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 E, from country G as Claimant against the club, Club O, from country T as Respondent 1 and the club Club G, from country T as Respondent 2 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 E, from country G as Claimant against the club, Club O, from country T as Respondent 1 and the club Club G, from country T as Respondent 2 regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 17 July 2011, Player E, from country G (hereinafter: the Claimant), and Club O, from country T (hereinafter: the Respondent 1), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the date of its signature until 31 May 2014 or the last match of the 2013-2014 country T football season. 2. According to the contract, the Claimant was, inter alia, entitled to the following remuneration: a. Fixed salary: For the season 2011-2012 EUR 7,500 per month for 10 months, the first salary due on 1 August 2011 and the last one on 1 May 2012; b. Salary per played official match: For the season 2011-2012: EUR 1,000 per official match in which the player appeared; 3. Clause 10 of the contract established that the Claimant was entitled to unilaterally terminate the contract in case there was a delay of two months in the payment by the club of the salary or any other bonus. 4. On 13 January 2012, the Respondent 1, the Claimant and a third country T club, Club G (hereinafter: the Respondent 2), signed a temporary transfer agreement (hereinafter: the loan agreement) by means of which the parties agreed that the player would play with the Respondent 2 as from the date of its signature until 31 May 2012. 5. The loan agreement established remuneration for the Claimant in the amount of EUR 7,500 per month, the first salary payable on 1 February 2012 and the last one payable on 1 June 2012. Furthermore, according to the loan agreement, the remuneration and match bonuses of the Claimant would still be paid by the Respondent 1 and not by the Respondent 2. 6. The Claimant explained that he sent several notices to the Respondent 1 requesting the payment of his salaries and after receiving some partial payments, there was still an outstanding amount of EUR 42,000 in his favour. In this respect, on 24 December 2012, the Claimant unilaterally terminated the contract for non-payment of salaries by the Respondent 1. 7. On account of the above, on 24 January 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent 1 and against the Respondent 2 as jointly and severally liable, requesting to be awarded with the amount of EUR 42,000 as outstanding salaries plus 5% interest “as of June 15 2012”. In a correspondence enclosed to his claim addressed to the Respondent 1, the Claimant requested payment of the amount of EUR 47,000 corresponding to (i) his salaries for February to May 2012 (4 x EUR 7,500) and (ii) match bonuses for 17 games played (EUR 17,000). In a subsequent correspondence, the Claimant acknowledged receipt of the amount of EUR 5,000. 8. In its position to the claim, the Respondent 2 referred to clause 3 of the loan agreement, which establishes that the salaries of the Claimant will be paid by the Respondent 1 and, in this respect, indicated that the Claimant should turn to the latter in order to claim his rights. 9. Despite having been invited by FIFA to provide its comments to the present matter, the Respondent 1 did not answer to the Claimant’s claim. 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 24 January 2013. Consequently, 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 2012 edition of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and par. 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 2012) he is competent to decide on the present litigation, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a country G player and two country T clubs. 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 H 100,000. 4. In continuation, the DRC judge analyzed which edition of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer 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 (edition 2012), and, on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 24 January 2013. The DRC judge concluded that 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. 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 Claimant and the Respondent 1 had signed a valid employment contract on 17 July 2011, in accordance with which the Respondent would pay the Claimant a monthly remuneration in the amount of EUR 7,500 as well the amount of EUR 1,000 per match in which the Claimant appeared. 7. In addition, the DRC judge acknowledged that both Respondents and the Claimant had signed a loan agreement on 13 January 2012, valid until 31 May 2012, according to which the Respondent 1 would still be responsible for the payment of the remuneration of the Claimant. 8. As a consequence of the above, the DRC judge deemed it necessary at this point to establish that, in accordance with the documentation contained on file, the Respondent 1 was the only party responsible for paying the remuneration due to the Claimant during the validity of the loan agreement. 9. Subsequently, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent 1 failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant, in spite of having been invited to do so. By not presenting its position to the claim, the DRC judge was of the opinion that the Respondent renounced to its right of defence. 10. Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the DRC judge concurred that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, he shall take a decision upon the basis of the documentation on file; in other words, upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant. 11. In continuation, the DRC judge acknowledged that, in accordance with the employment contract and the loan agreement provided by the Claimant, the Respondent 1 was obliged to pay to the Claimant a monthly salary in the amount of EUR 7,500 as well as match bonuses in the amount of EUR 1,000 conditioned to the appearance of the Claimant. 12. In this respect, the DRC judge took into consideration that according to the Claimant, the Respondent had failed to pay his remuneration in the total amount of EUR 47,000, corresponding to the unpaid salaries of February, March, April and May 2012 in the amount of EUR 7,500 per month plus match bonuses in the amount of EUR 17,000 for seventeen matches. Moreover, the DRC judge took note that the Claimant acknowledged a payment of EUR 5,000 made by the Respondent 1. Consequently, the Claimant requested to be awarded with the payment of the total amount of EUR 42,000. 13. In this respect, the DRC judge referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules which stipulates that any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. Taking into account the documentation presented by the Claimant in support of his petition, the DRC judge concluded that the Claimant had substantiated his claim pertaining to outstanding monthly salaries with sufficient documentary evidence. 14. However, as to the match bonuses requested by the Claimant, the DRC judge established that the Claimant did not provide documentary evidence regarding his entitlement to the aforementioned bonuses for match appearances, i.e. the Claimant had not provided any documentation that he had indeed participated in any matches. In view of the foregoing, the DRC judge decided that the Claimant’s request in relation to the bonuses for match appearances should be rejected. 15. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC judge established that the Respondent failed to remit the Claimant’s monthly remuneration in the total amount of EUR 30,000 corresponding to 4 monthly salaries as from February 2012 until and including May 2012. 16. Consequently, the DRC judge decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR 30,000. 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 30,000 as from 15 June 2012 until the date of effective payment. 18. Finally, the DRC judge concluded his deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player E, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent 1, Club O, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 30,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 15 June 2012 until the date of effective payment. 3. If the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid by the Respondent 1 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 1 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: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives