transferred to the Respondent for the amount of EUR 30,000. Taking into consideration this statement of the former club of the player as well as taking into account the initial stance of the Respondent which had acknowledged that it had to pay solidarity contribution to the Claimant, the DRC judge concluded that it had been sufficiently proven that in fact a transfer compensation in the amount of EUR 30,000 had been paid for the transfer of the player from club X to the Respondent. 11. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that solidarity contribution was due. 12. Having established that the Respondent is obliged to pay solidarity contribution to the Claimant, the DRC judge then turned to the calculation of the pertinent amount. In this respect, the DRC judge took in consideration that the player, born on 27 January 1976, was registered with the Claimant as from 5 August 1991 until 31 July 1997. 13. As a result, the DRC judge decided that, in accordance with article 1 of Annex 5 to the Regulations as well as the Claimant’s request, the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 830 to the Claimant. 14. The DRC judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any further claim lodged by the Claimant. ***** III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club R, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant, Club R, is partially accepted. 3. The Respondent, Club P, has to pay to the Claimant, Club R, the amount of EUR 830 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 4. If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, an interest rate of 5% per year will apply as of expiry of the fixed time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant, Club R, is rejected. 6. The Claimant, Club R, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club P, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance 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 DRC judge: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Enclosed: CAS directives