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 passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 February 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member Essa M. Saleh Al-Housani (UAE), member Theodoros Giannikos (Greece), member on the claim presented by the player D, from country A, as Claimant against the club Club X, from country U as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen 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 passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 February 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member Essa M. Saleh Al-Housani (UAE), member Theodoros Giannikos (Greece), member on the claim presented by the player D, from country A, as Claimant against the club Club X, from country U as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 August 2008, the country U club, club X (hereinafter: the Respondent), and the country A player, D (hereinafter: the Claimant), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid from 1 August 2008 until 30 June 2011. 2. According to the annexe of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive a monthly salary of USD 45,000. 3. On 1 July 2009, the Claimant was apparently loaned to the country U club, club Y (hereinafter: club Y), until 30 June 2010. 4. On 16 September 2010, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent before FIFA, requesting the amount of USD 540,000 corresponding to twelve monthly salaries of USD 45,000 each, for the period between July 2010 and June 2011. 5. In this regard, the Claimant explained that on 1 July 2010, after the expiry of the loan agreement with club Y, he returned to the Respondent, with which he still had a valid contract until 30 June 2011. However, the Respondent allegedly forbid him to attend the trainings explaining that his services were no longer required. 6. Furthermore, the Claimant held that the Respondent informed him by means of a letter dated 16 August 2010, that, in case he signs a contract with another football club before the transfer window closes on 31 August 2010, part of his salary would be paid by the Respondent. 7. Finally, the Claimant held having informed the Respondent by means of a letter dated 3 September 2010, that he would immediately terminate his contract and asked the Respondent to fulfil all its financial obligations in the amount of USD 540,000. 8. On 17 January 2011, the Claimant signed a new employment contract with the country A club, club Z, valid until 31 May 2011. According to this contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive a monthly remuneration of EUR 7,000. 9. Despite having been invited to do so, the Respondent did not provide its comments. ***** II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 16 September 2010. Consequently, the edition 2008 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a country player and a club. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it 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 on 16 September 2010, the edition 2009 of the regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. The members of the Chamber started by acknowledging that the parties had signed an employment contract valid from 1 August 2008 until 30 June 2011. 5. Subsequently, the Dispute Resolution Chamber noted that the Respondent, for its part, failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant, in spite of having been invited to do so. In this way, so the DRC, the Respondent renounced its right to defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 6. Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the Chamber concurred that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, it shall take a decision upon the basis of the documents already on file; in other words, upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant. 7. In line with the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber took into consideration that according to the Claimant, after his return from the loan on 1 July 2010, the Respondent had told him that his services were no longer required and had not allowed him to train with the team. Therefore, the Dispute Resolution Chamber went on to deliberate whether the Respondent’s behaviour constitutes a breach of contract. 8. In this respect, the DRC observed that by forbidding the Claimant to train with the team, the Respondent in fact prevented him from executing his essential obligation based on the employment contract without justification. 9. In view of the above, the Chamber had no alternative than to conclude that the Respondent had prematurely terminated the pertinent employment contract without just cause. 10. Having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the contractual relationship, the Chamber focussed its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including in particular the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and the new contract, as well as the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years. The Dispute Resolution Chamber recalled that the list of objective criteria is not exhaustive and that the broad scope of criteria indicated tends to ensure that a just and fair amount of compensation is awarded to the prejudiced party. 11. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the relevant employment contract between the Claimant and the Respondent contains a provision by which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation for breach of contract. In this respect, the DRC observed that the employment contract at hand does not contain such a clause which could be applied. 12. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the prejudice suffered by the Claimant in the present matter had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. In this regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber emphasized beforehand that each request for compensation for contractual breach has to be assessed by the Chamber on a case-by-case basis taking into account all specific circumstances of the respective matter, as well as the Chamber’s specific knowledge of the world of football and its experience gained throughout the years. 13. In the calculation of the amount of compensation due by the Respondent, the Chamber then turned its attention to the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contract and/or the new contract, which criterion was considered by the Chamber to be essential. The members of the Chamber deemed it important to emphasise that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows the Chamber to take into account both the existing contract and the new contract in the calculation of the amount of compensation. 14. On this basis, and in order to evaluate the compensation to be paid by the Respondent, the members of the Chamber took into account the remuneration due to the Claimant in accordance with the contract, as well as the time remaining on the same contract and the professional situation of the Claimant after the early termination occurred until 30 June 2011. In fact, the Claimant appears to have remained unemployed until 16 January 2011. 15. According to the documents submitted by the Claimant, it appears that the remaining value of the contract can be calculated in the amount of USD 540,000 relating to the player’s financial entitlements. On the other hand, the payments of the new employment contract concluded between the Claimant and the country Al club, club Z, for a period from 17 January until 31 May 2011, appears to amount to EUR 28,000. 16. In sum, the Chamber concluded that the amount of compensation for breach of contract to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant is firstly composed of the amount of USD 540,000 being the reflection of the remuneration due to the player under the previous contract. Furthermore, taking into account the Claimant’s remuneration of EUR 28,000 with the new club, club Z, the Chamber considered that the difference of USD 502,532 is to be considered an appropriate and justified amount of compensation to be awarded to the Claimant. In this respect, the members of the Chamber finally deemed it imperative to emphasise that the sanctioning nature of the provisions contained in art. 17 of the Regulations cannot be disregarded. 17. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided to partially accept the claim of the player by obliging the Respondent to pay the amount of USD 502,532 to the Claimant as compensation for breach of contract. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, D, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club X, has to pay to the Claimant, D, the amount of USD 502,532, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, an interest rate of 5% per year will apply as of expiry of the fixed time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, D, are rejected. 5. The Claimant, D, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club X, 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 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives