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 28 March 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Jon Newman (USA), member Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member on the claim presented by the club, Club V, from country R as Claimant / Counter-Respondent against the player, Player M, from country S as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club B, from country R as intervening party 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 28 March 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Jon Newman (USA), member Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member on the claim presented by the club, Club V, from country R as Claimant / Counter-Respondent against the player, Player M, from country S as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club B, from country R as intervening party regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties. I. Facts of the case 1. On 9 February 2009, Player M, from country S (hereinafter: Respondent / CounterClaimant), and Club V, from country R (hereinafter: Claimant / Counter-Respondent), signed a “Civil Service Agreement” (hereinafter: contract), valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2012. In addition, on the same date, both parties signed a “Financial Appendix” (hereinafter: appendix), valid as from 1 January 2009 until 30 June 2012. 2. Article 1 of the appendix states that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is entitled to the following remuneration: Period 1 January 2009 until 30 June 2009: - EUR 50,000 composed of two instalments of EUR 25,000 each, the first due after “the medical visit” and the second on 15 June 2009. Period 1 July 2009 until 30 June 2010: - EUR 110,000 composed of four instalments of EUR 27,500 each, due on 15 July 2009, 15 December 2009, 15 March 2010 and 15 June 2010. Period 1 July 2010 until 30 June 2011: - EUR 120,000 composed of four instalments of EUR 30,000 each, due on 15 July 2010, 15 December 2010, 15 March 2011 and 15 June 2011. Period 1 July 2011 until 30 June 2012: - EUR 140,000 composed of four equal instalments of EUR 35,000 each, due on 15 July 2011, 15 December 2011, 15 March 2012 and 15 June 2012. 3. In addition, the appendix provides the following performance-related payments: - “placing on a place leading to the accession into the Champions League, leads to an increase of the contract for respective year by 100% (place 1-2 for 2008-2009 season)”; - “placing on a place leading to the accession into the UEFA Cup, leads to an increase of the contract for respective year by 50% (place 3-5 for 2008-2009 season)”; - “for official games played in I League premiums of EUR 3,000, 6,000 and 9,000 respectively will be granted, depending on the place of the game performance (home-visit) and on the place occupied by the competing team in the top etc. payment of the game premiums shall be made as follows: 50% after the game and 50% upon objective fulfilment, occupying a place acceding into an European cup respectively”; - “all above provided premiums and bonuses and amounts are conditioned by the presence on the field for minimum 60% of the official games in the championship, I LEAGUE”. 4. Article 5 of the appendix stipulates that “in case the player terminates the contractual relations with the beneficiary [club], without its written approval, this one has the obligation to pay all expenses incurred by the beneficiary for him […] plus a percentage set forth by the club’’. 5. On 2 June 2011, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent requesting the payment of EUR 206,362, plus 5% interest p.a (i.e. EUR 86,362 as outstanding amounts and EUR 120,000 as compensation). This claim was later withdrawn following the signature of a “Settlement Agreement” by the parties (hereinafter: settlement) on 20 June 2011. 6. The settlement provided for the payment of the debts towards Respondent / Counter-Claimant, which amounted to EUR 159,000 up until 15 June 2011, as follows: - EUR 30,000 as balance of salary due on 25 June 2011; - EUR 31,000 as UEFA bonus (2009) due on 15 July 2011; - EUR 98,000 as UEFA bonus and match premiums (2010-2011) due on 30 December 2011. 7. Clause 5 of the settlement stated that in case the payment plan agreed was not honoured by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the settlement would be automatically terminated; and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant would be entitled to claim the entire debt instantly as well as to resume the proceedings before FIFA. Moreover, in accordance with clause 6 of the settlement, ‘’any and all disputes arising from or related to this Settlement Agreement shall be submitted exclusively to by the FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber’’. 8. On 7 February 2012, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant put the Claimant / CounterRespondent in default requesting the payment of EUR 39,469 including EUR 35,000 as salary due on 15 December 2011, EUR 4,215 as outstanding payments provided for in the settlement and EUR 254 as balance of the salary due on 15 July 2011. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant gave the Claimant / Counter-Respondent a deadline of 10 February 2012 at noon to pay the aforementioned amounts and also requested to be reinstated in the first team’s training. In this regard, the Respondent / CounterClaimant states his disagreement with being suspended from training with the first team as of 6 February 2012. 9. On 8 February 2012, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant sent a further letter to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent acknowledging that he had been invited to return to training with the first team and stated that in case of failure to pay the amount of EUR 39,469 by 10 February 2012 at noon, he would terminate the contract. 10. On 10 February 2012, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent responded to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant explaining that the delay for the payment due on 15 December 2011 was related to the poor performance of the Respondent / Counter- Claimant and stating that the amount due will be paid before 15 February 2012. At the same time, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent justifies the player’s suspension from training and states that he has been reintegrated since he has made some efforts. 11. On the same date, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant terminated the contract in writing and urged the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to pay his outstanding dues in the amount of EUR 39,469 and compensation in the amount of EUR 70,000. 12. On 14 February 2012, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent lodged a claim before FIFA against the Respondent / Counter-Claimant insisting that the termination of the contract was unlawful in consideration that it had respected its contractual obligations towards the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. In this respect, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent referred to the fact that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s salary is due on a quarterly basis and that the outstanding amounts will be paid on 15 February 2012, i.e. with a delay of two months, which the Claimant / CounterRespondent deems to be acceptable. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent claims that it has duly informed the Respondent / Counter-Claimant of the delay and states as reasons for the delay that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is unhappy with the performance of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and has to calculate the exact amount due since the Respondent / Counter-Claimant has been asking for performance-related payments which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent disagrees with. 13. In this regard, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent restricted itself to request the amount of EUR 5,000 as compensation for legal costs, as long as the Respondent / Counter-Claimant returns to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. However, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent reserved its right to claim further compensation, should the Respondent / Counter-Claimant not return. 14. On 14 February 2012 as well, upon the settlement apparently not being honoured and further payments not being paid either, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent for breach of contract, requesting a total amount of EUR 184,114 net, composed as follows: - EUR 96,999 as outstanding payments, plus 5% interest p.a. “for the period from 1 January to 10 February 2012”, composed of: a) EUR 114 as balance of amount due on 25 June 2011 in accordance with the settlement; b) EUR 1,775 as balance of UEFA bonus due on 15 July 2011 in accordance with the settlement; c) EUR 17,754 as balance of salary (EUR 52,500, i.e. EUR 35,000, increased by 50%) payable on 15 July 2011; d) EUR 1,645 as balance of the 50% match bonus due immediately after the game against Club O on 4 December 2011; e) EUR 3,000 as the 50% match bonus due immediately after the game against Club U on 10 December 2011; f) EUR 52,500 (i.e. EUR 35,000, increased by 50%) as salary due on 15 December 2011; g) EUR 2,326 as balance of payment due by 30 December 2011 in accordance with the settlement; h) EUR 17,885 as pro rata temporis salary for the period of 1 January to 10 February 2012 (i.e. based on salary of EUR 52,500 [EUR 35,000, increased by 50%]). - EUR 87,115, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 11 February 2012 until the date of effective payment, as compensation corresponding to the residual value of the appendix (i.e. EUR 52,500 [EUR 35,000, increased by 50%] due on 15 June 2012 + EUR 34,615 as salary pro rata temporis from 10 or 11 February to 15 March 2012). 15. In this regard, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant underlines that after refusing to extend his employment contract, he was allegedly sent to train several times isolated from the team and without a licensed coach. On 31 January 2012, since the parties still did not agree on a new contract, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent authorised the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to go on trial with another club for five days and informed the Respondent / Counter that he could be transferred for the amount of EUR 300,000 as transfer compensation. 16. Furthermore, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant acknowledges having received the letter from the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s representative on 10 February 2012, but could not accept the reasons for the delay in payment. Consequently, since he had received no amount by 10 February 2012 at noon, the Respondent / CounterClaimant terminated the contract. In this respect, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant considers to have had just cause to terminate the contract, in particular, considering that the amount outstanding at the time was substantial and that he duly put the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in default. 17. With regard to the amounts requested, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant claims that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent qualified and competed in the UEFA Europa League during the 2011/2012 season, thus triggering the increase in salary for the 2011/2012 season and justifying his request for EUR 52,500 instead of EUR 35,000 as quarterly payments. In this respect, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant provided documentation indicating that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent finished third in the 2010/2011 season and competed in the UEFA Europa League the following season as well as evidence indicating that he competed in 79.41% of matches during the 2010/2011 season. As concerns the amounts requested in relation to the settlement, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant made reference to the exact exchange rate apparently applicable on the date of each payment and concluded that the stated amounts (cf. points 10 a), b) and g) above) were outstanding. 18. In this context, considering that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant apparently had no intention to return to the club and that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had no just cause to terminate the contract, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent amended its claim to a total amount of EUR 698,012 as compensation for damages, composed of: - EUR 634,557 as the total amounts paid to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in accordance with art. 5 of the appendix; - EUR 63,455 corresponding to 10% of the abovementioned sum (i.e. in accordance with art. 5 of the appendix). 19. In addition, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent referred to the fact that it paid the amount of EUR 35,000 on 15 February 2012, and thereby considers to have paid all amounts that were outstanding at the time. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent acknowledged that this payment was made with a two-month delay, but insists that such a delay remains within the threshold of three months as of which the Respondent / Counter-Claimant has a just cause to terminate the contract in accordance with the jurisprudence of DRC and CAS. The Claimant / CounterRespondent also claims that the facts the club had regularly paid the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s salaries until 15 December 2011 and had formally informed the Respondent / Counter-Claimant of the delayed payment due to his performance in training justified the delay. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent also reiterated that the bonuses and premiums requested by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant were not due. Finally, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was allegedly entitled to a sixday waiting period before the Respondent / Counter-Claimant terminated the contract, which was not respected by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. For all these reasons, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent maintains that the termination by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant on 10 February 2012 was unlawful. 20. In his final position, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant refers to the fact that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had been late with certain payments in the past, hence the signature of the settlement. Moreover, he insists that the payment due on 15 December 2011 constituted the salary for three months (i.e. as of October to December 2011) and thus, at the time of the termination of the contract, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had not received any remuneration for five months. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant does however acknowledge the payment of EUR 35,000 on 15 February 2012 but underlines that it was not the entire amount due. In this regard, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant asserts that the delayed payment by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, after the default notices, reflects recognition by the club that it, in fact, breached the contract. 21. Upon FIFA’s request, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant stated that he remained unemployed from 10 February until 30 June 2012 (i.e. the original date of expiry of the contract). On 15 February 2012, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant signed a contract with a new club, Club B, for a period of four seasons as from 1 July 2012 until 30 June 2016. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant insisted on the fact that the latter contract cannot and should not serve as a basis for the Dispute Resolution Chamber to reduce the compensation claimed from the club as it enters into force only after expiry of the contract with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 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 14 February 2012. Consequently, the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at stake (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the 2008 and 2012 editions 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 (editions 2010 and 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 S player and a country R 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 (editions 2010 and 2012), and considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 14 February 2012, the 2010 edition of said Regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered the substance of the present matter. In doing so, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, on 9 February 2009, signed a contract valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2012. In addition, on the same date, the parties signed an appendix, valid as from 1 January 2009 until 30 June 2012. 5. In continuation, the Chamber also took note that it is uncontested by both parties that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant terminated in writing the contractual relationship on 10 February 2012 after putting the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in default on 7 and 8 February 2012. 6. In this regard, the Chamber took due note that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, on the one hand, argues that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant has unilaterally terminated the contractual relationship without just cause. According to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, there was no objective reason for the player to terminate the contract since it had respected its contractual obligation. In this respect, the club refers to the fact that the player’s salary is due on a quarterly basis and that the outstanding amounts would be paid on 15 February 2012, i.e. with a delay of two months, which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent deems to be the minimum waiting period before having a just cause to terminate an employment contract. Additionally, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent claims that it had duly informed the player of the delay and stated as reasons for the delay that the club was unhappy with the performance of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant at training and had to calculate the exact amount due since the player was asking for performance-related payments which the club disagreed with. 7. The Chamber further took note of the argumentation of the Respondent / CounterClaimant, who insists on the fact that his salary of December, which should have been due on 15 December 2011 and constitutes a significant proportion of his income since his salary is paid on a quarterly basis, had not been paid on the date of the termination, leaving him without remuneration for five months. Nevertheless, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant acknowledges that a payment of EUR 34,993 has been made by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent on 15 February 2012, i.e. five days after the termination. In this regard, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant stresses that it was not the first time such delays occurred and recalls his previous claim for outstanding remuneration lodged before FIFA on 20 June 2011 which was eventually withdrawn after both parties agreed on a settlement. The Respondent / CounterClaimant also points out that, after his refusal to extend his contractual relationship, he had been suspended from training with the first team without valid reason. 8. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the claim and counterclaim respectively lodged by the parties, was to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by the Respondent / CounterClaimant, and which party was responsible for the early termination of the contractual relationship in question. The DRC also underlined that, subsequently, if it were found that the employment contract was breached by one of the parties without just cause, it would be necessary to determine the consequences for the party that caused the unjust breach of the relevant employment contract. 9. In view of the above, the Chamber subsequently went on to deliberate as to whether the delayed payments and the outstanding amounts, along with the obligation to train individually, which are invoked by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in its defence, can be considered as a just cause for the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to have prematurely terminated the employment relationship. 10. In this context, whilst referring to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof, the Chamber deemed it fit to highlight that the Respondent / CounterClaimant had presented documentary evidence establishing that he had put the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in default 7 February 2012 and 8 February 2012 before terminating the contract on 10 February 2012. In fact, the Claimant / CounterRespondent does not contest either that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s salary of December 2012 had not been paid on the date of termination since the proof of payment of EUR 34, 993 is only dated 15 February 2012. Additionally, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s delay in payment in the past substantiated by the settlement concluded by the parties and in particular the fact that the player had not received any remuneration for almost five months, gave an urgent nature to the situation and perfectly justified the three-day deadline given by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. In this regard, the Chamber emphasized the consequences for a player to receive a salary on a quarterly basis, in particular stressing on the risks for the player to end up without any livelihood in case of delayed payment. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the club’s obligations towards the players, especially with regard to the delays of payment, must be strengthened in order to contain the risks for the player and ensure him an adequate protection. Moreover, the Chamber equally noticed that the player had to train isolated from the rest of the team at the beginning of February 2012. 11. On the other hand, in addition to the fact that the alleged reasons for the delay have remained unsubstantiated, the Chamber pointed out that it has never been recognised that performance-related arguments were valid reasons for a club to delay a salary payment. 12. In view of all the above, it is established that at the time of the termination of the contract (i.e. on 10 February 2012), the quarterly salary of December 2011 was outstanding. Consequently, the Chamber was of the opinion that the objective circumstances at the time justified the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s loss of confidence towards his employer and therefore, did provide him with just cause to prematurely terminate the employment contract with the Claimant / CounterRespondent, in particular considering that his salary being paid on a quarterly basis, his last fixed remuneration was paid in July 2011. 13. Overall, the Chamber decided that there was a just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship between the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and that, therefore, the Respondent / CounterClaimant had not breached the employment contract without just cause. 14. For all these reasons, the Chamber decided to reject the claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and to accept the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s argumentation according to which he had terminated the employment contract with just cause. 15. Having established that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequences of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is entitled to receive from the Claimant / Counter-Respondent an amount of money as compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding payments on the basis of the relevant employment contract. 16. First of all, the Chamber reverted to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s financial counterclaim, which includes outstanding amounts of EUR 88,139 relating to salaries as well as 4,125 relating to the settlement and EUR 4,645 as match bonuses. In this regard, the Chamber emphasized the fact that it would only consider the amounts that have already fallen due at the date of termination, i.e. 10 February 2012. 17. At this stage, the Chamber noted that it is uncontested that a payment of EUR 34,993 was made by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent on 15 February 2010 corresponding to, according to the latter, the outstanding salary of December. 18. Then, the Chamber reverted to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s argument according to which the salaries due on 15 July 2011 and 15 December 2011 should have been increased by 50% in accordance with art. 1, par. 3, of the Appendix. In this regard, the Chamber analysed the evidence provided by the Respondent / CounterClaimant which confirmed that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent ranked third at the end of the 2010/2011 season, which entitled it to compete in the UEFA Europa League during the 2011/2012 season, and that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant participated in 27 out 34 league games, amounting to 79,41 %. On the other hand, notwithstanding the fact that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent has stated having paid all outstanding remuneration to the player, it has never explicitly contested the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s argumentation in relation to his alleged right to this increase. On account of the above, the Chamber considered that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was entitled to the 50 % increase. Nevertheless, considering that its occurrence was conditioned to the player’s participation in a certain number of games, the Chamber deemed that the 50% increase should be considered as a bonus dependent on the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s presence and performance. Consequently, the Chamber held that the following bonuses were still outstanding: EUR 17,754 for July 2011 and EUR 17,507 for December 2011. 19. As far as the outstanding amounts due under the settlement agreement are concerned, the Chamber reverted to the content of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and outlined that not only had the Claimant / Counter-Respondent not provided any proof of payment but had also never challenged them. Accordingly, the Chamber deemed that EUR 4,215 were due as balance of payment due in accordance with the settlement agreement. 20. In continuation, the Chamber focused on the match bonuses claimed on the basis of article 1, par. 3, of the apendix. In this respect, the Chamber noticed that those amounts were never contested by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and therefore, relied on the statement and evidence provided by the Respondent / CounterClaimant. Consequently, the Chamber held that EUR 1,645 were due as balance of the 50% match bonus due after the win against Club O and EUR 3,000 as the 50% match bonus due after the win against Club U. 21. Consequently, in accordance with the principle of pacta sunt servanda and taking into account the fact that the employment contract was considered terminated as of 10 February 2012 and the documentary evidence provided by the Claimant / CounterRespondent, the Chamber decided that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is liable to pay the Respondent / Counter-Claimant the amount of EUR 44,121 as outstanding remuneration corresponding to the missing bonus in relation to the salary for July 2011 and December 2011 (i.e. EUR 35,261) as well as the abovementioned match bonuses and outstanding amounts due under the settlement. 22. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request, the members of the Chamber decided to award the Claimant “interest of 5% p.a. over the salary payment [e.g. EUR 44,121] for the period from 1 January to 10 February 2012”. 23. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of 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 Respondent / Counter-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. 24. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment 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 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. 25. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable. 26. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant under the terms of the employment contract until 30 June 2012, taking into account that the player’s remuneration which had fallen due up until 15 February 2012 is included in the calculation of the outstanding remuneration. Consequently, the Chamber held that the salaries due on 15 March 2012 and 15 June 2012 should be taken into consideration to figure out the amount due as a compensation for breach of contract. 27. Then, the Chamber focused on the amounts to take into consideration to set the compensation. In this regard, the Chamber already expressed its opinion that the 50% increase had to be deemed as a bonus dependent on the Respondent / CounterClaimant’s presence and performance. Therefore, and considering that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was no longer playing for the Claimant / CounterRespondent as of 10 February 2012, the Chamber took into consideration in order to calculate the compensation the fixed remuneration of EUR 35,000. Accordingly, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 70,000 served as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 28. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Respondent / CounterClaimant had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been able to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC, 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. 29. The Chamber noted that according to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s declarations and the documentation submitted, he signed an employment contract with Club B, on 15 February 2012 with a period of validity starting as of 1 July 2012, i.e. after the original date of expiry of the contract with the Claimant / CounterRespondent. Thus, the player had apparently not been able to mitigate damages. In this context, the Chamber found it reasonable that the Respondent / CounterClaimant had not been able to find and start a new employment within the relevant period of four months and therefore declared that there is no remuneration to be taken into account in order to mitigate the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 30. In this respect and bearing in mind all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent must pay the amount of EUR 70,000 to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter. In addition and with regard to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s request for interest, the Chamber decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is entitled to 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 14 February 2012 until the date of effective payment. 31. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim filed by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected. 2. The claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is partially accepted. 3. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent has to pay to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 44,121 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 1 January until 10 February 2012. 4. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent has to pay to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 70,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 14 February 2012 until the date of effective payment. 5. In the event that the abovementioned amounts are not paid within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 6. Any further claim lodged by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected. 7. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant is directed to inform the Claimant / CounterRespondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances are 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