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 T, from country G as Claimant against the club, Club P, from country U as Respondent regarding an employment-related contractual dispute arisen 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 T, from country G as Claimant against the club, Club P, from country U as Respondent regarding an employment-related contractual dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 20 February 2008, Player T, from country G (hereinafter: the Claimant), and Club P, from country U (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the date of signature until 31 December 2009. 2. According to art. 3.1.3 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive a monthly remuneration of currency of country U 500,000. 3. On 29 February 2008, the parties signed an annex to the contract (hereinafter: the annex), according to which the Claimant was entitled to the following amounts: - currency of country U 32,000,000 as “incentives” after the signature of the contract; - currency of country U 18,000,000 payable on 15 April 2008; - currency of country U 24,000,000 payable on 10 March 2009; - currency of country U 24,000,000 payable on 10 July 2009. 4. On 29 October 2009, the Claimant lodged a complaint before FIFA against the Respondent, requesting, after amending his claim, that the latter should proceed with the payment of the total amount of currency of country U 48,000,000, made up of: - currency of country U 24,000,000 corresponding to the payment due on 10 March 2009; - currency of country U 24,000,000 corresponding to the payment due on 10 July 2009. 5. With his claim, the Claimant provided FIFA with copies of three letters addressed to the country U Football Federation, dated 3 March 2009, 24 July 2009 and 3 August 2009, which state as follows: - Claimant’s letter dated 3 March 2009: the Claimant states that, in spite of having always complied with his professional obligations as per the employment contract, by the beginning of the season 2009, the Respondent stopped paying his salaries and included him in the transfers list. Despite the alleged interest of many clubs, he could not be transferred to a new club and was excluded from the training of the main squad. In addition, the Respondent allegedly authorized him to go to country G and promised that his salaries would be paid, but not the other amounts established in the contract, since 70% of the 2009 matches would be held without his participation. - Claimant’s letter dated 24 July 2009: the Claimant states that his previous letter has remained unanswered and without effect. - Claimant’s letter dated 3 August 2009: the Claimant stated that, after concluding his treatment in country G in January 2009, he re-joined the Respondent club in perfect physical condition. However, he was without any explanation prohibited by the Respondent’s coach to participate in trainings. The Claimant equally claimed having been forced to leave the Respondent club in April 2009, allegedly without explanation, and advised to wait for the Respondent to contact him, which never occurred. 6. In its response, the Respondent did not submit any comments as to the substance of the claim, but enclosed copies of several documents related to the Claimant’s employment, as follows: - Respondent’s “protocol no. 2” dated 20 February 2009: concerning a meeting held by the Respondent, in which the latter, inter alia, acknowledged the existence of a foot injury of the Claimant, agreed to send him to country G for medical treatment and decided not to register him for the country U cup championship “if the health is not well”. - Respondent’s “order no. 9 A” dated 4 March 2009: which states that “Because of his leaving the staff, make account for salary to country G football player T to the existing contract from January 1 up to June 20, 2009”. - Respondent’s “protocol no. 5” dated 13 July 2009: concerning a meeting held by the Respondent, and according to which the Claimant had not yet returned from country G after his medical treatment and did not answer to the letters allegedly sent to him by the Respondent on 15 May 2009 and 7 June 2009. Consequently, the Respondent concluded that the Claimant should be transferred “because of his irresponsibleness”. - Respondent’s “order no 36” dated 14 July 2009: by means of which the chairman of the Respondent club ordered “to cancel the contract” signed on 1 February 2008 with the Claimant, with effect as of 14 July 2009, due to the fact that he did not resume his activities with the Respondent after his treatment, did not show discipline towards the Respondent’s staff and disregarded “the orders of the club leaders and trainers.” Additionally, “full accounting with Player T.” was ordered. - Claimant’s authorisation letter dated 11 August 2009: authorizing Player L to “take full debts of the club”, “to sign instead of me and do any activities depending on the implementation of these assignments”. - Respondent’s “cash expenditure warrant” dated 24 August 2009: issued by the Respondent, in the amount of currency of country U 1,143,960, corresponding to “football Player T’s account” and given to “football Player T.”. - Respondent’s letter dated 23 September 2010: addressed to the General Director of Professional Football League country U and according to which the Respondent “made full calculation with the football player T, […] on 24 August 2009 by proxy sent by the football player from country G and certified notarilly, full calculation has been given out Player L”. 7. In his replica, the Claimant states that the documentation presented by the Respondent was unilaterally issued by the latter and does not reflect the truth. 8. The Claimant states having left to country G for his vacations in December 2008, the travel expenses having been borne by the Respondent. The Respondent, however, did not provide him with the means to return to country U in the beginning of January 2009. Thus, the Claimant organized and bore the costs of his return to country U, on 15 January 2009. In this respect, he encloses a statement of the player T, dated 21 February 2011, according to which ”Player T bought the ticket on his own money with us and we all three on the first available flights on 15 January appear on the base of the club”. A stamp on the Claimant’s passport, a copy of which was provided by the latter, indicates that he left country G on 15 January 2009. 9. Due to the long duration of the trip, the Claimant had a stiff ankle and, therefore, had to undergo physiotherapy for 10 days in country G, the costs of which were borne by the Respondent. A stamp on the Claimant’s passport, a copy of which was provided by the Claimant, indicates that he returned to country G on 29 January 2009. 10. On 12 February 2009, as the Claimant returned to the headquarters of the Respondent and, in spite of being in good health, he was allegedly obliged to train alone and was excluded from the national championship. The Claimant allegedly questioned the Respondent about the reasons of his exclusion, but received no answer. By the beginning of April 2009, the Respondent allegedly provided him with a return ticket to country G and never again contacted him until 5 August 2009, when he received from the Respondent its letter of 14 July 2009, according to which their contract was terminated. The Claimant claims never having received any warnings from the Respondent prior to such termination letter. A stamp on the Claimant’s passport, a copy of which was provided by the Claimant, indicates that he left country U on 6 April 2009. 11. Disposing of no funds to return to country U, the Claimant granted another player, Player L, an authorization to receive on his behalf the amounts due to him by the Respondent, dated 11 August 2009. However, instead of the due currency of country U 24,000,000, the Claimant claims having received from Mr. L only the amount of currency of country U 1,000,000. Therefore, the Claimant deems that the Respondent has not entirely acquitted its debts towards him, as it claims. 12. In addition, on 20 February 2009, as “protocol no 2” was issued, the Claimant had already concluded his medical treatment and was already in country U, since 12 February 2009. Therefore, the content of the aforementioned document is incorrect. In this respect, the Claimant provides FIFA with a copy of a medical statement, according to which his physician confirms that “from 2 February 2009 to 12 February 2009 [the player] passed the ten-day full course of manual therapy with diagnosis inflammation of legs ankle joints. I declare with full responsibility that the course of treatment was successful and at the time of its completion the footballer was absolutely healthy”, as well as a copy of his passport containing the arrival stamp in Tashkent on 12 February 2012. 13. The Claimant finally states never having received any warnings from the Respondent dated 15 May and 7 June 2009 and rejects the Respondent’s accusations according to which he never resumed his activities with it after his medical treatment and showed lack of discipline towards its personnel. 14. In its final position, the Respondent maintains its previous argumentation and states that the value of the ticket purchased by the Claimant was reimbursed by the Respondent upon the Claimant’s arrival. 15. According to the Respondent, the Claimant left by the end of January 2009 with the results of several exams, in order to undergo surgery in country G. As he returned to country U in February 2009, he allegedly refused to undergo medical assessment by the club. Since his health condition was uncertain, he was assigned to train with the reserve team. In order to allow him to resume his activities in the second half of the championship, the Respondent decided to bear the costs of the Claimant’s rehabilitation in country G and paid him all due contractually amounts for January until July 2009. After the conclusion of his treatment, the Claimant however never returned to country U. 16. The Claimant claims not having signed any new employment contract after the termination of the contract with the Respondent. 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 29 October 2009. 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 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2009) (hereinafter: the Regulations), he is competent to decide on the present litigation, to the extent that concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a country G player and an country U club. 3. Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which edition of the Regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter concerning the contractual dispute between the parties. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Regulations (edition 2009) and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 29 October 2009, the 2009 edition of said 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 judge entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, he started to acknowledge the facts of the case as well as the documents contained in the file. 5. In this respect, the DRC judge acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that they had signed an employment contract and an annex to it, on 20 and on 29 February 2008, respectively, valid as from the date of signature until 31 December 2009, and according to which the Claimant was entitled to receive, inter alia, currency of country U 500,000 as monthly remuneration, currency of country U 32,000,000 as “incentives” after the signature of the contract, currency of country U 18,000,000 on 15 April 2008, currency of country U 24,000,000 payable on 10 March 2009, and currency of country U 24,000,000 payable on 10 July 2009. 6. The DRC judge further noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant claims, inter alia, that the Respondent excluded him from the trainings of the main squad, failed to pay him the installments due to him on 10 March 2009 and on 10 July 2009 as per the annex to the contract, in the total amount of currency of country U 48,000,000, and terminated the contract without any previous warning or just cause, by means of its letter of 14 July 2009. 7. Before that, the Claimant claims having been obligated to return to country G in the beginning of April 2009 and wait for a contact of the Respondent, regarding his participation in the second half of the championship. However, the Claimant claims never having been contacted by the Respondent, until the 5 August 2009, when he received the aforementioned termination letter. 8. The Claimant equally explains that, after the termination, and in order to receive from the Respondent the amounts that he deemed still due, i.e. the aforementioned installments in the total amount of currency of country U 48,000,000, he granted a fellow player, Player L, an authorization dated 11 August 2009, authorizing him to “take full debts of the club”, “to sign instead of me and do any activities depending on the implementation of these assignments”. 9. The DRC judge also noted that the Claimant, however, claims having received from Player L only the amount of currency of country U 1,000,000, instead of the currency of country U 48,000,000 that he considered to be the correct amount of the debt of the Respondent towards him. Therefore, the Claimant claims before FIFA the payment of the aforementioned amount of currency of country U 48,000,000. 10. Subsequently, the DRC judge took due note of the allegations of the Respondent, who claims, on the other hand, that the Claimant did not resume his activities with it after the conclusion of his medical treatment, the costs of which were allegedly bore by the Respondent. In this regard, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent does not indicate a specific date for the Claimant’s departure, but claims having sent him reminders dated 14 May 2009 and 7 June 2009. In this particular, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent did not provide a copy of such reminders and the Claimant denies having received them. 11. Based on the Claimant’s allegedly unjustified absence and lack of discipline and respect towards the club’s staff, on 14 July 2009, the Respondent terminated the employment contract in writing and ordered “full accounting with Player T”. 12. The DRC judge further noted that, according to the Respondent, all amounts due were paid to the Claimant, via his representative, Player L, which collected such amounts and signed a receipt on behalf of the Claimant, thoroughly extinguishing their financial obligations as per the employment contract. Therefore, the Respondent deems that the claim of the Claimant should be rejected. 13. Having established the aforementioned, the DRC judge concluded that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the claim of the Claimant and the allegations of the Respondent, was firstly to determine whether the Claimant was entitled to receive the amounts claimed in the Claim and subsequently to establish whether the financial obligations of the Respondent towards the Claimant could be considered as extinguished, as the Respondent claims. 14. Before analyzing the positions presented by the parties to the dispute and in view of the multitude of arguments and documents presented by the both of them, the DRC judge deemed it appropriate to emphasize that the following outline of the parties‘ arguments is illustrative and does not comprise every contention put forward by them. However, the DRC judge has carefully considered all submissions made by the parties, even if no explicit reference to those submissions is made in the following analysis. 15. Having said that, the DRC judge started analyzing the main aspects of the positions of both the Claimant and the Respondent, firstly those related to the termination of the contract and the outstanding amounts due by that date. 16. In this context, the DRC judge noted that both parties appear to agree upon the fact that - regardless of the apparent movements of the Claimant between country G and country U between January and July 2009 on dates that are partially disputed by the parties - on 14 July 2009, the contract was unilaterally terminated by the Respondent, in writing. In this regard, the DRC judge observed that the termination was not contested by the Claimant, who subsequently started taking the necessary measures to collect the amounts he considered as still outstanding by the Respondent. 17. Having established the date of termination on 14 July 2009, the DRC judge went on to determine which amounts were to be considered as outstanding by the time of termination. In this regard, he took into account the allegations of the Claimant, according to which the total amount of currency of country U 48,000,000, corresponding to the two installments of currency of country U 24,000,000 each, due on 10 March 2009 and on 10 July 2009, had not been paid by the Respondent. In continuation, the DRC judge equally observed that the Respondent did not provide evidence that those amounts had already been entirely paid to the Claimant before the termination and were, therefore, no longer claimable. 18. At this point and for the sake of good order, the DRC judge recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right from an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. 19. Bearing in mind the aforementioned article as well as the allegations of the parties, the DRC judge concluded that the Respondent was not able to present consistent evidence regarding the payment of the aforementioned installments before it terminated the contract, on 14 July 2009. In view of the foregoing and taking into account the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the DRC judge concluded that, in principle, the Claimant has the right to demand the payment of the amount of currency of country U 48,000,000 from the Respondent, corresponding to the installments due on 10 March 2009 and on 10 July 2009. 20. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the DRC judge took due note of the fact that, in order to demand the payment of the aforementioned amount from the Respondent, the Claimant, alleging not having the financial means of travelling himself to country U, provided a fellow player, Player L with an authorization to collect the amounts due to him by the Respondent. 21. At this point, the DRC judge deemed it appropriate to recall the wording of said authorization, dated 11 August 2009, as follows: “I, Player T, depute/authorize Player L that, he can take full debts of the club P capital city in country U instead of me, according to my personal contract with this club. According to this, he has a right to sign instead of me and do any activities depending on the implementation of these assignments”. 22. Subsequently, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent provided FIFA with a “cash expenditure warrant” dated 24 August 2009, issued by the Respondent, in the amount of currency of country U 1,143,960, corresponding to “football player Player T’s account” and given to “football player Player L.”, as well as with a letter of the Respondent dated 23 September 2010, addressed to the General Director of Professional Football League country U, according to which it “made full calculation with the football player T, […] on 24 August 2009 by proxy sent by the football player from country G and certified notarilly, full calculation has been given out Player L”. 23. In view of the foregoing, the DRC judge noted that, by means of his authorization of 11 August 2009, the Claimant authorized Player L to “take full debts of the club”, “to sign instead of me and do any activities depending on the implementation of these assignments”. In addition, the DRC judge noted that said authorization does not specify the amount to be collected by Player L on behalf of the Claimant. 24. The DRC judge, after analyzing the content of said document, concluded that by granting a fellow player with such a broad and non-specific authorization, the Claimant accepted the risk of not obtaining the full calculation of his debts with the Respondent, which he expected, but did not explicitly specify in writing. In this context, the DRC judge deemed it appropriate to emphasize that a party signing a document of legal importance without precisely specifying its content, as a general rule, does so on its own responsibility and is consequently liable to bear the possible legal consequences arising from the execution of such document. 25. In the present case, by means of the document “cash expenditure warrant” dated 24 August 2009, issued by the Respondent and apparently signed by the Claimant’s authorized representative, the debt of the Respondent towards the Claimant was acquitted, even though not in the amount expected by the Claimant, as this amount was nowhere specified. 26. Therefore, the DRC judge concluded that the content of the authorization dated 11 August 2011 had been exhausted and that the debt of the Respondent towards the Claimant had been acquitted, as Player L, making use of the powers granted to him, signed the aforementioned “cash expenditure warrant”. 27. In view of all the aforementioned arguments, the DRC judge concluded that the claim of the Claimant had to be rejected. ** III. Decision of the DRC judge The claim of the Claimant, Player T, is rejected. ** 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 Encl. CAS directives