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 the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 February 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member Essa M. Saleh Al-Housani (UAE), member on the claim presented by the player, Player T, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club M, from country T 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 the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 February 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member Essa M. Saleh Al-Housani (UAE), member on the claim presented by the player, Player T, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club M, from country T as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 5 July 2010 Player T, from country B (hereinafter: the Claimant), and Club M, from country T (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid from 1st July 2010 to 31 May 2011. 2. According to the contract, the Claimant was entitled to the following remuneration: - USD 30,000 net payable within 10 days from the arrival of the International Transfer Certificate (ITC); and - ten USD 10,000 net salary installments, to be paid on a monthly basis during the term of the contract. 3. On 17 September 2010, the Claimant lodged before FIFA a claim against the Respondent for the unilateral termination of the contract by the latter. In his claim, the Claimant reports that on 22 June 2010 the Respondent contacted him and made him a proposal via email for a contract for the 2010-2011 season. According to the proposal, the Respondent offered the Claimant USD 50,000 in cash and a monthly salary of USD 10,000 for a period of ten months. Further, the Claimant indicates that on 2 July 2010 he flew to country T and signed the contract; however, he claims that he never received a copy of the contract. The Claimant states in his claim that, around 15 August 2010, the Respondent informed him that it wanted to terminate the contract and stresses that he opposed such a mutual termination of the contract, by arguing that by the time of the mutual termination proposal he had not yet “received his salary and the advance of payment of USD 50,000”. However, the Claimant holds that the Respondent forced him to accept the mutual termination. Therefore, he claims that he had no choice and on 20 August 2010 he had to sign a document written in the language of country T only, the translation of which states: “I hereby request the recognition of my specimen signature for the purpose of using it within a period of 30 days, in the rescission of a professional player contract/temporary transfer contract with the club M (..)”. 4. In light of the above, the Claimant requests the Dispute Resolution Chamber to order the Respondent to pay USD 150,000 for breach of contract. 5. In reply to the claim, the Respondent provides a document named “mutual termination certificate” (hereinafter: the termination agreement), signed by both parties, according to which “all contractual rights and contractual receivables, and that I’ll take any and all rights and did not stay as of August 20, 2010. For this reason, the TFF, FIFA, UEFA and the CAS/TAS before will not be any objections, under the contract in question and any rights and claims be found throughout the accepted and declared by an irrevocable. Due to the above-mentioned contractual rights and Club M ‘nudes would release an irrevocable and fully 20.08.2010”. The Respondent argues that the contract was terminated by mutual consent, and refers to the termination agreement as supporting evidence. Finally, the Respondent states that “status and instructions fail to meet certain specified matter, in accordance with our club under suspicion disabling behaviours are found and the procedure for termination is that we have made the decision to give USD 50,000 right of termination indemnity”. 6. In turn, the Claimant points out that he does not understand the Respondent’s submission from a linguistic point of view and stresses that he was forced to sign documents in language of country T without being provided with a translation. Therefore, he argues that “any document that he had signed in these language should be considered invalid because he could not understand it’s content”. 7. In its final position, the Respondent argues that by means of the termination agreement the parties acknowledged and agreed that they had nothing to claim to each other and that the parties had as well waived their respective rights to bring a claim against one another. 8. Upon request from the FIFA Administration, the Claimant reports that he was under contract with Club C, from country B between 23 September 2010 and 31 August 2011 in exchange for a monthly salary amounting to currency of country B 640. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 17 September 2010. Therefore, the DRC 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 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 decide on the present litigation, concerning an employment-related dispute of an international dimension between a country B player and a country T club. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that contrary to the information contained in FIFA’s letter dated 22 February 2013 by means of which the parties were informed of the composition of the Chamber, the member Mr M and the member G refrained from participating in the deliberations in the case at hand, due to the fact that the member Mr M has the same nationality as the Claimant and that, in order to comply with the prerequisite of equal representation of club and player representatives, also the member Mr G refrained from participating. Thus, the Dispute Resolution Chamber adjudicated the case in presence of three members. 4. In this respect, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012), and confirmed that pursuant to said article the DRC can adjudicate in the presence of at least three members, including the chairman. Consequently, the members of the Chamber deemed themselves competent to decide on the present matter with a composition of the chairman, as well as a player and a club representative, in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012). 5. In continuation, the DRC 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, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of said Regulations (editions 2009, 2010 and 2012), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 17 September 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. 6. The competence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. The DRC started by acknowledging that on 5 July 2010 the parties to the dispute had signed an employment contract valid as from 1st July 2010 to 31 May 2011. 7. Equally, the Dispute Resolution Chamber observed that the contract concluded between the parties stipulated, inter alia, a remuneration made up of a one-off payment in the amount of USD 30,000 net, payable within ten days from the arrival of the International Transfer Certificate (ITC), and ten USD 10,000 net salary installments, to be paid on a monthly basis during the term of the contract. 8. In continuation, the Dispute Resolution Chamber noted that on 17 September 2010 the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent for the unilateral termination of the employment contract by the latter. The Chamber also observed that the Claimant reports that around 15 August 2010 the Respondent put forward a proposal for the mutual termination of the contract, but the Claimant claims that he rejected it, by arguing that his salary as well as a USD 50,000 payment were outstanding. Moreover, the DRC observed that notwithstanding this, the Claimant maintains that the Respondent forced him to accept the mutual termination. The Chamber ascertained that to this end, on 20 August 2010, the Claimant signed a document, written in the country T language only, seemingly authorizing the execution of a termination agreement on his behalf within 30 days from the date of signature of said document. 9. Further, the members of the Chamber took note that the Claimant bases its financial claim on the contract proposal, that the Respondent made to the Claimant via email on 22 June 2010 and thus requests the payment of USD 150,000. 10. Having said this, the DRC turned its attention to the arguments of the Respondent and took note of the fact that the Respondent argues that by means of the termination agreement dated 20 August 2010 (cf. point I./par. 5 above) the contract was terminated by mutual consent of the parties. In this respect, the Chamber concluded that, despite the rather unclear language used, it appeared that the parties had indeed signed a document by means of which they terminated the contract. In this respect, the Chamber stressed that the Claimant did not contest that it had in fact signed the relevant termination agreement. 11. In connection with the preceding paragraph, the DRC did note however that the Claimant holds that he was forced to sign documents in language of country T without being provided with a translation. As a consequence, the Claimant requests the DRC that any document that he signed in language in country T be considered invalid because he was unable to understand their content. 12. In this regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber was eager to emphasise that a party signing a document of legal importance without knowledge of its precise contents, as a general rule, does so on its own responsibility. In this respect, and in relation to the argument of the Claimant that he was forced to sign the documents, the Chamber recalled that according to the legal principle of the burden of proof, any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). In this context, the DRC concluded that the Claimant was unable to prove that he was forced to sign the contract. In view of all the foregoing, the DRC concluded that the parties had indeed agreed upon the termination of the contract by means of the document signed on 20 August 2010. 13. Having established that the contract was terminated by both parties by means of the termination agreement, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequences of such termination. In this regard, the Chamber firstly noted that the termination agreement did not provide for any consequences of the termination in the form of compensation. Notwithstanding this, the DRC observed that in the framework of the proceedings, the Respondent, in its reply to the claim, offered to pay the Claimant USD 50,000 as “right of termination indemnity” (cf. point I./par. 5 above). 14. Consequently, taking into account the indemnity offer made by the Respondent, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 50,000. 15. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player T, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club M, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of USD 50,000. 3. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant in accordance with the above-mentioned number 2 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 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: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives