F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2012-2013) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2012-2013) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 6 March 2013, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player G, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club D, from country C as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2012-2013) - controversie di lavoro - ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2012-2013) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 6 March 2013, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player G, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club D, from country C as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 13 July 2009, Player G, from country B (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the Club D, from country C (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an employment contract valid “from the day of receiving a valid International Transfer Certificate (ITC)” until 31 May 2011, in accordance with which the Claimant would receive the following amounts: - EUR 20,000 payable in ten monthly installments of EUR 2,000 for the season 2009/2010, the first installment due on 31 August 2009; - EUR 20,000 payable in ten monthly installments of EUR 2,000 for the season 2010/2011, the first installment due on 31 August 2010. 2. On 14 July 2009, the parties concluded an agreement by means of which the Respondent agreed to pay the Claimant the following additional amounts: - EUR 20,000 payable in ten monthly installments of EUR 2,000 for the season 2009/2010, the first installment due on 31 August 2009; - EUR 25,000 payable in ten monthly installments of EUR 2,500 for the season 2010/2011, the first installment due on 31 August 2010. 3. On 5 September 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent indicating that the Respondent had failed to pay him his salaries since January 2011. Therefore, the Claimant claimed the total amount of EUR 22,500 as well as 5% interest “from the date of the installments until full payment” and legal costs. 4. In reply to the claim lodged against it, the Respondent first of all asserted that FIFA has no jurisdiction to decide on the present matter since, according to “general terms of the contract”, the country C Football Association has jurisdiction to “try the case”. 5. As to the substance, the Respondent referred to several letters in which it asked the Claimant to attend a meeting and by means of which it informed the Claimant that he had caused damages to the car and apartment he had been using. The Respondent asserted that the Claimant failed to pay the following amounts: - EUR 280 to the management committee of his apartment and EUR 129,80 as “shared expenses for the lessors of the complex an obligation of the Claimant that the Respondent has paid”. In this respect, the Respondent submitted a document by means of which a certain Mr R stated that “a resident” did not yet pay the amounts of EUR 280 and EUR 129,80, as well as an additional document provided in the country C language only; - EUR 95,59 for “the bill for electricity power and as a result the club paid for these expenses”. In this respect, the Respondent submitted a bill in the country C language only; - EUR 1,300 for the damage to the car. In this respect, the Respondent submitted a document, by means of which a certain Mr P stated that the costs for repairing “the car” amounted to EUR 1,300. 6. Although having been asked by FIFA to provide a copy of all the original and translated documents it had enclosed to its correspondence, the Respondent did not provide such documentation. 7. Upon request of FIFA to be provided with a copy of the relevant documentation which would establish that there exists an independent national arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of players and clubs in country C, the Respondent provided FIFA with the Regulations for the Registration and Transfer of Football Players of the country C Football Association that came into force on 15 June 2005 (hereinafter: the country C Regulations;). 8. According to the country C Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Committee (hereinafter: NDRC) is composed of five members, namely the Chairman, the Vice- Chairman and one member, all appointed by the Executive Committee of the country C Football Association, and two members appointed by the country C Football Players’ Association (art. 22.1.1 and art. 22.1.3). The decisions are taken by simple majority (art. 22.8.1), subsequent to a summary and written procedure (art. 22.13.1 and art. 22.13.3). Clubs affiliated to the country C Football Association, football players and other interested persons are entitled to lodge a claim before the NDRC (art. 22.13.5). Any decision of the NDRC may be appealed to the Disciplinary Authority of the country C Football Association, which shall reach a final decision (art. 22.10). II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the DRC judge took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 5 September 2011. Consequently, the DRC 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 matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. With regard to the competence of the DRC judge, art. 3 of the Procedural Rules states that the DRC judge shall examine his jurisdiction in the light of art. 22 to 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012). In accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 lit. i. in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the aforementioned Regulations, the DRC judge would, in principle, be competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment- related dispute with an international dimension between a country B player and a country C club, the litigious value of which does not exceed currency of country H 100,000. 3. However, the DRC judge acknowledged that the Respondent contested the competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of “general terms of the contract”. 4. In this respect, the DRC judge referred to the content of the contract and agreement and underlined that said documents did not contain any jurisdiction clause, i.e. both the contract and the agreement did not contain a provision referring to the competence of any national dispute resolution chamber or any similar arbitration body of the country C Football Association for disputes arising out of the execution of the contract or the agreement. Thus, the DRC judge deemed that it was obvious that the parties to the present dispute had never agreed to submit any possible dispute to the relevant arbitration bodies of the country C Football Association. 5. Furthermore, and for the sake of completeness only, the DRC judge outlined that in accordance with art. 22 lit. b) of the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players he is competent to deal with a matter such as the one at hand, unless an independent arbitration tribunal, guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of players and clubs, has been established at national level within the framework of the Association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. With regard to the standards to be imposed on an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings, the DRC judge referred to FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20 December 2005. In this regard, the DRC judge further referred to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008. 6. In this context, the DRC judge referred to the established jurisprudence of the DRC which, already on several occasions, established that the NDRC of the country C Football Association does not meet the minimum procedural standards for independent arbitration tribunals as laid down in art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. 7. In view of all the above, the DRC judge established that, in line with the constant jurisprudence of the DRC together with the fact that neither the contract nor the agreement contains a jurisdiction clause in favour of the NDRC of the country C Football Association, the Respondent’s objection to the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected and that the DRC judge is competent, on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, to consider the present matter as to the substance. 8. Subsequently, the DRC 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 confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010 and 2012) and considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 5 September 2011, the 2010 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 9. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. The DRC judge started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the documentation contained in the file. 10. First of all, the DRC judge acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an employment contract valid as from 31 July 2009 until 31 May 2011 as well as a supplementary agreement for the corresponding period of time. As to the financial terms of said contract and agreement, the DRC judge took note that it had been agreed upon between the parties that the Respondent would remunerate the Claimant as follows: Employment contract - EUR 20,000 payable in ten monthly installments of EUR 2,000 for the season 2009/2010, the first installment due on 31 August 2009; - EUR 20,000 payable in ten monthly installments of EUR 2,000 for the season 2010/2011 the first installment due on 31 August 2010. Supplementary agreement - EUR 20,000 payable in ten monthly installments of EUR 2,000 for the season 2009/2010 the first installment due on 31 August 2009; - EUR 25,000 payable in ten monthly installments of EUR 2,500 for the season 2010/2011 the first installment due on 31 August 2010. 11. The DRC judge further observed that the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent seeking payment of the amount of EUR 22,500, indicating that the Respondent had stopped paying the Claimant since January 2011 and that, thus, five monthly instalments had not been paid. 12. Subsequently, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent, in its defence, provided several documents, however, it did not dispute that the payments of January, February, March, April and May 2011 had not been paid. 13. In relation to the documentation provided by Respondent, the DRC judge recalled the basic principle of the burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Similarly, the DRC judge referred to art. 9 par. 1 lit. e) of the Procedural Rules which stipulates that all documents of relevance to the dispute shall be submitted in the original version as well as translated into one of the official FIFA languages. 14. In this context, the DRC judge noted that, although having been asked to do so, the Respondent did not provide a translated version of the documents it enclosed to its submission in the country C language only. In view of the foregoing and taking into consideration art. 9 of the Procedural Rules, the DRC judge decided that it could not take into account the relevant documents which were not translated into an official FIFA language. 15. As to the documentary evidence presented in the country E language, the DRC judge observed that such documents did not make an explicit reference to the Claimant. Therefore, the DRC judge decided that said documents could not be considered as a legitimate basis to justify any deductions from the amount claimed by the Claimant. 16. Consequently, the DRC judge considered that the Respondent had not sufficiently substantiated its defence, as it did not present any conclusive documentary evidence which could adduce that certain amounts should be deducted from the outstanding salary payments of January, February, March, April and May 2011. 17. In view of all the above and, in particular, taking into account that the Respondent did not contest that the relevant salaries had remained unpaid, the DRC judge decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent must fulfil its contractual obligations towards the Claimant and is to be held liable to pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 22,500, corresponding to five monthly salaries amounting to EUR 4,500 each. 18. In continuation and with regard to the Claimant's request for interest, the DRC judge decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 22,500 until the date of effective payment as follows: a. 5% p.a. as of 1 February 2011 on the amount of EUR 4,500; b. 5% p.a. as of 1 March 2011 on the amount of EUR 4,500; c. 5% p.a. as of 1 April 2011 on the amount of EUR 4,500; d. 5% p.a. as of 1 May 2011 on the amount of EUR 4,500; e. 5% p.a. as of 1 June 2011 on the amount of EUR 4,500. 19. The DRC judge further decided that the Claimant's claim for legal costs is rejected, in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the respective longstanding jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. 20. The DRC judge concluded his deliberations in the present matter by rejecting any further claim of the Claimant. ** III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player G, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted. 3. 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 22,500 plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows: a. 5% p.a. as of 1 February 2011 on the amount of EUR 4,500; b. 5% p.a. as of 1 March 2011 on the amount of EUR 4,500; c. 5% p.a. as of 1 April 2011 on the amount of EUR 4,500; d. 5% p.a. as of 1 May 2011 on the amount of EUR 4,500; e. 5% p.a. as of 1 June 2011 on the amount of EUR 4,500. 4. 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. 5. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the DRC judge of every payment received. 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 DRC judge: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives