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 12 December 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Todd Durbin (USA), member on the claim presented by the player, Player O, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club R, from country T as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen 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 passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 12 December 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Todd Durbin (USA), member on the claim presented by the player, Player O, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club R, from country T as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 March 2012, Player O, from country B (hereinafter: player or Claimant), and Club R, from country T (hereinafter: club or Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid as from the date of signature until 31 December 2013. 2. According to the contract, the player was entitled to receive from the club a monthly salary of currency of country T 50,000. 3. In addition, the player was to receive an allowance in the amount of currency of country T 400 “per practicing day”. 4. Moreover, the player was entitled to receive a bonus for his participation in each football match. The contract stipulates that the bonus “will be paid in accordance with polish, practices and procedures of the Club”. 5. On 25 January 2013, the player terminated the contract with immediate effect since the club had allegedly failed to pay him the salaries for the months of May 2012 until December 2012. According to the player, he had just cause to terminate the contract due to the outstanding salaries. 6. On 31 January 2013, the player lodged a claim before FIFA against the club claiming the amounts of currency of country T 1,100,000 and USD 100,000, calculated as follows: a) currency of country T 400,000 corresponding to unpaid salaries for the months May to December 2012, plus 5% interest as of the due date of each payment; b) currency of country T 72,000 for training allowances, plus 5% interest as of the due date of each payment; c) currency of country T 28,000 for 13 match bonuses, plus 5% interest as of the due date of each payment; d) currency of country T 600,000 as compensation for breach of contract for the period as of January 2013 until December 2013; e) USD 100,000 as compensation for the club’s unlawful behaviour during the entire term of the contract and for breaching the contract within the protected period. In addition, the player asked FIFA to impose sporting sanctions on the club. 7. According to the player, he only received the salaries for March and April 2012. The player stated that he had requested the outstanding salaries, allowances and bonuses from the club on many occasions. The player further stated that since several players of the club had not received their salaries from the club, on 2 October 2012, they decided to send a letter of protest to the Football Association of country T relating to the outstanding salaries. The player added that, because of this complaint, the club had forced him to leave the house, which the club had provided for the player. 8. Regarding the training allowances, the player explained that “the entire working days from 2 March 2012 until 7 November 2012 totalizes 180 training days” (180 x currency of country T 400 = currency of country B 72,000). The player added that after the end of the first season, on 8 November 2012, he had left country T for holidays in country B. 9. As regards the bonus, the player explained that the club used to pay, as a regular practice, an amount between currency of country T 1,500 and currency of country T 3,000 for the player’s participation in a match, regardless of the result of the match. The player stated that he had only received bonus payments for five matches, even though he participated in 18 matches. Thus, the player claims outstanding bonus payments for 13 matches in the “average amount of currency of country T 28,000”. 10. In spite of having been invited by FIFA to do so, the club has failed to respond to the player’s claim. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as DRC or Chamber) 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 31 January 2013. Consequently, the 2012 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. 1 and par. 2 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 B player and a country T club. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber 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 claim was lodged on 31 January 2013, the 2012 edition of the aforementioned 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. In doing so, the Chamber started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file. 5. First of all, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that on 1 March 2012, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 31 December 2013. As to the financial terms of said employment contract, the Chamber took note that it had been agreed upon between the parties that the Respondent would remunerate the Claimant with a monthly salary of currency of country T 50,000. Furthermore, the Chamber duly noted that the Respondent would pay the Claimant training allowance in the amount of currency of country T 400 per football practice. 6. The Chamber further observed that the Claimant had lodged a claim before FIFA against the Respondent seeking payment of the amount of currency of country T 400,000 corresponding to his outstanding remuneration, currency of country T 72,000 for the training allowances, currency of country T 28,000 for match bonuses as well as the amounts of currency of country T 600,000 and USD 100,000 as compensation, asserting that the Respondent had not fulfilled its contractual obligations towards him. More specifically, the Claimant indicated that the Respondent had neither paid him his salaries for the months of May to December 2012, nor the amounts payable as training allowance as from the beginning of the contract. 7. Equally, the Chamber noted that, following several alleged oral notifications and an alleged direct complaint to the Football Association of country T on 2 October 2012, by means of which the Claimant requested the Respondent to pay him the outstanding remuneration, and since allegedly no payment was made by the Respondent, the Claimant sent a letter dated 25 January 2013 to the Respondent, by means of which he terminated the contract with immediate effect. 8. Furthermore, the Chamber observed that the Respondent failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant, despite having been invited to do so. In this way, so the Chamber deemed, the Respondent renounced its right of defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 9. As a consequence of the preceding consideration, the Chamber established that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, it shall take a decision upon the basis of the documents on file. 10. Having taken into consideration the previous considerations, the Chamber decided that it could be established that the Respondent had seriously neglected its contractual obligations towards the Claimant in a continuous and constant manner, i.e. the Respondent had failed to remunerate the Claimant for a substantial period of time. Therefore, the Chamber considered that the Respondent was found to be in breach of the employment contract and that the breach was of such seriousness that, in line with the Chamber’s long-standing and well-established jurisprudence, the Claimant had a just cause to unilaterally terminate the contractual relationship with the Respondent on 25 January 2013, having previously put the Respondent in default of payment of the outstanding amounts. 11. On account of the above, the Chamber established that the Claimant had terminated the employment contract with just cause on 25 January 2013 and that, consequently, the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contact with just cause by the Claimant. 12. Bearing in mind the previous considerations, the Chamber went on to deal with the consequences of the early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant. 13. First of all, the members of the Chamber concurred that the Respondent must fulfill its obligations as per employment contract in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the remuneration that was outstanding at the time of the termination, i.e. the amount of currency of country T 400,000, consisting of eight monthly salaries of currency of country T 50,000 each, corresponding to the months of May to December 2012, as well as the amount of currency of country T 72,000, made up of 180 payments of currency of country T 400 each regarding the training allowance, corresponding to trainings in the period as from 2 March to 7 November 2012, which, as established above, were not contested by the Respondent in the absence of its response to the claim. In the absence of any specific monetary value in the contractual condition relating to the match bonuses and of any documentary evidence in this connection (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which deals with the burden of proof), the Chamber had to reject the Claimant’s claim amounting to currency of country T 28,000 relating to the match bonuses. 14. On account of the above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the total amount of currency of country T 472,000. 15. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the members of the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as of the due dates of the relevant contractual obligations until the date of effective payment as follows: a) 5% p.a. as of 1 June 2012 on the amount of currency of country T 50,000; b) 5% p.a. as of 1 July 2012 on the amount of currency of country T 50,000; c) 5% p.a. as of 1 August 2012 on the amount of currency of country T 50,000; d) 5% p.a. as of 1 September 2012 on the amount of currency of country T 50,000; e) 5% p.a. as of 1 October 2012 on the amount of currency of country T 50,000; f) 5% p.a. as of 1 November 2012 on the amount of currency of country T 50,000; g) 5% p.a. as of 1 December 2012 on the amount of currency of country T 50,000; h) 5% p.a. as of 1 January 2013 on the amount of currency of country T 50,000; i) 5% p.a. as of 31 January 2013 on the amount of currency of country T 72,000. 16. In continuation, having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the termination of the contract with just cause by the Claimant on 25 January 2013, the Chamber decided that, taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent compensation for breach of contract in addition to the aforementioned outstanding remuneration on the basis of the relevant employment contract. 17. In this context, the Chamber outlined that, in accordance with said provision, 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, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period. 18. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify whether the pertinent employment contract contained any clause, by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon a compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake. 19. Subsequently and prior to assessing the relevant criteria in determining the amount of compensation due to the Claimant by the Respondent, the Chamber first of all recalled that the Claimant is claiming the amount of currency of country T 600,000 as compensation, corresponding to the remaining value of the employment contract, i.e. 12 monthly salaries amounting to currency of country T 50,000 each. The DRC further noted, that the Claimant is also claiming the amount of USD 100,000 as compensation for the club’s unlawful behavior during the term of the contract. 20. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the employment contract as of its termination with just cause by the Claimant until 31 December 2013, taking into account that the player´s remuneration until December 2012 is included in the calculation of the outstanding remuneration (cf. no. II./13. above). Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of currency of country T 600,000 (i.e. remuneration as from January to December 2013) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 21. In continuation, 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. 22. In this respect, the DRC established that the Claimant had not concluded any new employment contract with another club and that, hence, he was not able to mitigate his damages caused by the Respondent’s breach of contract. 23. In view of all of the above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of currency of country T 600,000 to the Claimant as compensation for breach of contract. 24. As regards the Claimant’s claim regarding additional compensation in the amount of USD 100,000, the Chamber held that there is no legal or contractual basis for such claim. Thus, the DRC had to reject the Claimant’s claim relating to additional compensation amounting to USD 100,000. 25. As a consequence of all the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amount of currency of country T 472,000 plus the corresponding interests relating to the Claimant’s outstanding remuneration at the time of the unilateral termination of the contract by the Claimant and the amount of currency of country T 600,000 corresponding to compensation for breach of contract. 26. The 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 O, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club R, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of currency of country T 472,000 plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows: a) 5% p.a. as of 1 June 2012 on the amount of currency of country T 50,000; b) 5% p.a. as of 1 July 2012 on the amount of currency of country T 50,000; c) 5% p.a. as of 1 August 2012 on the amount of currency of country T 50,000; d) 5% p.a. as of 1 September 2012 on the amount of currency of country T 50,000; e) 5% p.a. as of 1 October 2012 on the amount of currency of country T 50,000; f) 5% p.a. as of 1 November 2012 on the amount of currency of country T 50,000; g) 5% p.a. as of 1 December 2012 on the amount of currency of country T 50,000; h) 5% p.a. as of 1 January 2013 on the amount of currency of country T 50,000; i) 5% p.a. as of 31 January 2013 on the amount of currency of country T 72,000. 3. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant compensation for breach of contract in the amount of currency of country T 600,000, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. In the event that this sum is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due on the amount of currency of country T 600,000 as of expiry of the aforementioned time limit. 4. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant in accordance with the above-mentioned numbers 2. and 3. are not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limits, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 6. 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