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 theDispute Resolution Chamber(DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 2 October 2012, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge on the claim presented by the player, Player S, from country G as Claimant against the club Club M, from country C 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 theDispute Resolution Chamber(DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 2 October 2012, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge on the claim presented by the player, Player S, from country G as Claimant against the club Club M, from country C as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 3 August 2007, Player S, from country G (hereinafter: the Claimant) and Club M, from country C (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded an employment contract valid as from 5 August 2007 until 31 May 2009 as well as a supplementary agreement, the latter bearing no specific starting and ending dates. 2. On 31 March 2010, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded an agreement (hereinafter: the agreement), by means of which the Respondent acknowledged that it owed the Claimant the amount of EUR 42,809 and that it, consequently, would pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 30,000, as follows: - EUR 15,000 on 31 May 2010; - EUR 15,000 payable in 5 monthly installments of EUR 3,000 each, the first one falling due on 1 September 2010. 3. The agreement further stipulated that should the EUR 30,000 be paid on time, then the whole amount of EUR 42,809 shall be deemed to have been paid. On the contrary, if the EUR 30,000 would not be paid on time, the entire amount of EUR 42,809 became immediately payable and due. 4. On 28 July 2010, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, claiming the amount of EUR 42,809 as well as damages and costs from the Respondent, whilst indicating that the Respondent had failed to pay the Claimant any amount whatsoever. 5. On 25 November 2010, the Respondent replied to the claim lodged against it and rejected the claim of the Claimant arguing that, at the moment of signing the agreement, the Claimant had assured the Respondent that he had paid all his debts to the Departments of Social Insurances and Income Tax. The Respondent in particular stated that “the fact presented to us on that specific date [31 March 2010] were not real because the player untruly assured us that he had settled his debts to the Departments of Social Insurances and Income Tax and he did not reveal to us that he had signed a new employment contract with the country G second division team Club E”. 6. The Respondent further added that the Claimant had terminated his contract with the Respondent in July 2008 and that the agreement was only signed as the Respondent needed to meet the “UEFA criteria”. 7. On account of the above, the Respondent only agreed to pay an amount of EUR 8,507 to the Claimant. 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 28 July 2010. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the 2008 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 par. 2 and 3 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 2010) the DRC judge is competent to decide on the present matter, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a country G 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 (editions 2009 and 2010) and considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 28 July 2010, the 2009 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 3 August 2007, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an employment contract valid as from 5 August 2007 until 31 May 2009 as well as a supplementary agreement, the latter bearing no specific starting and ending dates. 6. Equally, the DRC judge took note that, on 31 March 2010, the parties had concluded an agreement by means of which the Respondent had recognized that it owed the amount of EUR 42,809 to the Claimant, and, subsequently, agreed upon the following: “Further the Club with the present agreement states that with it undertakes the obligation to pay to the player the amount of €30000 EURO as follows: 15,000 euros on the 31st May 2010 with 30 days grace and 5 equal monthly instalments of € 3.000 EURO each starting from 01/09/2010 and with 15 grace days. In the case where the Club pays to the football player the above amount of €30.000 EURO, as agreed within the time frame specified above, then the whole amount of €42.809 EURO will be deemed as paid. Otherwise, if the Club does not pay that amount within the specified date, then the entire outstanding amount of €42.809 EURO becomes immediately payable and due.“ 7. In addition, the DRC judge observed that the Claimant is claiming the amount of EUR 42,809 from the Respondent, thereby asserting that the Respondent had not complied with the above-mentioned agreement and had not paid him any amount whatsoever. 8. Finally, the DRC judge took note that, for its part, the Respondent had acknowledged having signed the agreement with the Claimant and admitted it did not yet pay the relevant amount to the latter. However, the Respondent justified the non-payment by arguing that, at the time of concluding the agreement, the Claimant had not told the truth to the Respondent and added that the agreement was only signed as it needed to meet the “UEFA criteria”. In this respect, the Respondent stated that “the fact presented to us on that specific date [31 March 2010] were not real because the player untruly assured us that he had settled his debts to the Departments of Social Insurances and Income Tax and he did not reveal to us that he had signed a new employment contract with the country G second division team Club E. The DRC judge further noted that, as a result, the Respondent was of the opinion that only the amount of EUR 8,507 was due to the Claimant. 9. In this context, the DRC judge was eager to emphasise that the parties, after the expiry of the duration of the original contract, signed an agreement on 31 March 2010 by means of which the Respondent recognized that it still owed an amount to the Claimant and subsequently agreed upon the manner of payment of such amount. In this respect, the DRC judge stressed that should the Claimant not have fully fulfilled his obligations towards the Respondent or the relevant authorities in country C in connection with the employment contract, the Respondent should not have agreed to sign an agreement by means of which it recognized that it owed the Claimant the amount of EUR 42,809. In other words, the DRC judge deemed that the Respondent could not, after having concluded the agreement, contest the contents of said agreement on the basis of alleged breaches of the employment contract which occurred prior to the date of signing the agreement and which, as such, bear no relation with the agreement dated 31 March 2010. 10. As to the arguments raised by the Respondent that it had only signed the agreement to meet the “UEFA criteria” and that the player had signed a new employment contract with a country G club, the DRC judge did not see any reason why this would release the Respondent from its obligations under the agreement. In fact, the Respondent itself did not even indicate why these actions would be relevant in the present matter. 11. On account of all the above, the DRC judge found that there was no basis to deduct any amount from the amount of EUR 42,809 and, bearing in mind that it was undisputed that no payment whatsoever had been made in accordance with the agreement, as well as the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 42,809 to the Claimant. 12. 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 S, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club M, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 42,809, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. In the event that the aforementioned sum is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the aforementioned time limit and 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 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