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 9 May 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member on the matter between the player, Player G, from country P as Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the club, Club B, from country T as Respondent/Counter-Claimant and Club O, form country P 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 9 May 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member on the matter between the player, Player G, from country P as Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the club, Club B, from country T as Respondent/Counter-Claimant and Club O, form country P as Intervening Party regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 2 July 2010, Player G, from country P (hereinafter: the Claimant/Counter-Respondent) and Club B, from country T (hereinafter: the Respondent/Counter-Claimant) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2012. 2. According to clause 9 of the contract the “Conflict Settlement Board is exclusively authorized for the settlement of conflicts emerging from this Agreement. The Parties may only apply to the country T Football Federation Arbitration Board within the due term against the decisions to be taken by the country T Football Federation Arbitration Board”. 3. Moreover, according to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, also on 2 July 2010, the parties concluded a second contract (hereinafter: the agreement), which “constituted a crucial prerequisite for the Player to sign the Contract, because the club did not give to the Player the exact translation of [the contract]” and which was also valid from 2 July 2010 until 31 May 2012. 4. In this respect, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent argues that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant told him that “the principles and terms expressed under the Contract would be the same under the Agreement, and that other clauses would be secondary and mere impositions of Regulations”. 5. The agreement further states that “…both parties accept that they will sign the official country T Football Federation Contract, [in case] of a dispute FIFA and CAS will have the jurisdiction…”. 6. According to both the contract and the agreement, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was entitled to receive, inter alia, the following: a. For the season 2010/2011 the total remuneration of EUR 450,000 as follows: i. EUR 50,000 as “first advance payment” on 2 July 2010; ii. EUR 50,000 as “second advance payment” on 25 August 2010; iii. EUR 50,000 as “third advance payment” on 25 September 2010; iv. EUR 300,000 as salary payable in 10 monthly instalments of EUR 30,000 on the 25th of each month from August 2010 until May 2011. b. For the season 2011/2012 the total remuneration of EUR 550,000. 7. In this framework, on 7 January 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent lodged a claim against the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in front of FIFA, asking as follows: a. EUR 250,000 as outstanding remuneration due until 30 December 2010; b. EUR 2,564.45 “of default interests calculated over each of the (…) remunerations, at a rate of 5% from the date of the respective due date, until 6th January 2011”; c. EUR 34.25 “per each day of delay, also as default interests at a rate of 5%, from 7th January 2011 until effective and integral payment of the referred €250,000.00”; d. EUR 670,000 as compensation for breach of contract plus 5% interest. 8. In particular, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent explained that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not comply with its payment obligations. In this respect, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent argues that on 30 December 2010, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had only paid to him the first advance payment due on 2 July 2010 and his salary of “July 2010”. Therefore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant owed him the second and third advance payments due on 25 August 2010 and 25 September 2010 respectively in the amount of EUR 100,000 and his salaries of August, September, October, November and December 2010 in the total amount of EUR 150,000. 9. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent further argued that by means of three letters dated 10, 14 and 20 December 2010, he put the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in default for the outstanding payments, all of which remained unanswered. 10. Consequently, on 28 December 2010, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent sent to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant a termination letter, by means of which he “terminated unilaterally the labour sportive contract with [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant], invoking just cause…”. 11. On 15 February 2011, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant replied to the claim firstly questioning FIFA’s competence to deal with the present matter. According to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, “the competent authority in the dispute in question is the country T Football Association and country T Football Association’s Dispute Resolution Board (DRB) and country T Football Association’s Arbitration Tribunal”. 12. In continuation, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant argues that “[the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] has agreed to the provision as to the fact that country T Football Association is exclusively authorised in the contract between him and the club…” and that “the power to settle any disputes between the parties is exclusively granted to the country T Football Association’s DRB and country T Football Association’s Arbitration Tribunal pursuant to the Article 9 of the contract…”. 13. Furthermore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant challenges the validity of the agreement and states that “[the agreement] has been issued without informing [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] and there is no authorised signature of the [Respondent/Counter-Claimant] on the document…” and thus, “the representations as to the fact that CAS and FIFA shall be authorised in case of dispute as contained in the document is of no importance at all”. 14. In addition, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant argues that on 12 January 2011 it lodged a claim against the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in front of the Dispute Resolution Board of the country T Football Federation (country T Football Federation DRC). 15. As to the substance, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant alleges having paid to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the first advance payment due on 2 July 2010 in the amount of EUR 50,000 and a salary on 1 October 2010 for the amount of EUR 30,000. 16. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant claims that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent failed to fulfill his obligations contained in the contract since the latter only played 5 matches and “did not make any contribution for the club by not even attending the training sessions”. In this respect, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant argues that after the coach who brought him to the club left, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent started to “act in an undisciplined matter, to have improper behaviors, and disturb the harmony. Therefore, [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] was left out of the squad for an indefinite period of time as from 5 November 2010 by the decision of the board of governors” and thus, he “was not entitled to the salaries of November and December”. 17. In addition, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant argues that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent failed to attend training sessions on 30 November 2010, 13 December 2010, 15 December 2010 and 20 December 2010 without authorization. In this regard, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant provided documentation in the country T language only. 18. In view of the foregoing, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant claims that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent “failed to fulfil his contractual obligations”. 19. Additionally, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant alleges that “[the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] only has a claim for 120 days corresponding to the salaries of September 2010, October 2010, November 2010 and December 2010. However, the claim for salaries of the said months was required to be paid without allowing the 30-day period, i.e. it was not duly claimed” and therefore, “the player terminated the contract in an unjust manner”. 20. Furthermore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant stresses that the amount asked by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is “impertinent”. In this respect, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant refers to the new contract signed between the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Club O, from country P and argues that “[the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] (…) shall keep receiving his salaries from [Club O] for the second half of the 2010-2011 and for the 2011-2012 football season” otherwise “[the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] shall have received payment from two different clubs for the same period of time” and therefore, causing his “unjust enrichment”. 21. On 17 March 2011, in an unsolicited correspondence, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent informed FIFA that the country T Football Federation DRC had issued a decision regarding the claim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant against him, in which the members of the country T Football Federation DRC rejected the claim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant due to the exception of lis alibi pendens, since his claim was brought to FIFA’s DRC prior to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s claim to the country T Football Federation DRC. 22. On 4 August 2011, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant lodged a counterclaim against the Claimant/Counter-Respondent for the “unjust termination of the contract”. In this respect, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant claims that the termination of the contract is “contrary to the country T Football Federation instructions”. 23. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant argues that according to clause 5 of the contract, “the player should obey the FIFA, UEFA and country T Football Federation [statutes] and regulations”. In this regard, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant stresses that according to article 28/1 of the “Instructions on Professional Football Players’ Status and Transfers” (country T Football Federation regulations), “players should notify a written warning 30 days prior for payment of the amounts claimed to be unpaid” and that “in case no payments are made, (…) the players shall have the right to terminate the contract within 7 days”. 24. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant further stresses that since the Claimant/Counter-Respondent did not comply with the above-mentioned provision, the termination is “nonprocedural and unjust in terms of manner (…) because if [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] had given a time of 30 days for the payment with a duly written warning, (…) [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] would have paid him his receivables…”. 25. On account of the above, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant requested EUR 50,000 due to the “unjust termination of the contract” and requests for “sportive ban”. 26. In his reply to the counterclaim, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent stressed that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant never disputed any of the facts of the claim and therefore it tacitly accepted them. 27. In addition, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent argues that the provision regarding the notification to which the Respondent/Counter-Claimant refers, was never communicated to him and the latter did not prove its existence. Moreover, said rule was not part of his contract with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 28. Furthermore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims that in any case, the contract establishes specific dates of payment and that “the respective delay exceeds much more than 30 days”. What is more, he stresses that he did notify the Respondent/Counter-Claimant of the overdue salaries. 29. Finally, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent reiterated all the statements of his claim. 30. In its duplica, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant argued that the case brought by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant against the Claimant/Counter-Respondent still continues in the “Arbitration Board which is a higher authority of the country T Football Federation” and reiterated all its previously raised arguments. 31. On 23 November 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent communicated to FIFA that on 14 January 2011 he entered into a new labor relationship with the Club O, from country P, valid as from 15 January 2011 until 30 June 2012. 32. In accordance with the new contract, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was entitled, inter alia, to the following: a. EUR 50,000 for the season 2010/2011 paid in 5 equal, monthly and consecutive instalments with a value of EUR 10,000 each, payable between 5 February 2011 and 5 June 2011; b. EUR 150,000 for the season 2011/2012 paid in 10 equal, monthly and consecutive instalments with a value of EUR 15,000 each, payable between 5 September 2011 and 5 June 2012; c. EUR 30,000 as “signing premium” to be paid in 5 equal, monthly and consecutive instalments payable between 1 February 2011 and 1 June 2011. 33. Having been asked by FIFA to provide evidence that the present matter should be dealt with by the arbitration bodies of the country T Football Federation, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant only mentioned that its new administration wanted to amicable settle the matter and requested for FIFA’s intervention. 34. Nevertheless, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent reverted to FIFA and informed that no amicable settlement had been reached. 35. For its part, Club O claimed that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent confirmed to it that he “had no bound with any club” since the latter had terminated his previous contract due to “serious and guilty breach by [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant]”. 36. Furthermore, Club O states that it only contacted the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in January 2011 i.e. when the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was already “free” and that it never received nor was notified of any request or demand from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 37. Finally, on 4 April 2014, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant requested the suspension of the present proceedings due to some political issues in country T. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as the DRC or the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 7 January 2011. Consequently, the 2008 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 of the 2008 and 2012 edition 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 shall adjudicate on employment-related disputes between a club and a player that have an international dimension. 3. As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber would, in principle, be competent to decide on the present litigation involving a country P player and a country T club regarding an alleged breach of the employment contract concluded between the aforementioned parties. 4. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant contested the competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of clause 9 of the contract, which, according to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, excludes the competence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber to adjudicate on the present matter. 5. Taking into account all 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 the FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20 December 2005. Equally, the members of the Chamber referred to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008. 6. Having said this, the DRC turned its attention to the principles of fair proceedings and equal representation of players and clubs and underlined that these principles are fundamental elements to be fulfilled, in order for a national dispute resolution chamber to be recognised as such. 7. In this respect, the Chamber noted that, despite having been asked to do so by letter dated 22 January 2014, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to provide the DRC with any documentary evidence which could prove that the “Conflict Settlement Board” or the “country T Football Federation Arbitration Board” of the country T Football Federation meet the requirements established in art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. 8. On account of all the above and referring to the principle of the burden of proof contained in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber established that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s objection towards the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected, and that the Dispute Resolution Chamber 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. 9. In continuation, the Chamber analysed which edition of the 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 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010 and 2012) and considering that the present claim was lodged on 7 January 2011, the 2010 edition of said Regulations is applicable to the present matter as to the substance. 10. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file. 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. 11. First of all, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that, on 2 July 2010, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant concluded an employment contract as well as an agreement both valid as from 2 July 2010 until 31 May 2012. As to the financial terms of both the contract and the agreement, the Chamber took note that it had been agreed upon between the parties that for the season 2010-2011 the Respondent/Counter-Claimant would remunerate the Claimant/Counter-Respondent as follows: i. EUR 50,000 as “first advance payment” on 2 July 2010; ii. EUR 50,000 as “second advance payment” on 25 August 2010; iii. EUR 50,000 as “third advance payment” on 25 September 2010; iv. EUR 300,000 as salary payable in 10 monthly instalments of EUR 30,000 on the 25th of each month from August 2010 until May 2011. 12. In continuation, the members of the Chamber noted that it was undisputed that, on 28 December 2010, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated the contract entered into by the parties on the basis of outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR 250,000. 13. In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that according to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, at the time of the termination of the contract on 28 December 2010, the total amount of EUR 150,000, corresponding to salaries as from August 2010 until December 2010, as well as EUR 100,000 relating to the first and second advance payments due on 25 August 2010 and 25 September 2010 respectively, were yet to be paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 14. Conversely, the Chamber noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is of the opinion that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had no just cause to terminate the contract. 15. In this regard, according to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent failed to fulfill his obligations as per the employment contract since i) he “did not make any contribution for [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] by not even attending the training sessions”, ii) he started “to act in an undisciplined manner, to have improper behaviors” and iii) he was “left out of the squad for an indefinite period of time” by a decision of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s board of directors. Therefore, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant stressed that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was not entitled to his salaries of November and December 2010. 16. Furthermore, the DRC took note that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant argued that “the claim for salaries of the said months was required to be paid without allowing the 30-day period, i.e. was not duly claimed”. In this respect, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that, according to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, art. 28/1 of the country T Football Federation Regulations stipulates that: “the player should notify a written warning 30 days prior for payment of the amounts claimed to be unpaid..”. 17. On account of the above, the DRC noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant lodged a counterclaim against the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, maintaining that the termination done by the latter was “nonprocedural and unjust in terms of manner (…) because if the player had given a time of 30 days for the payment with a duly written warning (…) the club would have paid him his receivables”. Thus, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent must be ordered to pay EUR 50,000 to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 18. The Chamber further took note of the argumentation of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent who rejected the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s claim sustaining that the above-mentioned provision was never notified to him and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not prove its existence. What is more, said provision was not part of the contract concluded between the parties. 19. In view of the foregoing considerations and the opposite positions of the parties, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the claim and counterclaim lodged by the parties, was to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, and which party was responsible for the early termination of the contractual relationship in question. 20. Having said this, the DRC turned its attention to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant allegations in respect that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent would not be entitled to his salaries of November and December 2010 due to his alleged misbehavior and absences from trainings with the team on several occasions. 21. At this point, the DRC wished to recall that according to the legal principle of the burden of proof contained in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact carries the burden of proof. 22. With those considerations in mind, the members of the DRC were of the unanimous opinion that the documentary evidence presented by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is not sufficient in order to prove the alleged absences of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. In this regard, the Chamber emphasized, while referring to art. 9 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, which stipulates that petitions to FIFA shall be submitted in one of the four official FIFA languages of FIFA (English, Spanish, French and German), that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had not indicated any further details regarding the alleged absences and that the documentation supposedly proving such absences were only presented in the country T language without any translation into an official FIFA language, despite the fact that the FIFA administration informed the Respondent/Counter-Claimant of the above-mentioned provision on several occasions. 23. Therefore, the allegation of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in respect that, due to the misbehavior and absences of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, he was not entitled to his salaries of November and December 2010 needs to be rejected. What is more, the Chamber stressed that it remained uncontested that the salary for September and October 2010 as well as the advance payments due on 25 August and 25 September 2010 had not been paid. 24. In continuation, the Chamber acknowledged the position of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in respect that the termination of the contract by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was not made in accordance with article 28/1 of the country T Football Federation regulations, which, allegedly, obliged the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to provide a written warning to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant of any outstanding payment with a grace period of 30 days. 25. In this respect, the DRC found, while once again recalling the principle of the burden of proof, that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had not submitted any evidence that could corroborate its allegations in this regard. The DRC wished to point out that the applicable regulations to the matter at hand are the FIFA regulations and not those of the country T Football Federation. In any case, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had not submitted any evidence that could corroborate the actual content of art. 28/1 of the directives of the country T Football Federation. Also, the members of the Chamber wished to point out that no such termination procedure was stipulated in the employment contract, reason for which the Chamber deemed that the aforementioned art. 28/1 was not directly applicable to the contractual relationship between the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 26. Equally, the Chamber emphasized that it is undisputed that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent put the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in default of payment on several occasions, mainly, by means of the letters dated 10, 14 and 20 December 2010, all of which remained unanswered. 27. On account of all the above circumstances, the Chamber decided that it could be established not only that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had seriously neglected its contractual obligations towards the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in a continuous and constant manner, i.e. the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had failed to remunerate the Claimant/Counter-Respondent for a substantial period of time, but that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment contract on 28 December 2010, after having previously put the club in default. Consequently, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for said early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 28. 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/Counter-Respondent. 29. First of all, the members of the Chamber concurred that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant 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/Counter-Claimant is liable to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the remuneration that was outstanding at the time of the termination i.e. EUR 220,000 consisting of EUR 100,000 as per the second and third advance payments due on 25 August 2010 and 25 September 2010 respectively, as well as EUR 120,000 as per his salaries of September, October, November and December 2010. The Chamber stressed that, contrary to the Claimant’s opinion, no salary was due for the month of July 2010, since the contract clearly stipulated that the amount of EUR 300,000 was payable in 10 monthly instalments starting as from August 2010. Therefore, the Chamber decided that the salary the Claimant/Counter- Respondent alleged to have received for July 2010, should in fact be attributed to the month of August 2010. 30. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim, the Chamber decided to award the latter interest on said amount at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the due dates of each amount. 31. In continuation, the Chamber decided that, taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is entitled to receive from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding salaries on the basis of the relevant employment contract. 32. 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/Counter-Respondent 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. 33. 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. 34. Having recalled the aforementioned, and in order to evaluate the compensation to be paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the members of the Chamber took into account the remuneration due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in accordance with the employment contract as well as the time remaining on the same contract, along with the professional situation of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent after the early termination occurred. In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that at the time of the termination of the contract, this would run for another seventeen months. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the remaining value of the contract as from its early termination by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent until its regular expiry amounts to EUR 700,000, i.e. EUR 150,000 for the salaries as from January 2011 to May 2011 and EUR 550,000 for the season 2011/2012, an amount which shall serve as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 35. In continuation, the Chamber remarked that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had found new employment with a club from Club O, from country P, valid “for the second half of the 2010-2011 and for the 2011-2012 football season”. In accordance with the employment contract signed between the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and Club O, during the validity of the contract, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was entitled to a total amount of EUR 230,000. Consequently, in accordance with the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber and the general obligation of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to mitigate his damages, such remuneration under the new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 36. In view of all of the above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant must pay the amount of EUR 470,000 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent as compensation for breach of contract, which is considered by the Chamber to be a reasonable and justified amount, as well as 5% interest p.a. over said amount as from the date of the claim, i.e. 7 January 2011, until the date of effective payment. 37. In continuation, the Chamber focused on the further consequences of the breach of contract in question and, in this respect, addressed the question of sporting sanctions against the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in accordance with art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations. The cited provision stipulates that, in addition to the obligation to pay compensation, sporting sanctions shall be imposed on any club found to be in breach of contract during the protected period. 38. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to item 7 of the “Definitions” section of the Regulations, which stipulates, inter alia, that the protected period shall last “for three entire seasons or three years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where such contract is concluded prior to the 28th birthday of the professional, or two entire seasons or two years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where such contract is concluded after the 28th birthday of the professional”. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the employment contract was terminated by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent with just cause on 28 December 2010, i.e. within 6 months following the entry into force of the contract at the basis of the dispute. Therefore, and irrespective of the player’s age, the Chamber concluded that the breach of contract by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had occurred within the protected period. 39. As a result, by virtue of art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations and also considering that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had on a previous occasion been found in breach of an employment contract without just cause by the Chamber, the Chamber decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the two next entire and consecutive registration periods following the notification of the present decision. In this regard, the Chamber emphasized that apart from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant having clearly acted in breach of the contract within the protected period in the present matter, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was also found to have breached the contract with the player J (case ref. nr. 12-00XXX/XXX) and the player F (case ref. nr. 11-0XXXX/XXX). 40. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further request filed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is rejected. Equally, and considering that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was, overall, found to be in breach of contract without just cause, the counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Player G, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is partially accepted. 3. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club B, has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 220,000 plus 5% interest until the date of effective payment as follows: a. 5% p.a. as of 26 August 2010 on the amount of EUR 50,000; b. 5% p.a. as of 26 September 2010 on the amount of EUR 50,000; c. 5% p.a. as of 26 September 2010 on the amount of EUR 30,000; d. 5% p.a. as of 26 October 2010 on the amount of EUR 30,000; e. 5% p.a. as of 26 November 2010 on the amount of EUR 30,000; f. 5% p.a. as of 26 December 2010 on the amount of EUR 30,000. 4. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 470,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 7 January 2011 until the date of effective payment. 5. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in accordance with the above-mentioned numbers 3. and 4. 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. 6. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent/Counter-Claimant 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. 7. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, is rejected. 8. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, is rejected. 9. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the two next entire and consecutive registration periods following the notification of the present decision. ***** 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