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 May 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Philippe Piat (France), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member on the claim presented by the club, Club I, from country T as Claimant / Counter-Respondent against the player, Player B, from country C as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club A, from country T 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 27 May 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Philippe Piat (France), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member on the claim presented by the club, Club I, from country T as Claimant / Counter-Respondent against the player, Player B, from country C as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club A, from country T as Intervening party regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 16 January 2010, the country C player, Player B (hereinafter: the Respondent / Counter-Claimant), and the country T club, Club I (hereinafter: the Claimant / Counter-Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as of 12 January 2010 until 31 May 2011. On 23 August 2010, the parties signed a second contract for the seasons 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. Then, on 24 July 2012, the parties concluded a contract valid as from 1 June 2013 until 31 May 2016. In relation to these contracts, the parties equally signed two financial protocols (hereinafter: the protocols) relating the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s remuneration as from the season 2010-2011 until the season 2015-2016. 2. The contracts and the protocols provide for the following remuneration due to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant: Season 2009-2010: - EUR 10,000 as sign-on fee; - EUR 3,000 as monthly salary payable “each month on the 20th and 25th “. Season 2010-2011: - EUR 30,000 divided into three lump sums of EUR 10,000 payable on 26 September 2010, 20 October 2010 and 18 November 2010; - EUR 3,000 as monthly salary payable “each month on the 20th and 25th “. Season 2011-2012: - Minimum monthly wage; - EUR 4,000 as monthly salary due ten times during the season; - EUR 882.35 as bonus per match (max. EUR 30,000 for 34 matches). Season 2012-2013: - Minimum monthly wage; - EUR 30,000 as monthly salary due 10 times during the season and payable on the 20th of each month; - EUR 4,411 net as bonus per match (max. EUR 150,000 for 34 matches). Season 2013-2014: - Minimum monthly wage; - EUR 35,000 as monthly salary due 10 times during the season and payable on the 20th of each month; - EUR 7,352 net as bonus per match (max. EUR 250,000 for 34 matches). Season 2014-2015: - Minimum monthly wage; - EUR 40,000 as a monthly salary due 10 times during the season and payable on the 20th of each month; - EUR 7,647 net as bonus per match (max. EUR 260,000 for 34 matches). Season 2015-2016: - Minimum monthly wage; - EUR 40,000 as monthly salary due 10 times during the season and payable on the 20th of each month; - EUR 9,588 net as bonus per match (max. EUR 326,000 for 34 matches). 3. With regard to the above-mentioned performance-related bonuses, the protocols specify that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is entitled to: - 100% of the bonus in the event the Respondent / Counter-Claimant “takes part and plays initially in the first eleven”; - 75% of the bonus in the event the Respondent / Counter-Claimant “enters the game at a later stage”; - 50 % of the bonus in the event the Respondent / Counter-Claimant “takes part in the team of 18”. The bonuses are to be paid “as per the first four games at the end of eight games in a row”. 4. On 9 May 2013, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent lodged a complaint before FIFA against the Respondent / Counter-Claimant for breach of contract, requesting the amount of EUR 2,861,000 corresponding to the entire value of the contract as well as the imposition of sporting sanctions on the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. 5. In this respect, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent explains that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant terminated the contract by means of a written notification dated 30 April 2013, but received on 4 May 2013, and maintains that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had no just cause to act as such. In particular, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent asserts that it fulfilled all its contractual obligations towards the Respondent / Counter-Claimant up until 14 March 2013. In particular, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent alleges that, at the time of the termination, the total amount of EUR 647,339 had been paid to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. In this respect, according to the list of payments made by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, said amount included all salaries, lump sum payments and bonuses and the last payment was made on 14 March 2013 in the amount of EUR 50,000. As a consequence, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent emphasises that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was in bad faith when terminating the contract since he was aware of the payments received. 6. On 4 June 2013, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, requesting the payment of: - outstanding remuneration, “plus its interest”, broken down as follows: • EUR 100,000 as unpaid salaries for the months of January to April 2013; • EUR 38,596.25 as performance-related bonuses for participating in 9 games; • Currency of country T 6,957 as the unpaid minimum monthly wage; - compensation corresponding to the remaining value of the contract, broken down as follows: • EUR 600,000 for the season 2013-14; • EUR 660,000 for the season 2014-15; • EUR 726,000 for the season 2015-16; • Currency of country T 27,828 as the minimum monthly wage; - EUR 100,000 as additional compensation due to the Claimant / CounterRespondent’s bad faith and loss of earnings; - legal costs to be borne by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 7. In this regard, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant first of all explains that the minimum wage of currency of country T 773 per month is to be paid as of the season 2011-2012, in addition to the amounts set out in the protocols. In relation to his termination of the contract, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant states that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had regularly been in delay of payment. Furthermore, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had regularly reminded the Claimant / Counter-Respondent of its obligations orally as well as in writing on 9 April 2013. According to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, at the time of the termination, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had failed to pay, without valid reason, his salary for more than three months, from January to April 2013, his bonuses for 9 games as well as his minimum monthly wage for nine months. 8. In his reply to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim, the Respondent / CounterClaimant claims that both parties agreed on a total remuneration amounting to EUR 450,000 for the season 2012-2013 and that he only received the amount of EUR 200,877. In this respect, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant specifies that the last payment received on 14 March 2013 concerns the salary of December 2012 and part of the salary for January 2013. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant also underlines that most payments contained in the list provided by the Claimant / CounterRespondent are actually related to previous seasons. In particular the payment of EUR 68,200 made on 2 July 2012 which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent allegedly relates to the season 2012-2013 rather corresponds to the previous season as, apparently, indicated by the relevant receipt. 9. As a result, in consideration of the amounts outstanding at the time of the termination as well as the fact the Respondent / Counter-Claimant waited for a reasonable period of time, he deems having had a just cause to terminate the contract. 10. In its replica, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent indicates that the total remuneration due to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant for the period from 1 July 2011 until 4 May 2013 amounts to EUR 633,621. In this regard, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent maintains having paid to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant the total amount of EUR 563,479 for said period, meaning that the total outstanding amount is only of EUR 70,142 and not EUR 138,596.25 as alleged by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. In this respect, according to the list of payment outlined by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent for the aforementioned period, EUR 362,602 was paid to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant up until 2 July 2012 and EUR 200,877 during the residual period. 11. On account of the above-mentioned explanations, the Claimant / CounterRespondent insists that the termination of the contract was done without having a just cause and therefore the Claimant / Counter-Respondent reiterates its financial claim. 12. In addition, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent also requests the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s new club, Club A, to be held jointly and severally liable for the payment of compensation and that sporting sanctions should equally be imposed on the latter. 13. In his duplica, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant recalls that his claim does not regard the season 2011-2012 and considers the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s listing of payments for the seasons 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 to have no pertinence. In particular, reverting to the list of payments outlined by the Claimant / CounterRespondent, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant highlights that the payments up until 2 July 2012 which amount to EUR 362,602 all relate to the season 2011-2012. Consequently, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s list reflects the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s statement according to which he only received EUR 200,877 for the season 2012-2013. 14. Therefore, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant maintains that EUR 138,596.25 – corresponding to more than three monthly salaries and 9 match bonuses – were outstanding at the time of the termination and insists that he thus had a just cause to proceed to such termination. 15. Regarding Club A’s involvement in the proceedings, the Respondent / CounterClaimant recalls that he remained without a contract and earnings the first part of the season 2013-2014 and that he signed an employment contract with Club A on 13 January 2014 valid as of the date of signature until 31 May 2015. 16. The contract concluded between Club A and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant provides for the following amounts: - Season 2013-2014: a remuneration of EUR 195,000, plus a lump-sum payment of EUR 30,000 due in January 2014; - Season 2014-2015: a remuneration of EUR 405,000, plus a lump-sum payment of EUR 50,000 due in August 2014. 17. In this respect, taking into consideration his remuneration with Club A, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant amended his claim for compensation, requesting the following amounts: - EUR 405,000 for the season 2013-2014 (i.e. EUR 600,000 – EUR 195,000 as remuneration with Club A for the relevant season); - EUR 255,000 for the season 2014-2015 (i.e. EUR 660,000 – EUR 405,000 as remuneration with Club A for the relevant season); - EUR 726,000 for the season 2015-2016; - Currency of country T 27,828 (i.e. Currency of country T 773 x 36 months) as the minimum monthly wage. 18. As regards Club A’s position, the latter recognises having been aware of the litigation between the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the Claimant / CounterRespondent since it was made aware by the country T Football Federation. Before signing the contract with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club A alleges that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant provided the relevant documentation corroborating the termination of the contract with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent which it deems to have been made with just cause. It also insists on the fact that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the Claimant / Counter-Respondent lodged their respective claims in front of FIFA before the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had signed with Club A. In addition, Club A stresses that it cannot be held responsible for the termination of the contract insofar as the contract signed between the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and Club A occurred roughly eight months after the termination of the contract with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the 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 9 May 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 stake (cf. art. 21 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a country C player and a country T club. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, 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 in front of FIFA on 9 May 2013, the 2012 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 16 January 2010, entered into a contractual relationship, which after the conclusion of several extensions was to run from 12 January 2010 until 31 May 2016. In addition, the parties signed two financial protocols in relation to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s remuneration, valid for the aforementioned period. 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 30 April 2013 after putting the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in default on 9 April 2013. 6. In this regard, the Chamber took due note that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, on the one hand, argued that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had unilaterally terminated the contractual relationship without just cause and had thus lodged a claim, inter alia, for compensation. According to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, there was no objective reason for the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to terminate the contract since it had fulfilled all its contractual obligations up until 14 March 2013, i.e. date of the last payment made by the club. Additionally, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent maintained having paid the total amount of EUR 563,479 for the period from 1 July 2011 until 4 May 2013, date on which it received the termination letter dated 30 April 2013. Considering that the total due remuneration for the said period is of EUR 633,621, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent maintains that the total outstanding amount was only of EUR 70,142. 7. The Chamber further took note of the argumentation of the Respondent / CounterClaimant who insisted on the fact that part of his salary of January 2013, his salary of February, March and April 2013, as well as his bonuses for nine matches and the minimum monthly wage for nine months had not been paid on the date of the termination. He had hence been allegedly left without remuneration for more than three months. Moreover, although the Respondent / Counter-Claimant acknowledged that a payment of EUR 50,000 had been made by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent on 14 March 2013, he alleged that such payment concerned the salary of December 2012 and part of the salary for January 2013. In continuation, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant underlined that he had only received an amount of EUR 200,877 throughout the 2012/2013 season, which can notably be seen from the payments listed by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. On this basis, the player considers that the amount of EUR138,596.25 was outstanding at the time of the termination and that he thus had a just cause to terminate the contract. 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 outstanding amounts can be considered as a just cause for the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to have prematurely terminated the employment relationship. 10. At this point and for the sake of good order, the DRC deemed it appropriate to remind the parties of the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right from an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Bearing in mind the aforementioned principle, the DRC noted that in the present case the Claimant / Counter-Respondent bore the burden of proof regarding the payment of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s remuneration. 11. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had presented documentary evidence establishing that he had put the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in default on 9 April 2013 before terminating the contract by means of a correspondence dated 30 April 2013, but received by the addresses on 4 May 2013. 12. Furthermore, the Chamber duly noted that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent did not dispute that certain amounts were outstanding at the time of the termination of the contract by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. 13. In this regard, the Chamber gave particular attention to the documentation remitted by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in relation to payments made to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. In this context, the DRC considered that it was established that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had provided proof of having paid the total amount of EUR 200,877 to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in relation to services provided as from the beginning of the 2012/2013 season up until 30 April 2013. On this basis, considering that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s total entitlement for the stated period amounts to EUR 270,000, the Chamber was able to conclude that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, at the time of the termination, had failed to pay an amount corresponding to more than two monthly salaries to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. In addition, the Chamber also observed that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had been in delay of payment several times over the previous few months, taking into account, inter alia, the payments dated 2 July 2012 and 14 March 2013 which both related to late payments. In this context, the DRC deemed fit to highlight that the Claimant / CounterRespondent had no valid reason that could possibly have justified such delays and particularly the non-payment of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s remuneration for over two months. 14. In view of all the above, it is established that at the time of the termination of the contract, not only had the Claimant / Counter-Respondent been in delay of payment several times over the previous few months, but most importantly several monthly salaries were outstanding although the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had duly put the club in default. 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 as the latter had repeatedly failed to comply with its contractual obligations. Therefore, the Chamber considered that, on the basis of the circumstances detailed above, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did have a just cause to prematurely terminate the employment contract with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. First of all, the Chamber reverted to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s financial counterclaim, which includes outstanding amounts of EUR 100,000 relating to salaries, EUR 38,596.25 as performance-related bonuses and currency of country T 6,957 as minimum monthly wages. In this regard, the Chamber emphasised that the amounts to be taken into consideration at this stage were all amounts which had fallen at the date of termination of the contract. 19. In this regard, the DRC noted that according to the documentation and statements provided by the parties, it was able to conclude that the amount of EUR 200,877 out of the EUR 270,000 due as from the beginning of the 2012/2013 season had been paid by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. Consequently, the amount of EUR 69,123 remained unpaid, in relation to outstanding fixed remuneration. 20. With regard to the unpaid minimum monthly wages of currency of country T 6,957, considering the fact that no amount was stipulated in the contracts or in the financial protocols, the DRC decided that it cannot take such amount into consideration in the calculation of the outstanding amounts. 21. Equally, regarding the claim for bonuses for participating in nine matches, the Chamber referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules in order to reject this part of the claim insofar as the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not substantiate his allegation in this respect with any documentary evidence. 22. Thus, taking into consideration the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s claim as well as the reasons previously exposed, the DRC concluded that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent must fulfil its obligations as per the contractual relationship with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and, consequently, is to be held liable to pay the outstanding salaries due to the latter in the total amount of EUR 69,123. 23. In addition, taking into consideration the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s claim, the Chamber decided to award the Respondent / Counter-Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the date of the said claim, i.e. 4 June 2013, considering the fact that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had not specified on which date such interest should start. 24. 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. 25. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contracts and financial protocols 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 said employment contracts and financial protocols at the basis of the matter at stake. 26. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant 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. 27. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant under the terms of the employment contract as from its date of termination with just cause by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant until its original date of expiry, i.e. 31 May 2016. The DRC thus concluded that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant would have received EUR 1,180,000 as total guaranteed remuneration if the contract had been executed until 31 May 2016. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 1,180,000 serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand. In this regard, the Chamber deemed fit to clarify that the minimum monthly wage is cannot be considered due to the fact that no amount is specified in the 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 enabled 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 Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s general obligation to mitigate his damages. 29. The Chamber recalled that, on 13 January 2014, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant signed an employment contract with the country T club, Club A, valid until 31 May 2015, in accordance with which the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was to receive a total fixed remuneration of EUR 680,000 during the said period of time. 30. Moreover, in addition to the above-mentioned amount which is to be imputed on the amount due as compensation, the DRC considered the specificities of the case at hand, inter alia, the young age of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the financial value of the current contract of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant with Club A, the long period of time of the contract with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the fact that his remuneration for one entire season (i.e. 2015-2016) remains unknown as well as the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s general obligation to mitigate his damage. As a result of the foregoing, the Chamber decided in this specific case that the accurate amount to compensate the damages suffered by the Respondent / CounterClaimant would be EUR 250,000. 31. On account of the above, the DRC partially accepted the Respondent / CounterClaimant’s claim and determined that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent must pay the amount of EUR 250,000 as compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand. 32. In addition, taking into account the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Chamber decided that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent must pay to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of compensation as of the date of the present decision, i.e. 27 May 2014, until the date of effective payment. 33. Moreover, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided to reject the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s claim pertaining to procedural costs in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the Chamber’s respective longstanding jurisprudence in this regard. 34. Likewise, the DRC decided to reject the claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant pertaining to additional compensation for the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s bad faith and loss of earnings due to the lack of legal basis in this respect. 35. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claims lodged by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant are 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 / CounterClaimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 69,123 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 4 June 2013 until the date of effective payment. 4. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent has to pay to the Respondent / CounterClaimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 250,000. 5. In the event that the abovementioned amounts plus interest 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