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 14 August 2013, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge on the claim presented by the player, Player D, from country S as Claimant against the club Club A, from country C 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 14 August 2013, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge on the claim presented by the player, Player D, from country S as Claimant against the club Club A, from country C as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 30 June 2011, Player D, from country S (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the Club A, from country C (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an employment contract valid as from 1 July 2011 until 30 May 2013, in accordance with which the Claimant would, inter alia, receive the following amounts: - EUR 5,000 payable on 1 July 2011; - EUR 15,000 payable in ten monthly installments of EUR 1,500, the first installment falling due on 31 August 2011. 2. On 1 July 2011, the parties signed a supplementary agreement for the same duration as the employment contract, in accordance with which the Claimant would receive, inter alia, the following amounts: - EUR 35,000 payable in ten monthly installments of EUR 3,500, the first installment falling due on 31 August 2011; - EUR 400 per month for the rent. 3. On 11 May 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent indicating that the latter had i) failed to pay him his salaries since January 2012, and ii) had failed to pay the rent. Therefore, the Claimant claimed the total amount of EUR 32,400, calculated as follows: - EUR 5,000 corresponding to the sign-on fee; - EUR 7,500 corresponding to the salaries from January to May 2012 under the contract; - EUR 14,000 corresponding to the salaries from February to May 2012 under the agreement; - EUR 1,500 corresponding to a part of the January 2012 salary under the agreement; - EUR 4,400 corresponding to the rent of August 2011 until May 2012. 4. Equally, the Claimant requested interest on the salary payments as from the due dates, interest on the rent as from 31 May 2012 as well as procedural compensation. 5. In reply, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant in full arguing that: a) The amount of EUR 5,000, falling due on 1 July 2011, was paid to the Claimant in cash in accordance with the contract. However, later on, the Respondent stated that the sign-on fee was paid to the agent of the Claimant together with “the first rent and deposit for the accommodation”. In this respect, the Respondent provided FIFA with a cheque as well as with a statement of a certain Mr Z who confirmed having received EUR 5,800 on 20 July 2011 on behalf of the Claimant; b) The Respondent paid all the rent directly to the landlord; c) As to the salary of February 2012, the Claimant agreed to buy “lottery from the club on 23.2.2012”, reason for which EUR 500 was deducted from the salary; d) The salary of May 2012 was not due since the Respondent “punished the [the Claimant] (…) because of the degradation of [the Respondent] to second division.”; e) No compensation can be paid on the basis of the agreement, in accordance with art. 8 par. 10 of the country C Football Association Regulations; and f) The contract is not valid as it was no submitted to the country C Football Association. 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, the DRC judge took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 11 May 2013. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the 2012 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 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 2 lit. i. 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 decide on the present matter, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a country S player and a country C 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 (edition 2012) and considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 11 May 2013, the 2012 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. 4. 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 as well as the documentation contained in the file. 5. In this respect and first of all, the DRC judge acknowledged that, on 30 June 2011 and 1 July 2011, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an employment contract, respectively a supplementary agreement, both valid as from 1 July 2011 until 30 May 2013. 6. Equally, the DRC judge duly noted that the Claimant asserted that the Respondent had failed to pay him the amount of EUR 32,400 corresponding to salary payments, rent and the sign-on fee. 7. In addition, the DRC judge took note that, for its part, the Respondent asserted that it had i) paid the rent directly to the landlord of the Claimant, ii) had paid the sign-on fee to the agent of the Claimant, iii) had deducted EUR 500 from the February 2012 salary for the “lottery of the club”, and iv) it had sanctioned the Claimant with an one-monthly salary for the relegation of the team to the second division. 8. What is more, the DRC judge observed that the Respondent contested the validity of the contract since it was not submitted to the country C Football Association. Finally, the Respondent argued that, based on art. 8 par. 10 of the country C Football Association Regulations, no compensation is payable in connection with the agreement. 9. On account of all the above, the Respondent argued that the claim of the Claimant should be rejected in full. 10. In this context and after a thorough analysis of the arguments put forward by both parties in the present matter, the DRC judge first 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. 11. In this respect, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent did not present any documentary evidence in respect of the payments it sustained to have paid directly to the landlord of the Claimant. Equally, the Respondent did not provide any evidence that the Claimant had authorised the Respondent to pay the signing-on fee of EUR 5,000 to his alleged agent, nor had it proven that Mr Z was in fact the agent of the Claimant. In addition, the Respondent had not submitted any documentation that the Claimant had agreed to buy a “lottery” from the club. Finally, the DRC judge pointed out that the Respondent had not provided a copy of the country C Football Association Regulations and that he was therefore not in a position to analyse art. 8 par. 10 of said Regulations. As a result, in view of the lack of documentary evidence provided by the Respondent, the DRC judge decided he could not take into consideration the aforementioned arguments of the Respondent. 12. What is more, and in relation to the statement of the Respondent that it had sanctioned the Claimant with an one-monthly salary following the relegation of the club to the second division, the DRC judge determined that, irrespective of the question whether such a sanction is valid in the first place, the contract and agreement did not contain any provision on the basis of which such sanction could have been imposed. Therefore, the DRC judge did not consider the sanction imposed on the Claimant to be legitimate. 13. Finally, and in relation to the argument of the Respondent that the contract was not valid because it had not been submitted to the country C Football Association, the DRC judge emphasised that the homologation and/or registration of an employment contract at a federation does not constitute a condition for its validity. In fact, the DRC judge deemed that the validity of an employment contract cannot be linked to the willingness of the club to register the player with the association. 14. On account of the above, the DRC judge concluded that the Respondent had not provided sufficient documentary evidence in support of its defence, nor had it provided legitimate arguments which could justify the non-payment of the salaries to the Claimant. Therefore, the DRC judge decided that it could be established that the Respondent had not fulfilled its contractual obligations towards the Claimant. 15. Turning his attention to the claim of the Claimant, the DRC judge first observed that the Claimant requested the payment of 11 rent payments for the period as from August 2011 until May 2011, i.e. for a period of 10 months. Consequently, the DRC judge determined that he could only grant the amount of EUR 4,000 instead of the EUR 4,400 requested by the Claimant for this concept. 16. Furthermore, the DRC judge reiterated that the Respondent had not been able to prove that it had paid the salaries as well as the sign-on fee to the Claimant. 17. The DRC judge established that, as a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent must fulfil its obligations towards the Claimant and is to be held liable to pay the Claimant the outstanding salaries in the amount of EUR 32,000 plus 5% interest. 18. The DRC judge further decided that the Claimant's claim for legal expenses is rejected, in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the respective longstanding jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. 19. 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 D, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club A, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 32,000 plus 5% interest until the date of effective payment as follows: a. 5% p.a. as of 2 July 2011 on the amount of EUR 5,000; b. 5% p.a. as of 1 February 2012 on the amount of EUR 3,000; c. 5% p.a. as of 1 March 2012 on the amount of EUR 5,000; d. 5% p.a. as of 1 April 2012 on the amount of EUR 5,000; e. 5% p.a. as of 1 May 2012 on the amount of EUR 5,000; f. 5% p.a. as of 1 June 2012 on the amount of EUR 5,000; g. 5% p.a. as of 31 May 2012 on the amount of EUR 4,000. 3. 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. 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber 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: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives