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 18 March 2014, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player U, from country N as Claimant against the club, Club K, from country T as Respondent regarding an employment-related contractual 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 (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 18 March 2014, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player U, from country N as Claimant against the club, Club K, from country T as Respondent regarding an employment-related contractual dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 20 July 2012, Player U, country N (hereinafter: the Claimant), and Club K, from country T (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid from the date of signature until 31 May 2015. 2. According to clause 4.1.1. of the contract, the remuneration of the Claimant for the season 2013/2014 was EUR 800,000 net, payable in 10 equal monthly instalments at the end of each month as from 31 July 2013 until 30 April 2014. 3. On 30 September 2013, the parties concluded a “Mutual Termination and Release of Employment Contract” (hereinafter: the termination agreement), by means of which they inter alia agreed that “[both parties] hereby release each other from any financial and/or contractual liabilities and obligations and both parties don´t have any claim, whether with promissory note or not, or under whatsoever nature it is, against each other.30.09.2013”. 4. On 4 December 2013, the Claimant submitted a claim in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), requesting the payment of one outstanding salary corresponding to the month of September 2013, amounting to EUR 80,000. 5. In this regard, the Claimant confirmed having signed the termination agreement. However, he explained that by doing so, he did not intend to waive his right to receive his salary of September 2013, which was already outstanding by then. In addition, he states that the termination agreement does not make any specific reference to such salary not being claimable and that he intended to contact the Respondent in this regard in the beginning of October 2013, in accordance with the pay dates of his previous salaries. The Claimant further stated not to have any reason to waive his right to receive due remuneration. Finally, the Claimant allegedly contacted the Respondent on 21 October 2013 in order to demand the outstanding payment, having received no payment or answer in this regard. 6. Despite having been invited by FIFA to do so, the Respondent never replied to the claim of the Claimant. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge (hereinafter: the DRC judge or the judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 4 December 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) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 1 and 2 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), he 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 T club. 3. In particular, and in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 lit. i) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the DRC judge confirmed that he may adjudicate in the present dispute which value does not exceed currency of country H 100,000. 4. Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations (edition 2012) and considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 4 December 2013, the 2012 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. 5. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. The DRC judge started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the documentation contained in the file. 6. However, before starting to acknowledge and to analyse the Claimant’s claim, the DRC judge wished to point out that the Respondent, in spite of having been given the opportunity to reply to the claim submitted by the Claimant, failed to present its response in this respect and, by doing so, it renounced to its right of defence. 7. As a consequence of the preceding consideration, the DRC judge established that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, he shall take a decision upon the basis of the documents on file. 8. Having said that, the DRC judge recalled that it was undisputed by the parties that they had signed an employment contract on 20 July 2012 valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2015, in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive the total amount of EUR 800,000 net as remuneration for the season 2013/2014. 9. Furthermore, the judge acknowledged that the Claimant signed a “Mutual Termination and Release of Employment Contract” on 30 September 2013, in accordance with which “[both parties] hereby release each other from any financial and/or contractual liabilities and obligations and both parties don´t have any claim, whether with promissory note or not, or under whatsoever nature it is, against each other.30.09.2013” (cf. point I./3. above). 10. In continuation, the DRC judge noted that the Claimant confirmed having signed the termination agreement of 30 September 2013, but alleged that such document did not make any specific reference to his salary of September 2013 not being claimable. Thus, he did not intend to waive his right to claim such allegedly outstanding salary. 11. In this context, and in view of the allegations of the Claimant, the DRC judge deemed it fit to emphasise that any party signing a document of legal importance without knowledge of its precise contents, as a general rule, does so on its own responsibility and must, therefore, bear the legal consequences eventually arising from such document. 12. In view of the aforementioned, the DRC judge noted that the Claimant confirms having signed the termination agreement of 30 September 2013. By concluding the termination agreement, the parties agreed not to have any further claims against each other and the Claimant released the Respondent from any financial obligations towards him. In other words, the DRC judge deemed that the Claimant could not, after having concluded the termination agreement, contest the contents of said agreement. Thus, the DRC judge concluded that the Claimant’s argument in this regard cannot be upheld. 13. In the light of all of the above, and in particular bearing in mind the fact that the Claimant signed the aforementioned termination agreement accepting its content without any reserves, the DRC judge decided that it must reject the claim put forward by the Claimant. III. Decision of the DRC judge The claim of the Claimant, Player U, is rejected. ***** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to article 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: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl.: CAS directives