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 25 April 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Philippe Diallo (France), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member on the claim presented by the player, Player B, from country T as Claimant against the club, Club P, 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 the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 April 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Philippe Diallo (France), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member on the claim presented by the player, Player B, from country T as Claimant against the club, Club P, from country C as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 24 June 2008, Player B, from country T (hereinafter player or Claimant), and Club P, from country C (hereinafter: club or Respondent), signed an employment contract valid as from 1 July 2008 until 30 June 2012. 2. On 20 January 2011, the player and the club signed an agreement to terminate the employment contact by mutual consent. 3. In accordance with the termination agreement, the parties inter alia agreed that the player was entitled to receive from the club the total amount of currency of country C 1,500,000 payable as follows: • currency of country C “600,000” to be paid on 31 March 2011; • currency of country C 500,000 to be paid on 31 June 2011; • currency of country C 500,000 to be paid on 30 September 2011. 4. Art. VI of the termination agreement states that “the Club is obliged to issue, if requested by the country C Football Federation or any other Football Federation, an international Transfer Certificate for the Player without any provisions or terms. The Club is obliged to issue the International Transfer Certificate immediately and without any hesitation”. 5. Furthermore, art. VII stipulates that “if the club breaches the regulations of this contract, especially No. VI, the club has to pay a penalty amounting to Euro 100.000,00 (In words: Euro one-hundred-thousand) to the Player”. 6. Moreover, art. X of the termination agreement also indicates that “If one of the instalments that the Club owes to the Player (…) will not be paid until the aforementioned respective due date, with effect as of the following day of the agreed due date the Club has to pay interests of 8% (eight percent) per year on the unpaid amount”. 7. On 29 December 2011, the player lodged a claim against the club before FIFA claiming he had only been paid the amount of currency of country C 417,550 and, consequently, requested to be awarded the following: • Currency of country C 1,082,450; • Currency of country C 120,000 corresponding to the interest payment delay of 8%; • EUR 100,000 in accordance with the stipulated penalty clause; • EUR 15,000 in legal costs. 8. In its reply, the club acknowledges its obligation to pay the player the unsatisfied amount of currency of country C 1,082,450 but nevertheless rejects the player´s request for the extra EUR 100,000, based on art. VII of the termination agreement. According to the club, the penalty clause would only have been effective had the club failed to release the player´s International Transfer Certificate (ITC). As the player´s ITC was allegedly issued on 26 January 2011, the club deems that the player is not entitled to receive the above-mentioned amount. 9. In reaction, the player states that the content of art. VII is very clear and the mere reference to art. VI as an example should not hide the fact that the article itself reads as follows “if the club breaches the regulations of this contract, especially No. VI, the club has to pay a penalty amounting to Euro 100.000,00 (In words: Euro one-hundred-thousand) to the Player”. 10. According to the player, art. VII was introduced in the termination agreement as a payment guaranty; it was drafted with the intention, on the one hand, to oblige the club to comply with the stipulated payments and on the other hand, to provide the player with some sort of compensation in casu the club failed, once again, with the payments. 11. Moreover, the player explains that the club was undergoing severe difficulties in complying with its contractual obligations, hence why an amicable agreement was reached. The player claims to have even “forgiven” the club a total amount of currency of country C 1,600,000. 12. Finally, the player amended his initial claim, requesting to be awarded: • Currency of country C 1,082,450; • Currency of country C 56,596 corresponding to the interest payment delay of 8%; • EUR 100,000 in accordance with the stipulated penalty clause; • EUR 15,000 in legal costs. 13. However, should art. VII not be taken into account, the player is requesting the Dispute Resolution Chamber to declare the termination agreement null and void and subsidiarily to be awarded the total amount of currency of country C 2,682,450 (the alleged “forgiven” amount of 1,600,000 + 1,082,450). 14. In spite of having been invited by FIFA to do so, the club did not present any further comments. ***** 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, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 29 December 2011. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. article 21 par. 2 and 3 of the 2008 and 2012 edition 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 T player and a country C 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 (editions 2010 and 2012), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 29 December 2011, the 2010 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the substance of the matter at hand. 4. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, the members of the Chamber acknowledged all the facts and documentation provided by the parties. 5. In this respect, the members of the Chamber began by acknowledging that, on 24 June 2008, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded an employment contract valid as from 1 July 2008 until 30 June 2012, which was terminated as per the termination agreement signed by both parties, on 20 January 2011. The termination agreement established that the Claimant would be entitled to a total remuneration amounting to currency of country C 1,500,000 divided in three instalments (cf. point I.3). 6. Equally, the Chamber took into account the following provisions of the termination agreement, which had to be assessed: - Art. VI: “the Club is obliged to issue, if requested by the country C Football Federation or any other Football Federation, an international Transfer Certificate for the Player without any provisions or terms. The Club is obliged to issue the International Transfer Certificate immediately and without any hesitation”. - Art. VII: “if the club breaches the regulations of this contract, especially No. VI, the club has to pay a penalty amounting to Euro 100.000,00 (In words: Euro one-hundred-thousand) to the Player”. - Art. X: “If one of the instalments that the Club owes to the Player (…) will not be paid until the aforementioned respective due date, with effect as of the following day of the agreed due date the Club has to pay interests of 8% (eight percent) per year on the unpaid amount”. 7. The Dispute Resolution Chamber took note that the Claimant alleged that the Respondent did not honour its obligations as per the termination agreement; out of the agreed amount of currency of country C 1,500,000, the Respondent was still owing the Claimant the total amount of currency of country C 1,082,450, reason for which, in compliance with art. VII and art. X of the termination agreement, the Claimant is requesting, together with the owed amount of currency of country C 1,082,450, an interest penalty of 8%, a penalty amount of EUR 100,000 and EUR 15,000 in legal costs. 8. In this respect, the Chamber equally acknowledged that, for its part, the Respondent did not contest the validity of the termination agreement and its subsequent provisions and moreover, accepted owing the Claimant the total amount of currency of country C 1,082,450. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the Respondent did however reject the Claimant´s request for the extra amount of EUR 100,000. According to the Respondent, the penalty clause contained in art. VII of the termination agreement would have only been applicable had the club failed to release the player’s ITC, which was clearly not the case, as it was issued on 26 January 2011, six days after signing said agreement. 9. With due consideration to the above, the members of the Chamber recalled that the signing of the termination agreement, the provisions contained therein, as well as the fact that the Respondent still owed the Claimant the total amount of currency of country C 1,082,450, remained uncontested by the parties. The only discrepancy arising between the parties in the case at hand evolved around the provision contained in art. VII of the termination agreement and whether said provision had been effectively triggered by the Respondent´s failure to pay the Claimant the stipulated amount of currency of country C 1,500,000, in due time. 10. Therefore, the members of the Chamber only addressed the issue of whether the penalty clauses set out in both art. VII and art. X of the termination agreement could actually be enforced. 11. In this respect, the Chamber was keen to emphasize that, given the specific circumstances of the present case as well as considering the specific wording of the relevant provisions of the termination agreement, it would be disproportionate to grant both the penalty amount as established in art. VII as well as the penalty for default interest as established in art. X of the termination agreement. Having said this, the Chamber added that in order to decide which of the two penalties should apply, i.e. the penalty amount of EUR 100,000 or the 8% interest penalty, it was important to evaluate the penalties, in particular, the proportionality and aim of both penalties. 12. Having established the foregoing, and after acknowledging the arguments of both parties in respect of the penalties as well as after analysing the relevant provision contained in art. VII of the termination agreement, the Chamber concluded that the penalty clause amounting to EUR 100,000 as established in art. VII was primarily aimed at the issuance of the ITC, whereas the 8% interest rate penalty as established in art. X was primarily aimed at the timely payment of the instalments. 13. Subsequently, and whilst reiterating that a penalty amount for late payment has to remain proportionate, the members of the Chamber held that the Respondent should pay the 8% interest penalty provided under art. X of the termination agreement. 14. Furthermore, the Chamber decided that the Claimant’s request for the payment of currency of country C 2,682,450 on the basis of the employment contract should be rejected, since the parties to the employment contract had already put an end to such contract by means of the termination agreement. 15. Finally, the Chamber held that the Claimant´s claim for legal costs shall be rejected in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules. 16. In view of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber decided that the claim of the Claimant has to be partially accepted and held that the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the total amount of currency of country C 1,082,450 plus 8% interest p.a. on said amount as of 29 December 2011 until the date of effective payment. 17. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim filed by the Claimant is rejected. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player B, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club P, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of currency of country C 1,082,450 plus 8% interest p.a. on said amount as of 29 December 2011 until the date of effective payment. 3. If the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid 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 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