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 27 February 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Todd Durbin (USA), member Mohamed Al Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member on the claim presented by the player, Player Q, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club O, from country C 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 27 February 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Todd Durbin (USA), member Mohamed Al Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member on the claim presented by the player, Player Q, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club O, from country C as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 23 December 2008, Player Q, from country B (hereinafter: player or Claimant), and Club O, from country C (hereinafter: club or Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid for the seasons 2008/2009 and 2009/2010. 2. Additionally to the contract, on 22 December 2008, the player and the club signed a supplementary agreement (hereinafter: supplementary agreement), valid for the same time period as the employment contract. 3. Art. 6 of the contract provides that “In case of financial dispute between the player and the employer mutually agreed that the dispute shall be resolved by the competent bodies of the country C Football Association and after exhausting all legal remedies to make provision for country C Football Association Regulations”. 4. Article 15 of the contract further stipulates that “Both parties accept unconditionally their relations are governed exclusively by these rules and regulations of the employer and that their relations are supplemented by the provisions of regulations concerning the status and transfer of players in country C Football Association / UEFA / FIFA respecting the provisions to the relevant international regulations”. 5. The club disputed the jurisdiction of the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: DRC), citing the clause in art. 6 of the contract (cf. point I./3. above). In this respect, the club stated that the country C Football Association has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with this matter. 6. The player, for his part, sustained that art. 6 of the contract does not exclude any jurisdiction of any other arbitration body for resolving financial disputes between the parties. Moreover, the player highlighted that should FIFA consider his claim inadmissible, he would be deprived of his right to claim compensation since, according to art. 22.11 (5) of the country C Football Association regulations, the case would be considered time barred. 7. Therefore, the player insisted on FIFA’s competence to deal with the present matter. 8. According to the contract, the player was entitled to receive, inter alia, for the 2008/2009 season, EUR 4,000, payable in four equal monthly instalments of EUR 1,000 each, the first instalment payable on 31 January 2008 and the subsequent ones on the 30th day of the relevant month. 9. In accordance with the supplementary agreement, the player was entitled to receive, inter alia, for the 2008/2009 season, in addition to the agreed remuneration of the contract, EUR 8,000, payable in four equal monthly instalments of EUR 2,000 each, the first instalment payable on 30 January 2008. 10. On 23 December 2009, the player lodged a claim before FIFA against the club claiming that the club acted in breach of the contract without just cause and he requested to be awarded the total outstanding amount of EUR 6,000 as follows: - EUR 4,000 relating to the salaries of March and April 2009, on the basis of the contract and the supplementary agreement; - EUR 2,000 corresponding to a bonus payment for the player’s participation in the ``11 wins of the Championship for the football period 2008-2009 according to the internal regulations of the Club’’; - ``Compensation for the delay of the Club in paying the said amounts’’. 11. Furthermore, the player requested reimbursement of costs, any other remedy and that the club be sanctioned. 12. The player held that the parties agreed to mutually terminate the employment contract at the end of the 2008/2009 season, but claimed that the club breached the contract, as it failed to pay the above-mentioned amounts. 13. In its reply with regard to the substance of the claim, the club disputed the validity of the supplementary agreement alleging that it was signed before the employment contract, which was dated 23 December 2008. Secondly, the club argued that it had never agreed with the player ``to pay any amount according to the internal regulations of the Club’’. 14. The club further indicated that the parties did in fact terminate the contract by mutual consent at the end of the 2008/2009 season and stated that ``by that agreement the parties resolved all financial and/or other disputes’’. 15. Finally, the club maintained to have never breached or acted in violation of the employment contract and denied all the other allegations of the player. 16. Consequently, the club requested that the player’s claim be rejected. 9 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 23 December 2009. 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. 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 would, in principle, be 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 C club. 3. However, the DRC acknowledged that the Respondent contested the competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of art. 6 of the employment contract, highlighting that the country C Football Association has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with this matter. 4. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Claimant rejected such position and insisted on the fact that FIFA has jurisdiction to deal with the present matter, since art. 6 of the contract does not exclude any jurisdiction of any other arbitration body for resolving financial disputes between the parties. 5. In this respect, the DRC referred to the above-mentioned article of the contract, on the basis of which the Respondent contested FIFA’s jurisdiction. According to said article, “In case of financial dispute between the player and the employer mutually agreed that the dispute shall be resolved by the competent bodies of the country C Football Association and after exhausting all legal remedies to make provision for country C Football Federation Regulations”. Hence, the DRC outlined that the content of the relevant article is rather vague and that said clause does not explicitly refer to a national dispute resolution chamber or any similar arbitration body in the sense of art. 22 lit. b) of the aforementioned Regulations. 6. Notwithstanding the above, the Chamber emphasised that, in accordance with art. 22 lit. b) of the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, it is competent to deal with a matter such as the one at hand, unless an independent arbitration tribunal, guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of players and clubs, has been established at national level within the framework of the Association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. With regard to the standards to be imposed on an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings, the Chamber referred to FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20 December 2005. In this regard, the members of the Chamber further referred to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008. 7. In this context, and irrespective of the consideration under point II./5. above, the Chamber wished to stress that the Respondent was unable to prove that, in fact, the country F Football Association “Dispute Resolution Committee” meets the minimum procedural standards for independent arbitration tribunals as laid down in art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, in FIFA Circular no. 1010 as well as in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations. 8. In this respect, the members of the Chamber also referred to the jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, which already, on several occasions, established that the country C Football Association “Dispute Resolution Committee” does not meet the minimum procedural standards for independent arbitration tribunals as laid down in art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. 9. In view of all the above, the members of the Chamber established that, in line with the constant jurisprudence of the DRC, the Respondent’s objection to the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected and that the DRC is competent, on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, to consider the present matter as to the substance. 10. Subsequently, 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), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 23 December 2009, the 2009 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 11. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 12. In this respect, the members of the DRC acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that they signed an employment contract and a supplementary agreement. According to the employment contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive, inter alia, for the 2008/2009 season, a monthly amount of EUR 1,000. In accordance with the supplementary agreement, in addition to the agreed remuneration included in the contract, the player was entitled to receive, inter alia, for the 2008/2009 season, a monthly amount of EUR 2,000. 13. Furthermore, the Chamber took into account that both parties acknowledged that their contractual relation was ended with mutual consent at the end of the 2008/2009 season. 14. In continuation, the Chamber took note that, according to the Claimant, the Respondent acted in breach of contract by failing to pay the amount of EUR 6,000. The DRC further observed that the Claimant seeks payment of the total amount of EUR 6,000, i.e. EUR 4,000 related to salaries for March and April 2009 as well as EUR 2,000 corresponding to bonuses on the basis of the Respondent’s internal regulations. The Claimant further requests to be awarded compensation for the delay in payment of said amounts. 15. Subsequently, the DRC acknowledged that the Respondent, in its defence, held that the supplementary agreement entered into between the parties cannot be considered valid, as it was signed before the employment contract, which was dated 23 December 2008. 16. Consequently, the members of the Chamber proceeded with a thorough examination of the documentation contained on file. In this context, the DRC observed that the supplementary agreement clearly stipulates that the remuneration and fringe benefits contained therein are to be paid to the Claimant in addition to the amounts stated in the employment contract. Moreover, the Chamber noted that, according to art. 7 of the supplementary agreement, the latter is ``valid as long as the agreement of employment applies’’. Furthermore, there is no evidence on file indicating that the reference to the ``agreement of employment’’ in the supplementary agreement does not concern the contract dated 23 December 2008. 17. Taking into consideration the above, and bearing in mind that the employment contract does not include any clause stipulating any condition that could affect the validity of the supplementary agreement, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent’s arguments related to the validity of the supplementary agreement could not be upheld by the DRC. 18. On account of the above, the members of the Chamber established that, on 22 December 2008, the parties signed a valid and binding supplementary agreement containing additional remuneration payable by the Respondent to the Claimant for services rendered by the latter to the Respondent. 19. In continuation, the Chamber recalled that it was undisputed by the parties that the employment relation had been terminated by mutual consent at the end of the 2008/2009 season. In this respect, the members of the Chamber further noted that the Respondent contested the allegation of the Claimant relating to the allegedly outstanding monies by stating that by means of the agreement of termination ``the parties resolved all financial and/or other disputes’’. 20. In this regard, referring to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof, the DRC took into account that the Respondent failed to present documentary evidence in support of its aforementioned allegation, which, consequently, had to be rejected. 21. Subsequently, the Chamber acknowledged that according to the Claimant, the Respondent also failed to pay the amount EUR 2,000 related to his participation in the ``11 wins of the Championship for the football period 2008-2009 according to the internal regulations of the Club’’. In this respect, the Chamber further noted that the Respondent, for its part, argued that it had never agreed with the player ``to pay any amount according to the internal regulations of the Club’’. 22. In this regard, bearing in mind art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the DRC took into account that the Claimant had not substantiated his petition, as he did not present any documentary evidence in respect of his allegation that he was entitled to receive EUR 2,000 from the Respondent in connection with team bonuses, in accordance with the club’s internal regulations. Consequently, the DRC decided that the Claimant’s petition relating to said bonuses had to be rejected. 23. In view of all the above, the members of the DRC concluded that it could be established that the Respondent had failed to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 4,000, corresponding to the salaries of March and April 2009, as claimed by the Claimant. 24. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the DRC decided that the Respondent must fulfil its obligations towards the Claimant and is to be held liable to pay to the Claimant the outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 4,000. 25. Reverting to the Claimant’s claim for compensation and bearing in mind that the employment relation between the parties had been terminated by mutual consent of the parties, the Chamber concurred that there is no basis on which such claim for compensation could be awarded. 26. Furthermore, the DRC decided that, in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the Dispute Resolution Chamber’s respective longstanding jurisprudence, the Claimant’s claim relating to costs is rejected. 27. The DRC concluded the 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 Q, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted. 3. The Respondent, Club O, is ordered to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 4,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 4. In the event that the above-mentioned amount due to the Claimant is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% per year will apply as of expiry of the fixed time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its 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: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl.: CAS directives