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 A, from country S as Claimant against the club, Club F, from country G 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 A, from country S as Claimant against the club, Club F, from country G as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 30 January 2007, Player A, from country S (hereinafter: the Claimant), and Club F, from country G (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the date of signature until 31 December 2007. 2. According to the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive the following remuneration: - EUR 90,000 net as fixed salary; - EUR 10,000 net as bonus in case of qualifying for the Europa League; - other bonuses pursuant to the Respondent’s Internal Regulations, later on calculated and acknowledged by the parties in the amount of EUR 13,801. 3. On 24 August 2007, the parties signed a document by means of which the Respondent acknowledged the following outstanding bonuses payable to the Claimant: - EUR 10,000 for the Europa League’s classification; - EUR 13,801 for minutes played, that will be paid in two installments of EUR 6,900.50 each, on 10 October 2007 and 10 December 2007. 4. On 4 March 2008, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA requesting to be awarded with a total amount of EUR 35,679.02 plus the default interests, calculated as follows: - EUR 17,479.92 as outstanding salaries; - EUR 10,000 with regards to the bonus for the Europa League’s qualification; - EUR 6,950 still pending from the abovementioned bonus for minutes played; - EUR 1,250 still pending from an extra bonus of EUR 2,500 for having passed the first round of the Europa League. 5. The Claimant also explained that he was injured during a certain period of time of the contract, but the Respondent did not acknowledge such injury and said it was a fake injury. The Claimant was informed of the latter by means of a registered letter dated 15 November 2007. 6. The Respondent replied to the claim, alleging that both parties had reached a verbal settlement agreement by means of which the Respondent would pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 19,000 and the Claimant would withdraw the claim. In this context, the Respondent stated it paid the agreed amount on 4 April 2008. 7. Notwithstanding the above, the Respondent indicated that, in case the Claimant did not acknowledge the abovementioned settlement agreement, the due amount would be EUR 2,893.57. The Respondent based this statement on the following points: a) The Respondent stresses that the Claimant recognized, and proved, he already received the amount of EUR 80,670.08 from the Respondent. b) The Respondent does not acknowledge the extra bonus of EUR 2,500 which the Claimant asserts was due for passing the first round of the Europa League. c) The Respondent states it paid the Claimant the amount of EUR 19,000 as agreed in the verbal settlement agreement. d) The Respondent indicates it paid, on behalf of the Claimant, two plane tickets in the amount of EUR 818 in total. The Respondent encloses a document signed by the Claimant, dated 3 May 2007, which specifies the payment of EUR 818 for two plane tickets and which states: “the payment was made by Club F and was accepted to be deducted from the amounts the player is entitled to receive from its contract with the club”. e) The Respondent argues it paid, on behalf of the Claimant, EUR 419.35 corresponding to the contribution to the insurance policy which was the Claimant’s obligation. f) Finally, the Respondent indicates that the Respondent’s Board of Directors imposed a fine of EUR 10,000 on the Claimant for not following the team for a crucial match due to a, according to them, faked injury. 8. In view of the above, the calculation according to the Respondent looked as follows: EUR 113,801 - EUR 80,670.08 - EUR 19,000 - EUR 818 - EUR 419.35 - EUR 10,000 = EUR 2,893.57 9. Consequently, the Respondent requested the Claimant to acknowledge the verbal settlement agreement or, in case the Claimant denied such agreement, to decide that the total of EUR 2,893.57 is the due amount. 10. The Claimant, in his rejoinder, denied any settlement agreement reached by the parties, however, he acknowledged the payment of EUR 19,000 by the Respondent. 11. Moreover, the Claimant alleged that the Respondent’s arguments to justify the fine of EUR 10,000 are false. He added that he was never notified about such decision of the Board of the Respondent and so he was never given the opportunity to defend himself. 12. In addition, the Claimant rejected the deductions mentioned by the Respondent. Particularly, the Claimant stated that the EUR 818 in relation to the plane tickets should not be deducted as, according to him, the contract provides that the Respondent would pay for one return ticket for the player and his family. The Claimant also rejected the deduction of EUR 419,15 regarding the contribution to the insurance policy, indicating that he did not know anything about this obligation and that, as far as he knows, the Respondent did not apply this deduction to the other players of the team. 13. Finally, in view of the payment of the Respondent, the Claimant adjusted the amount initially claimed and requested FIFA to be awarded with EUR 16,580.20 plus the “legal interests”. 14. The Respondent, in its final position, repeated its previous statements. 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 4 March 2008. Consequently, the 2005 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. 18 par. 1 and 2 of the 2005 edition of the Procedural Rules in conjunction with art. 21 par. 2 and par. 3 of the 2008 and 2012 editions 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. in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012) the DRC judge is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a country S player and a country G club. 3. In particular, and in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 lit. i) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the DRC judge confirmed that he may adjudicate in the present dispute which value does not exceed currency of country C 100,000. 4. Subsequently, the DRC judge analyzed which edition of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfers of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012), and, on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 4 March 2008. The DRC judge concluded that the 2008 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. 5. 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, he started by acknowledging the abovementioned facts of the case as well as the documentation contained in the file. 6. In this respect, the DRC judge acknowledged that the parties had signed a valid employment contract on 30 January 2007, in accordance with which the Respondent would pay the Claimant a total remuneration in the amount of EUR 113,801 for the whole term of the contract, of which EUR 90,000 corresponded to fixed salary, EUR 10,000 to a bonus for special classification of the team and EUR 13,801 corresponded to extra bonuses for minutes played with the Respondent. 7. The DRC judge then turned to the complaint of the Claimant, who, in his first position maintained that the country G club had failed to pay him the amount of EUR 35,679.02, however, during the course of the investigation of the matter at hand, the Claimant amended his initial petition after acknowledging a partial payment of EUR 19,000 by the Respondent and, consequently, the Claimant concluded that the Respondent had failed to pay him the amount of EUR 16,580.20. 8. In continuation, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent, in its statement of defence, stated that it had reached a settlement agreement with the Claimant, by means of which it would pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 19,000 and the latter would withdraw the claim lodged in front of FIFA. In this context, 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. In relation to the foregoing, the DRC judge took note that the Respondent did not provide any documentary evidence in this respect and moreover, that the Claimant, although he acknowledged the payment of EUR 19,000, denied having reached a settlement agreement agreeing upon the above-mentioned terms with the Respondent. 9. Furthermore, the DRC judge took note of the additional arguments of the Respondent, who acknowledged having a debt towards the Claimant only in the amount of EUR 2,893.57. 10. In this respect, the Respondent denied the entitlement of the Claimant to a bonus in the amount of EUR 2,500 for passing the first round of the Europa League, as the Claimant maintained. In this context, the DRC judge established that the employment contract did not contain any bonus specification under this concept and, furthermore, that the Claimant failed to prove that he was entitled to the aforementioned bonus. In view of the foregoing, the DRC judge decided that the Claimant’s request in relation to the bonus for passing the first round of the Europa League should be rejected. 11. Additionally, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent sustained that, from the amount requested by the Claimant, the amount of EUR 818 should be deducted according to the Claimant’s own statement dated 3 May 2007 in which he accepted such deduction. In this regard, the DRC judge acknowledged the written statement signed by the Claimant, by means of which he accepted that the payment by the Respondent of EUR 818 for two plane tickets should be deducted from the amounts to which the Claimant was entitled to, as per the employment contract. Therefore, the DRC judge established that the amount paid by the Respondent on behalf of the Claimant for two plane tickets should be deducted from the outstanding amount requested by the Claimant. 12. Equally, the DRC judge took note that the Respondent argued that the amount of EUR 419.35 paid by the Respondent for the concept of contribution to the insurance policy should as well be deducted from the Claimant’s petition, as it was his financial obligation and not the Respondent’s obligation. In this respect, the DRC judge noted that the employment contract did not contain any sort of reference to this concept and that the Claimant rejected this argument of the Respondent as he had not been previously informed about this alleged obligation. Therefore, the DRC judge decided that the request of the Respondent with regards to the contribution to the insurance policy should be rejected. 13. Furthermore, the DRC judge turned to the statement of the Respondent regarding a fine imposed on the Claimant by the Board of Directors of the Respondent for an alleged misconduct. Subsequently, the DRC judge took note that the Claimant indicated that he was never notified about such decision of the Board of Directors and, therefore, that he was not given the opportunity to defend himself from the Respondent’s allegations. 14. In this regard, the DRC judge, once more referring to the basic principle of the burden of proof, considered that it could not be established from the documentation presented by the Respondent that the Claimant was duly notified of the internal process initiated against him and the subsequent fine imposed on him. Therefore, the DRC judge decided that the fine imposed by the Respondent on the Claimant should be disregarded. 15. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the DRC judge established that the Respondent did not comply in full with its financial obligations and that, therefore, the Claimant was entitled to certain outstanding amounts. In calculating the outstanding amounts owed to the Claimant, the DRC judge took into consideration the following points: (i) the Claimant was entitled to EUR 113,801 as total remuneration for the duration of the contract; (ii) the Claimant acknowledged to have received from the Respondent the amount of EUR 80,670.08 while the contract was in force and a further amount of EUR 19,000 once the claim in front of FIFA had been lodged; (iii) the Claimant accepted the deduction of EUR 818 from the remuneration he was entitled to as per the contract. 16. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of EUR 13,313 to the Claimant. 17. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 13,313 as from 4 March 2008 until the date of effective payment. 18. The DRC judge concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected. III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club F, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 13,313 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 4 March 2008 until the date of effective payment. 3. If the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 5. 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 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