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 17 January 2014, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player V, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club E, from country I as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen 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 17 January 2014, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player V, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club E, from country I as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 11 December 2012, Player V, from country B (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the Club E, from country I (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as of the date of signature until 10 June 2013. 2. Article 7 of the contract specifies, inter alia, that the Respondent is to provide the Claimant with the following remuneration: - USD 24,000 due upon signature of the contract and completion of the medical tests; - USD 36,000 as total salary, divided into 6 monthly instalments of USD 6,000; - USD 1,000 as bonus for each goal scored in the Premier League or Cup; - USD 1,500 as bonus for each goal scored in the Asian Champions League 2013 (first and second round); - USD 20,000 as bonus in the event the team wins the country I Premier League 2012-2013; - USD 10,000 as bonus in the event the team reaches the quarter-finals of the Asian Champions League. 3. Article 5 of the contract stipulates that the Respondent is to provide two flight tickets (country B-country I-country B) for the Claimant and his wife during the contract. 4. On 4 July 2013, the Claimant lodged a complaint before FIFA against the Respondent for non-respect of its contractual obligations, requesting the amount of USD 51,000 corresponding to outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. due as of 7 June 2013 until the payment in full by the Respondent. 5. Prior thereto, on 7 June 2013, the Claimant sent a default notice to the Respondent, claiming said amount to be paid within a deadline of 8 days. However, no reply was apparently received from the Respondent. 6. According to the Claimant, the Respondent failed to meet its primary obligation of payment. The Respondent apparently only paid the Claimant the total amount of USD 47,000, including the sign-on fee of USD 24,000 and other payments amounting to USD 23,000. Yet, the Claimant alleges that he was entitled to receive the total amount of USD 98,000, constituted as follows: - USD 24,000 as sign-on fee; - USD 36,000 as total salary; - USD 20,000 as bonus for winning the country I Premier League; - USD 10,000 as bonus for qualifying for the second round in the Asian Champions League; - USD 3,000 as bonus for scoring three goals in official competitions with the Respondent; - USD 5,000 corresponding to the costs of two flight tickets country I-country B. 7. In this context, the Claimant states that the amount of USD 51,000 is outstanding as he scored three goals and the Respondent qualified for the second round of the Asian Champions League as well as having won the country I Premier League championship. 8. In spite of having been invited to do so, the Respondent did not submit its position with regard 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 matter at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 4 July 2013. Consequently, the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2012; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 1 and par. 2 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 deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a country B player and an country I club, and which value does not exceed currency of country H 100,000. 3. Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 4 July 2013, the 2012 edition of said regulations (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. In this respect, the DRC judge started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the DRC judge emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. In this context, the DRC judge acknowledged that the parties to the dispute had signed an employment contract valid as of 11 December 2012 until 10 June 2013 in accordance with which the Respondent would remunerate the Claimant, inter alia, with a sign-on fee amounting to USD 24,000, plus a total salary of USD 36,000, as well as bonuses pertaining to the club’s performance in the country I Premier League and the Asian Champions League 2013 (first and second round). 6. The DRC judge further observed that the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent seeking payment of the amount of EUR 51,000, indicating that the Respondent had only paid the Claimant the amount of USD 47,000 although he was allegedly entitled to receive the total amount of USD 98,000. In particular, the DRC judge conceded that the Claimant claimed, on the basis of the contract, a bonus of USD 3,000 for having scored three goals in official competitions with the Respondent, a bonus of USD 10,000 for the Respondent’s qualification for the second round of the Asian Champions League as well as a bonus of USD 20,000 for winning the country I Premier League championship, and the amount of USD 5,000 corresponding to the cost of two flight tickets country I- country B. 7. Subsequently, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent 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 its right of defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 8. 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 already on file; in other words, upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant. 9. In relation to the documentation provided by the Claimant, 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. 10. In this regard, the DRC judge acknowledged that, in accordance with the employment contract provided by the Claimant, the Respondent was obliged to pay the Claimant the unpaid remuneration for the whole term of the contract. 11. In this context, referring to the content of the contract, the DRC judge considered which amounts were due to the Claimant as fixed remuneration and concluded that he was in any case entitled to USD 24,000 plus USD 36,000 for the term of the contract, i.e. the amount to USD 60,000. On account thereof, and considering that the Claimant acknowledges having received the amount of USD 47,000, the DRC judge was already in a position to conclude that USD 13,000 remained outstanding. 12. Equally, as regards the Claimant’s claim pertaining to flight tickets, on the basis of the information provided by FIFA Travel and referring to the relevant terms of the employment contract, the DRC judge readily accepted that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 5,000 for the two flight tickets country I- country B. 13. Further analysing the Claimant’s request, the DRC judge established that the Claimant did not refer to any article of the contract to corroborate the payment of the amount of USD 23,000 by the Respondent. In this regard the DRC judge deemed it legitimate to deduct the said amount from the total salary of USD 36,000. 14. In the same way, as to the abovementioned bonuses, the DRC judge carefully considered that the Claimant did not provide any documentary evidence in an attempt to substantiate the three goals scored in official competitions with the Respondent, the qualification for the second round of the Asian Champions League or the title in the country I Premier League. 15. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC judge determined that the Claimant had not sufficiently substantiated his claim in relation to amounts allegedly due as a result of the club’s performance, as he did not present any conclusive documentary evidence which could corroborate that the abovementioned bonuses should be added to the unpaid salaries and the costs of flight tickets. 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 USD 18,000. 17. In addition, taking into account the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber and the fact that the contract expired on 10 June 2013, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 18,000 as from 11 June 2013 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 V, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club E, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of USD 18,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 11 June 2013 until the date of effective payment. 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 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