F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2013-2014) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2013-2014) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 10 July 2013, by Mr Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player Player P, from country C as Claimant against the club Club S, from country R as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2013-2014) - controversie di lavoro - ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2013-2014) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 10 July 2013, by Mr Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player Player P, from country C as Claimant against the club Club S, from country R as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 July 2012, Player P, from country C (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the Club S, from country R (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2013. 2. According to the contract, the Claimant was entitled, inter alia, to receive the total remuneration of EUR 48,000 net. 3. On 10 January 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent for breach of contract before FIFA, requesting the total amount of EUR 43,100 composed as follows: - EUR 23,100 as from July 2012 until January 2013, (i.e. EUR 4,000 x 7 months - EUR 4,900 received by the Respondent); - EUR 20,000 as compensation being the rest value of the contract; - Sporting sanctions and legal costs. 4. In this respect, the Claimant asserted having honoured the contract, however, argued that the Respondent did not pay to the Claimant all his salaries, despite having been put in default by correspondence dated 18 December 2012. 5. On 3 January 2013, the Claimant sent a termination letter to the Respondent dated 2 January 2013, terminating the contract and “demanded the amount of EUR 23,100, which represents the unpaid wages”. 6. In its reply, the Respondent recognized to owe the Claimant the total amount of EUR 18,110 and in this respect provided payment receipts. 7. On 5 February 2013, the parties signed a “Settlement Agreement” (hereinafter: the agreement), according to which “In order to amicably resolve the conflicts pending before FIFA- Department for the Statute of the Player, having as object financial pretentions and the termination of the contractual reports resulted from the sport services civil agreement” the parties have agreed upon the contractual termination, by means of which “The Player P does expressly recognize, that at the present moment, Club S owes him the amount of 18.110 euro and not the amount of 23.100 euro requested by the summons. Based on the sport services convention concluded between him and the Club, the player received cash by the pay office of the company the amount of 8.151 currency of country R on 22nd of August 2012, 10,000 currency of country R on the 27th of September 2012 and 4.000 currency of country R on the 26th of November 2012; at the same time, from the worthy pay was retained the amount of 775 euro, representing the supplementary rent afferent to the service apartment, which he had to pay, in the sense that he empowered the company to retain from the monthly salary those amounts and to pay them directly to the owner”. Furthermore, the Claimant “does expressly declare, that he gives up the pay back in the amount of 18.110 euro described in the previous section and that he doesn’t have any financial pretention or any other kind of pretention” towards the club. Moreover, the agreement asserted that the Claimant “expressly declare, that he gives up the amount of 20,000 euro as damages/debt. 8. On 21 March 2103, the Claimant informed FIFA that “unfortunately and despite the fact that the Club has promised the player to release him in consideration for his relief of any pecuniary claim they have not released him yet so as to be able to be transferred to any Club so as to mitigate his loss” and has requested to proceed with the claim. 9. In its final position, the Respondent alleged to be in insolvency procedures and requested the claim to be dismissed based on the amicable agreement signed by both parties on 5 February 2013. 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 10 January 2013. Consequently, the 2012 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 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, 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 C player and a country R club. 3. Furthermore, 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 2012 and 2010), and considering that the claim was lodged on 10 January 2013, the 2012 edition of the said regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance (hereinafter: the Regulations). 4. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established and entering into the substance of the matter, the DRC judge acknowledged the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file. 5. In this respect, the DRC judge took due note that the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an employment contract valid as from 1 July 2012 until 30 June 2013. Furthermore, the DRC judge noted that on 3 January 2013, the Claimant the contract in writing, after having put the Respondent in arrears, since he allegedly did not receive EUR 23,100 of his salary. Finally, the DRC judge noted that on 5 February 2013 the parties signed a settlement agreement, according to which the Claimant “does expressly declare, that he gives up the pay back in the amount of 18.110 euro described in the previous section and that he doesn’t have any financial pretention or any other kind of pretention”. 6. The DRC judge acknowledged that based on the claim lodged, the Claimant requested the payments by the Respondent of the outstanding salaries in the amount of EUR 23,100 for the months of July 20012 until January 2013 minus EUR 4,900 which has been paid by the Respondent, as well as EUR 20,000 as compensation being the rest value of the contract, sporting sanctions and legal costs. 7. The DRC judge took due note that, on the other hand, the Respondent rejected the claim lodged by the Claimant by alleging that the settlement agreement has been signed on 5 February 2013 and therefore having found an amicable settlement with the Claimant. 8. In this respect, the DRC judge first recalled the basic principle of the burden of proof of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which establishes that any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. 9. In this context, the DRC judge determined that the Respondent did substantiate its defence as it provided documentary evidence that the Claimant and the Respondent had signed the above-mentioned agreement after the claim was lodged by providing said agreement. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. In this context, the DRC judge noted that both parties appear to agree upon the fact that the contract was terminated by the Claimant and that there were amounts outstanding towards the Claimant. 13. Having established the date of termination on 3 January 2013, the DRC judge went on to determine which amounts were to be considered as outstanding by the time of termination. In this regard, the DRC judge acknowledged that the Respondent agreed to an outstanding amount of EUR 18,100. 14. Bearing in mind the aforementioned allegations of the parties and taking into account the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the DRC judge concluded that, in principle, considering the position of the Respondent, the Claimant would be entitled to at least EUR 18,100. 15. However, considering that the Respondent provided a settlement agreement signed by both parties on 5 February 2013, by means of which the Claimant acknowledged that he the had given up claiming for said outstanding values based on the agreement reached, i.e. the Claimant “does expressly declare, that he gives up the pay back in the amount of 18.110 euro described in the previous section and that he doesn’t have any financial pretention or any other kind of pretention”, the DRC judge understood that those amounts are therefore, no longer claimable. 16. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the DRC judge took due note of the fact that, the Claimant insisted on his initial claim after signing the agreement in order to demand the payment of the aforementioned amount from the Respondent. 17. After thoroughly analyzing the contents of the agreement signed, the DRC judge recognized that there were no stipulated conditions to be honored by the Respondent according to the agreement, of which the stipulations are clear. 18. Subsequently, the DRC judge recognized that the Claimant did not deny signing the agreement and therefore concluded it to be valid. In this regard, 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 or non-execution of such document. 19. In the present case, by means of the agreement dated 5 February 2013, issued by the Respondent and signed and recognized by the Claimant, the debt of the Respondent towards the Claimant was abolished. 20. Therefore, the DRC judge concluded the settlement agreement to be a valid document which clearly specified that the debt of the Respondent towards the Claimant is no longer claimable. 21. Furthermore, the DRC judge decided that the Claimant’s claim for legal costs is rejected in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the Dispute Resolution Chamber’s respective longstanding jurisprudence. 22. 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 P, 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: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives