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 23 September 2013, by Mr Theo van Seggelen (The Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player T, from country H as Claimant against the club Club W, from country S as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute 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 23 September 2013, by Mr Theo van Seggelen (The Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player T, from country H as Claimant against the club Club W, from country S as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 24 November 2011, Player T, from country H (hereinafter: the Claimant), lodged a complaint with FIFA against Club W, from country S (hereinafter: the Respondent) for breach of contract. 2. In this respect, the Claimant alleged having concluded an employment contract with the Respondent valid from 15 February until 31 May 2011, by means of which the Claimant was apparently entitled to receive from the Respondent a monthly salary of currency of country S 3,800 gross. Nevertheless, the Claimant failed to provide FIFA with a copy of the relevant agreement arguing that he never received one from the Respondent. 3. In order to prove that the Claimant had had a labour relationship with the Respondent, he submitted to FIFA the following documents: - a statement of the Respondent dated 19 April 2011, co-signed by the Claimant, related to the sub tenancy of an apartment by the Claimant; - a printout from TMS indicating that the Claimant’s contract with the Respondent was valid from 15 February until 31 May 2011 and that the Claimant had been registered with the Respondent on 10 March 2011. 4. According to the Claimant, the Respondent never paid the salary agreed. Therefore, the Claimant requested from the Respondent the payment of the total amount of currency of country S 13,300, equivalent to 3 and half months of salary, as well as, 5% interest as from 1 June 2011. 5. In spite of having been asked to do so, the Respondent never responded to the claim lodged against it, although it was informed that, in absence of a reply, a decision would be taken on the basis of the information and evidence at disposal. 6. According to the employment contract uploaded in TMS, the Claimant was hired by the Respondent from 15 February until 31 May 2011 and was entitled to receive from the latter a monthly salary of currency of country S 3,800 gross payable at the end of the corresponding month. 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, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 24 November 2011. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008; 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) (hereinafter: the Regulations), he is competent to decide on the present litigation, concerning an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a country H player and a country S club. 3. Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which edition of the Regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter concerning the contractual dispute between the parties. In this respect, he confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations (edition 2010 and 2012) and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 24 November 2011, the 2010 edition of said Regulations is applicable to the present matter as to the substance. 4. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the judge entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, he started to acknowledge the facts of the case as well as the documents contained in the file. 5. In this respect, the DRC judge noted that the Claimant argued that the Respondent failed to pay the Claimant’s remuneration in the total amount of currency of country H 13,300, corresponding to 3 and half months of salary. 6. In addition to the above, the DRC judge recalled that the Claimant maintained that he never received a copy of the employment contract he asserts having signed with the Respondent. 7. Moreover, the DRC judge took due note that the Claimant provided a printout form from TMS indicating that the Claimant’s contract with the Respondent was valid from 15 February until 31 May 2011 and that the Claimant had been registered with the Respondent on 10 March 2011. 8. In view of the above, the DRC judge emphasized that according to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, within the scope of proceedings pertaining to the application of these legalization, FIFA may use any documentation or evidence generated by or contained in TMS in order to properly asses the issue at state. 9. Consequently, the DRC judge took into account that according to the information contained in the TMS, the Claimant and the Respondent signed an employment contract, valid as from 15 February until 31 May 2011, according to which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent a monthly salary of currency of country S 3,800 gross payable at the end of the corresponding month. 10. Furthermore, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent never took position in the specific matter relating to the claim of the Claimant, although having been invited to do so by FIFA. Therefore, the DRC judge deemed that, in this way, the Respondent renounced to its right to defence and therefore accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 11. As a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the DRC judge established that, in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, he shall pass a decision upon the basis of the documents already on file i.e. upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant as well as upon the information contained in the TMS. 12. Having established the above, the DRC judge referred to the documentation contained in the file as well as to the information contained in TMS. In this respect, the DRC judge took into consideration that according to the Claimant, the Respondent had failed to remit the Claimant’s monthly remuneration in the total amount of currency of country S 13,300, corresponding to the unpaid salaries of 3 and half months. 13. Taking into account the documentation presented by the Claimant in support of his petition and the information on TMS the DRC judge concluded that the Claimant had substantiated his claim pertaining to outstanding remuneration with sufficient documentary evidence. 14. In view of all of the above considerations and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the DRC judge decided to accept the claim of the Claimant and held that the Respondent is liable to pay the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the total amount of currency of country S 13,300. 15. Finally, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of currency of country S 13,300 as from 1 June 2011 until the date of effective payment. ***** III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player T, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club W, has to pay to the Claimant, Player T, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of currency of country S 13,300 as well as 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 1 June 2011 until the date of effective payment. 3. If the aforementioned amount 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. The Claimant, Player T, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club W, 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: __________________________________ Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl.: CAS directives