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 passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 4 October 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member Theodoros Giannikos (Greece), member on the claim presented by the player Player C, from country N as Claimant against the club Club P, from country I as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the Claimant and the Respondent

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 passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 4 October 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member Theodoros Giannikos (Greece), member on the claim presented by the player Player C, from country N as Claimant against the club Club P, from country I as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the Claimant and the Respondent I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 November 2007, Player C, from country N (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the Club P, from country I (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid until 31 October 2009. 2. According to the article 5.1 of the contract, the parties agreed that: “The said Club agrees to pay compensation to the player a sum of currency of country I 720,000/ (less all amounts required to be deducted by the law for the time being in force). Such compensation shall be paid in equal monthly instalments beginning with the term of this contract, for the term covered under this contract and payable on the 7th day of each month till and until the compensation is paid in full, unless terminated for reasons set out hereinafter.)” 3. Equally, the contract established inter alia the following terms: - “The said club, at its discretion, may provide temporary accommodation to the player during the term of this contract.”; - “The said club, at its discretion, may pay all proper and necessary expenses of the player, including travel and lodging expenses of the player while playing for the club and during the training session.”; - “to provide competition apparel, other item of clothing an equipment as considered appropriate by the club”; - “to provide for the Player’s public relations and media advice and sponsorship and endorsement guidance as and when reasonably requested by the Player and a per the policy of the said club”. 4. On 15 June 2008, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent for breach of contract without just cause, which was amended on 10 November 2008, 5 June 2009 and 10 July 2009, claiming an aggregate amount of USD 1,999,931, based partly on the contract and partly on his human rights, as follows: (i) USD 11,742, which allegedly corresponded to currency of country I 540,000, regarding 18 monthly salaries from July 2007 until December 2009, each monthly salary in the amount of currency of country I 30,000; (ii) USD 30,436 which allegedly corresponded to currency of country I 1,400,000 regarding bonuses for 70 official matches during the 18 months, each one in the amount of currency of country I 20,000; (iii) USD 16,305, which allegedly corresponded to currency of country I 750,000, regarding special bonuses “per promotions X won Trophies”; (iv) USD 7,148, which allegedly corresponded to currency of country I 328,000, regarding feeding allowances for approximately 548 days, each day in the amount of currency of country I 600; (v) USD 200,000, corresponding to a compensation “for fundamental human rights” for not having been released during 6 months; (vi) USD 650,000, corresponding to a compensation for preventing the Claimant to find an agreement elsewhere due to the issued visa, which allowed the Claimant to play only for the Respondent as long as the contract was valid; (vii) USD 500,000, corresponding to a compensation for being forced to stay out of competitive football as a professional player; (viii) USD 390,000, corresponding to a compensation for emotional trauma for him and his family; (ix) USD 40,000, corresponding to a compensation for “reduction in residency status”, i.e. from a suite with different facilities as stipulated in the contract to a flat to share with ten other players; (x) USD 80,000, corresponding to football kit; (xi) USD 70,000, corresponding to a compensation for possible sponsorship deals; (xii) USD 4,300, corresponding to a compensation for flight tickets to and from country N. In this regard, the Claimant enclosed a copy of an e-ticket on his name, issued on 5 June 2008, scheduling the trip country I – country K – country N on 7 June 2008, amounting to currency of country I 18,500. 5 According to the Claimant, on July 2007 the team manager of Club B, from country I, where he played for from 2004 to June 2007, was appointed as team manager of Club P. Subsequently, the Claimant alleged that said team manager offered him a better deal and after negotiations, he signed a two-year contract with Club P allegedly starting from June 2007 to December 2009, stipulating a monthly remuneration of currency of country I 30,000 “with a 50% increase after the first season plus other large bonuses and allowances taking [the] total monthly package to about [currency of country I] 50,000 [...]”. In this respect, the Claimant affirmed that the estimated value of his contract between June 2007 and December 2009 would have been currency of country I 1,000,000, considering that the contract did not include a special bonus that the club’s management promised him, should the club have qualified for the country I league 1. However, the Claimant declared having not received a copy of the contract signed between the parties. 6 Moreover, the Claimant held that, in September 2007, the team manager authorized him to organise the travel including flight tickets and other expenses to country N for both (the team manager and the Claimant) concerning “club’s preparation”, promising him to refund the expenses. However, the Claimant asserted that, even after having given to the team manager all receipts of the expenses in the amount of currency of country I 18,000, allegedly equivalent to USD 4,300, the latter did not reimburse him. In support of this argument, the Claimant enclosed a handwritten list dated 14 September 2007, scheduling all dates and prices regarding the trip to country N, according to which the total expenses amounted to currency of country I 14,000. In particular, said list is addressed to the club’s “Head-Operations” and signed by the team manager. Additionally, the Claimant provided flight tickets scheduling the trip country I – country K – country N on 17 and 18 October 2007 as well as the trip country N – country K – country I on 11 November 2007, the latter one apparently for the amount of currency of country I 33,220, both tickets on the name of the Claimant. 7 Subsequently, the Claimant affirmed that, on 6 January 2008, the team manager and the team coach, after having had a long discussion, called him to a meeting, in order to inform him that his contract would be terminated, offering to pay him three months of salary and a flight ticket back to country N as well as the amount of currency of country I 18,000, concerning the travel that the Claimant organised in September 2007 (cf. point I.6.). However, according to the Claimant, he rejected said offer. 8 The Claimant further declared having being “isolated, dehumanized, [his] human rights violated”, because he was hindered to play within country I or to have the opportunity to travel somewhere else for trials. since the Respondent kept his passport. The Claimant alleged that even if he tried in every possible way to get back his passport, he was not able to contact the Respondent and any effort he made to meet the officials from the club was avoided during five months. In his support, the Claimant attached several e-mails apparently sent to the team manager of the Respondent. According to the Claimant, only on 4 June 2008, after having filed a police report against the Respondent, he was able to meet the team manager who returned him his passport. In this regard, the Claimant presented a copy of a handwritten police report dated 4 June 2008 together with a police certificate. The Claimant stated that the team manager offered him once again currency of country I 18,000, but he rejected the offer once again, asking for the entire value of his contract since it was terminated wrongfully. 9 Furthermore, the Claimant emphasized that he would have had the opportunity to renegotiate a lucrative 3 years contract with his former club, Club B, but that he did not because the team manager of the Respondent persuaded him to sign the contract with Club P. In addition, the Claimant asserted that the visa that the Respondent applied for him was valid only for the duration of the contract and only with the Respondent, which allegedly demonstrated the intention to “hold [him] down for control” and deny him the opportunity to sign a better contract. Finally, the Claimant held having received only his monthly salaries for the months of November and December 2007. 10 The Respondent submitted its position rejecting the claim of the Claimant, alleging that the Claimant is not disclosing the true and correct facts of the matter and that his only intention is to extort additional money from the Respondent. 11 The Respondent held that, contrary to the arguments of the Claimant, the contract was signed on 1 November 2007, enclosing a copy of the contract, and that it was valid for the period between 1 November 2007 and 31 October 2009, stipulating a monthly compensation of currency of country I 30,000. However, the Respondent denied any increase after the first season and / or any other large bonus and allowance as alleged by the Claimant. Moreover, the Respondent stated having never authorized the Claimant to organise the travel to country N at his expenses with the promise of refund. On the contrary, the Respondent set forth that it booked the flight tickets for the Claimant on its expenses. In this respect, the Respondent enclosed a copy of the confirmation of the flight tickets, issued on the name of the Claimant, scheduling the trips country I – country K – country N on 26 September 2007 as well as country N – country K – country I on 10 October 2007. Equally, the Respondent pointed out that the handwritten list enclosed by the Claimant dated 14 September 2007 does not indicate that the expenses are to be borne by the Claimant and that he would be refunded for it. 12 According to the Respondent, immediately after signing the contract, the coach observed disinterest of the Claimant in participating in the exercise and training sessions and that, even after notifying it to the Claimant as well as requesting him to take corrective steps, no improvement followed. The Respondent also alleged that the player failed to attend the regular training sessions, expressing inability to gear up to play in tournaments as well as requested to return to his home place. In this regard, the Respondent affirmed that it could have terminated the contract on disciplinary measures, but, in good faith, it offered to the Claimant to continue with the Respondent until the end of the season, i.e. May 2008, agreeing to pay him the monthly compensation until then. The Respondent enclosed copies of cheques dated 30 January 2008 and 26 February 2008 up to a total of currency of country I 60,000, which according to the Respondent, it offered to the Claimant as monthly compensation for the months of January and February 2008, but which the Claimant apparently refused asking for a disproportionate amount as compensation. 13 The Claimant submitted his final comments and, referring to the statement made by the Respondent regarding the fact that the contract has been signed on 1 November 2007, affirmed that this “suggests to me that a criminal offence has taken place. It appears [the club] has altered or doctored the date of my contract.” In this respect, the Claimant requested the “original contract papers”. The Claimant asserted that on 1 November 2007, when the contract was supposedly signed as alleged by the Respondent, he was working for the Respondent regarding the clearance of two country N players, fact that according to the Claimant can be proved by the re-entry visa and the arrival stamp that he received at country I Airport. In his support, the Claimant presented a copy of the visa page of his passport, on which there is a stamp dated 12 November 2007. In this context, the Claimant highlighted that his visa was dated October 2007 and, therefore, a copy of the contract must have been submitted to the authorities and could not be dated 1 November 2007. 14 Moreover, the Claimant affirmed that the reasons alleged by the Respondent concerning the termination of the contract are unprofessional, pointing out that he has never been warned regarding his lack of interest to the club and trainings, neither in writing nor in any other way, such for instance by suspending him or failing to pay his salary. 15 Finally, the Claimant referred to the statement made by the club in regards to the presented cheques, emphasizing that it would be illogical to issue cheques in advance to a player that has indicated that he wanted to leave the club. In this respect, the Claimant stated that those cheques were actually the ones offered to him in order to persuade him to terminate the contract. 16 The Respondent presented its final comments, denying once again all allegations made by the Claimant, stating that said claim is unsubstantiated, exaggerated and made with the sole intention to extract monies from the Respondent. Moreover, the Respondent alleged that, the breakdown submitted by the Claimant seems to be “a design of his imagination” and that there isn’t any supporting material or justification to indicate the correctness of the claim, evidenced by the non-compatibility of the claimed amounts with the amounts contained in the contract signed by the parties. 17 Upon request, the Respondent provided the original of the contract duly signed by the parties. 18 The Claimant informed that he did not sign any new employment contract during the relevant contractual period. 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 15 June 2008, thus before 1 July 2008. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2005; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. article 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 and 2 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 N player and a country I 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, 2010, 2009 and 2008), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 15 June 2008, the 2008 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 Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, the Chamber started to acknowledge the facts of the case as well as the documents contained in the file. 5. First and foremost, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant declared not having received a copy of the employment contract signed by the parties. In this context, the DRC noted that, according to the Claimant, he had signed a two years contract with the Respondent valid as from June 2007 until December 2009, which stipulated a monthly remuneration on currency of country I 30,000 “with a 50% increase after the first season plus other large bonuses and allowances taking [the] total monthly package to about [currency of country I] 50,000 [...]”. Equally, the members of the DRC observed that the Claimant affirmed that the estimated value for the alleged period of his contract would have been currency of country I 1,000,000, considering that the contract did not include a special bonus that the management promised him, should the club have qualified for the country I league 1. 6. On the other hand, the members of the Chamber noted that the Respondent provided a copy as well as the original of the contract dated 1 November 2007 and valid until 31 October 2009. Additionally, the DRC noticed that according to the article 5.1 of the presented contract, it was agreed that: “The said Club agrees to pay compensation to the player a sum of [currency of country I] 720,000/- (less all amounts required to be deducted by the law for the time being in force). Such compensation shall be paid in equal monthly instalments beginning with the term of this contract, for the term covered under this contract and payable on the 7th day of each month till and until the compensation is paid in full, unless terminated for reasons set out hereinafter.)”. Moreover, the members of the DRC remarked that the contract presented by the Respondent, stipulated inter alia the terms indicated under point I.3. 7. At this point the members of the Chamber reviewed the claim of the Claimant, who asserted that the Respondent terminated the contract without just cause, claiming the aggregate amount of USD 1,999,931, as follows: (i) USD 11,742, which allegedly corresponded to currency of country I 540,000, regarding 18 monthly salaries from July 2007 until December 2009, each monthly salary in the amount of currency of country I 30,000; (ii) USD 30,436 which allegedly corresponded to currency of country I 1,400,000 regarding bonuses for 70 official matches during the 18 months, each one in the amount of currency of country I 20,000; (iii) USD 16,305, which allegedly corresponded to currency of country I 750,000, regarding special bonuses “per promotions X won Trophies”; (iv) USD 7,148, which allegedly corresponded to currency of country I 328,000, regarding feeding allowances for approximately 548 days, each day in the amount of currency of country I 600; (v) USD 200,000, corresponding to a compensation “for fundamental human rights” for not having been released during 6 months; (vi) USD 650,000, corresponding to a compensation for preventing the Claimant to find an agreement elsewhere due to the issued visa, which allowed the Claimant only to play for the Respondent, as long as the contract was valid; (vii) USD 500,000, corresponding to a compensation for being forced to stay out of competitive football as a professional player; (viii) USD 390,000, corresponding to a compensation for emotional trauma for him and his family; (ix) USD 40,000, corresponding to a compensation for reduction of the residency status, i.e. from a suite with different facilities as stipulated in the contract to a flat to share with ten other players; (x) USD 80,000, corresponding to football kit; (xi) USD 70,000, corresponding to a compensation for possible sponsorship deals; (xii) USD 4,300, corresponding to a compensation for flight tickets to and from country N. In this regard, the Claimant enclosed a copy of an e-ticket on his name, issued on 5 June 2008, scheduling the trip country I – country K- country N on 7 June 2008, amounting to currency of country I 18,500. 8. In continuation, the DRC reviewed the position presented by the Respondent, who rejected the claim of the Claimant, stating that the latter is not disclosing the true fact and that his only intention is to extort additional money from the Respondent. 9. In this regard, the members of the Chamber took note that the Respondent pointed out that it signed the contract with the Claimant on 1 November 2007, and that it was valid until 31 October 2009, stipulating a monthly salary of currency of country I 30,000 but no further increase after the first season and / or any other large bonus and allowance alleged by the Claimant. 10. Moreover, the DRC took note that the Claimant in particular insisted that the contract was false and that it was valid since June 2007 until December 2009. 11. Additionally, the Chamber took note that the Respondent reiterated all its previous arguments, emphasising that the claim of the Claimant is unsubstantiated, exaggerated and with the sole intention to extract monies from the Respondent as well as that the Claimant did not provide any supporting material or justification that demonstrate the correctness of the claim. 12. Considering the above contradictory statements presented by both parties, the members of the DRC first and foremost understood that it had to analyse the validity of the contract provided by the Respondent. 13. At this point, the DRC acknowledge the fact that the Claimant stated that he signed the contract with the Respondent in June 2007 valid until December 2009, agreeing all the provisions indicated under point II.5. but that he did not submit a copy of the contract, alleging having not received it. 14. In this context, the members of the Chamber referred to the general legal principle of the burden of proof, according to which a party deriving a right from an alleged fact has the obligation to prove the relevant fact (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). 15. On account of the above, the Chamber held that, taking into account that the Claimant did not provide a copy of the contract signed with the Respondent, he failed to prove that the contract was signed in June 2007 as well as that the provisions alleged by him were in fact stipulated in said contract. However, the members of the DRC highlighted that, although the Claimant did not submit a copy of the contract, he presented other documentary evidence which led to the conclusion that an employment relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent did indeed occur, as accepted by the Respondent, and thus, the DRC accepted to hear the claim of the Claimant. 16. On the other hand, the Chamber took note that, at the submission of its position, the Respondent presented a copy of the contract, which was dated 1 November 2007 and valid until 31 October 2009 as well as established the terms indicated under point II.6. plus inter alia the further provisions listed under point I.3. At the same time, the members of Chamber remarked that, after the Claimant alleged that the date of the copy of the contract present by the Respondent was altered or falsified, the Respondent, upon request, provided the original contract signed between the parties. 17. At this stage, the Chamber considered it appropriate to remark that, as a general rule, FIFA’s deciding bodies are not competent to decide upon matters of criminal law, such as the alleged altered or falsified contract, but that such affairs fall into the jurisdiction of the competent national criminal authority. In continuation, the DRC recalled that all documentation shall be considered with free discretion and therefore, it focused its attention on the original contract submitted by the Respondent as well as on other documents containing the Claimant’s signature provided by the parties in the context of the present dispute. In this regard, the Chamber pointed out that the original contract of 25 pages was provided by the Respondent and that each page was initialled as well as that the last page was signed by all the parties. 18. After a thorough analysis of the aforementioned document, in particular comparing the relevant signatures, the DRC had no other option but to determine that, for a layman, the signatures on the relevant documents appear to be the same. In view of the foregoing, the DRC concluded that the contract presented by the Respondent is valid and binding between the parties. As a consequence, the Chamber considered that the contract was valid from 1 November 2007 until 31 October 2009. 19. In continuation, having established the validity of the contract submitted by the Respondent and, consequently, of its terms, the Chamber went on to analyse as to whether such contract had been breached and, in the affirmative, which party is to be held liable for the breach of the contract. 20. In this respect, the DRC first took note that the Claimant declared that, on 6 January 2008, the Respondent informed him that the contract would be terminated, which remained uncontested by the Respondent, offering him three monthly salaries and a flight ticket back to country N as well as currency of country I 18,000, concerning the expenses for the travel organised in September and that he rejected said offer. In this context, the members of the DRC considered that the contract was terminated by the Respondent on 6 January 2008. 21. Subsequently, the Chamber recalled that, on one hand, the Respondent affirmed that immediately after signing the contract with the Claimant, the latter started to show disinterest while participating in the exercises and the training sessions and that he did not improve although he was requested to take corrective steps. On the other hand, the Claimant held that the Respondent had terminated the contract without just cause as well as the he was never informed or warned concerning his lack of interest 22. In this context, the DRC recalled the principle of burden of proof (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules) and considered that the Respondent failed to provide enough evidence regarding the alleged low performance and lack of interest of the Claimant. Additionally, the DRC referred to its constant jurisprudence according to which a player’s low performance does not constitute a valid reason to terminate unilaterally an employment contract. 23. On account of the above, the Chamber established that the Respondent did not have just cause to terminate the contract and thus, breached the contract. 24. Having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the breach of the contract, the Chamber focussed its attention on the consequences of such breach. Therefore, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay compensation for the damages suffered by the Claimant as a consequence of said breach in addition to any outstanding amounts. 25. In this context, the DRC took into account that the Claimant held having received his monthly salaries for the months of November and December 2007 (cf. point I.9). Therefore, the Chamber concluded that by the time the contract was terminated, i.e. 6 January 2008, there was no outstanding remuneration in accordance with the contract. 26. In continuation, the DRC focussed its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of the 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 Claimant under the existing contract and/or the new contract. 27. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent contract contained a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of the contract. 28. In this regard, the Chamber noticed that no such compensation caluse was included in the contract applicable to both parties. 29. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the amount payable to the Claimant under the terms of the contract as from January 2008, when the contract was terminated by the Respondent, until 31 October 2009, date of the end of the contractual relationship in accordance with the contract. In this regard, the DRC considered that according to the contract the Claimant was still entitled to receive currency of country I 660,000 until the end of the contract, i.e. 31 October 2009. 30. In continuation, the members of the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages. 31. In this respect, the members of the Chamber remarked that according to the Claimant, he did not sign any new contract with any new club since the breach of the contract with the club (cf. point I.18.). However, the DRC considered that the Claimant had several transfer windows at his disposal to find a new club and sign a new employment contract in order to mitigate his damages. 32. On account of all of the above-mentioned considerations, the remaining period of the contract and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of currency of country I 400,000 to the Claimant as compensation for breach of contract. 33. In continuation, the DRC acknowledged the claim of the Claimant for the amount of USD 4,300 as compensation for flight tickets (cf. point I.4 (xii)). In this respect, the members of the DRC took note, that the Claimant alleged that in September 2007 the team manager of the Respondent authorized him to organise the travel including flight tickets and other expenses to country N for the “club’s preparation”, promising him to refund the expenses. The Chamber further noticed that the Claimant affirmed not having been reimbursed for the amount of currency of country I 18,000, according to the Claimant equivalent to USD 4,300, not even, after having given all receipts of the expenses regarding the mentioned travel to the team manager. In this regard, the members of the Chamber, observed that the Claimant presented a handwritten list dated 14 September 2007, which is addressed to the Head-Operation of the Respondent and signed by the team manager as well as scheduled all dates and prices in relation with the above-mentioned trip amounting to a total of currency of country I 14,000. Equally, the members of the DRC, noticed that the Claimant provided also flight tickets for a round trip ticket country I – country K – country N, issued on the Claimant’s name for the dates 17 and 18 October as well as 11 November 2007, the latter one apparently amounting to currency of country I 33,220. 34. On the other hand, the DRC noticed that the Respondent asserted having never authorized the Claimant to organise the travel to country N on his expenses with the promise of refunding him but that on the contrary, it was the Respondent that booked the flight tickets for the Claimant on its expenses. The Chamber remarked that the Respondent provided a copy of the confirmation of flight tickets on the name of the player, for the round trip country I – country K – country N, on the dates 26 September 2007 and 10 October 2007. In addition, the members of the Chamber, noted that the Respondent declared that the handwritten list dated 14 September 2007 presented by the Claimant, does nowhere mention that the contained expensed were covered by the Claimant nor that the latter would be refunded for said expenses. 35. On account of all the above, the DRC recalled the principle of burden of proof (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules) and considered that the Claimant had failed to prove he was entitled to receive flight tickets as well as that he had effectively paid the amount claimed for the flight tickets.. 36. Subsequently, the DRC considered the other amounts requested by the Claimant (cf. points I.4(ii) to (xi)) and considered that they had to be rejected for the lack of legal basis as well as considering the fact that the Claimant had not submitted any convincing documentary evidence (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). 37. In conclusion, taking into account all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand the Chamber decided to partially accept the claim of the Claimant and, as a consequence, that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the total amount of currency of country I 400,000, as compensation for the breach of the contract. 38. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected. ****** Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player C, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club P, has to pay to the Claimant, Player C, the amount of currency of country I 400,000, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. In the event that the sum due in accordance with point 2 is not paid within the established deadline, interest at the rate of 5% per year will apply as of expiring of the fixed time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Player C, are rejected 5. The Claimant, Player C, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club P, 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