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 claim presented by the player, Player P, from country U as Claimant against the club, Club R, from country S as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2013-2014) - controversie di lavoro - ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2013-2014) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 9 May 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member on the claim presented by the player, Player P, from country U as Claimant against the club, Club R, from country S as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 15 September 2009, Player P, from country U (hereinafter: the Claimant or player), and Club R, from country S (hereinafter: the Respondent or club), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from 23 July 2009 until 31 May 2011. 2. In accordance with the contract, the Claimant was, inter alia, entitled to: - a monthly salary of EUR 4,200 payable on the 20th of every month; - A “reward remuneration“ of EUR 19,000 as a signing-on fee; - A “reward remuneration“ of EUR 19,000 before 31 January 2010; - A “reward remuneration“ of EUR 19,000 before 31 July 2010. 3. Furthermore, by means of an amendment agreement concluded on 26 February 2010, the payment date of the “reward remuneration” of 31 January 2010 was changed to 17 May 2010. 4. Art. VI par. 4 of the contract stipulates that: “In case of terminating or premature terminating the Contract on the grounds, set by items 2 and 3, in the course of the month (as from first till last day of the calendar month) from the receipt of the notification, the Club fires the Player.” 5. On 17 June 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA requesting to be awarded the amount of EUR 33,400 plus 5% interest, in accordance with the following breakdown: - EUR 6,000 as “part of 1st bonus (due to be paid till 31.01.2010)”; - EUR 19,000 as “whole 2nd bonus (due to be paid till 17.05.2010)”; - EUR 8,400 for the salaries of June and July 2010. The Claimant held that by means of the amendment agreement, the payment date of the “reward remuneration” due on 31 July 2010 was changed to 17 May 2010. 6. Furthermore, the Claimant explained that the Respondent stopped paying him in the spring of 2010. In the beginning of April 2010, he received a letter by means of which he was informed that the Respondent’s disciplinary commission, on 31 March 2010, had decided to fine him with 25% of his salaries for March, April and May 2010. According to the Claimant, there was no violation specified, he was never heard and only later on, he found out that he was accused of damaging the Respondent’s reputation due to an incident in a nightclub on 28 March 2010. The Claimant however denies that such incident occurred and holds that, in any case, 28 and 29 March 2010 were days off. 7. Moreover, the Claimant explained that in the last match of the season, he “stroke” a referee and was subsequently suspended by the country S FA from 16 May 2010 until 15 January 2011. 8. Following such incident, the Respondent sent a letter to the Claimant on 11 June 2010 informing him that, because of “repeating violations of labor discipline”, the contract was terminated. In reply to such letter, the Claimant informed the Respondent that according to art. VI par. 4 of the contract, he could only be dismissed one month after having received an official notice. He therefore asked the Respondent to reinstate him in the team “until one month term will pass” and asked the Respondent to pay his salaries until 31 July 2010. However, the Claimant indicated that no answer was received. 9. In the meantime, on 18 May 2010, the Claimant informed the Respondent that he was not paid the amount of EUR 19,000 due on 17 May 2010. 10. On account of the above, the Claimant, whilst denying that he committed repeated contractual infringements, requested: - the bonuses which were not paid while he was still playing for the Respondent, and - the salaries of June and July 2010, arguing that he received the termination letter on 11 June 2010 and thus the contract could not have been terminated prior to 1 August 2010. 11. To its claim, the Claimant enclosed, inter alia, the following documentation: - a letter of the Respondent dated 1 April 2010 informing him of its decision dated 31 March 2010 to reduce the salary with 25% for the months of March, April and May; - the “cancellation of the contract” dated 11 June 2010. 12. In reply to the claim, the Respondent indicated that it had complied with all its obligations and that it had even paid a higher amount to the Claimant than that was due. In addition, the Respondent argued that it was the Claimant who had breached the contract on three occasions. The Respondent indicated it had imposed two official fines on the Claimant, the one mentioned by the Claimant himself, but also another fine imposed by the country S FA for the Claimant’s gross misconduct against the referee. According to the Respondent, both letters relating to the fines were signed by the Claimant and therefore he had accepted them. In this respect, the Respondent submitted the following documents: - a letter dated 19 February 2010, signed by the Respondent and the Claimant by means of which the Respondent “grant you the fine in amount of EUR 23,300 for breach of regimen on 18.02.2010, which will be deducted from your monthly salary as follows: i. Till 22.02.2010 EUR 21,200 ii. Till 20.03.2010 EUR 2,000 At the same time please note, that in a repeated breach of Professional contract conditions, the contract will be terminated. Annexe: Written proof of alcohol test.” - a letter of the Respondent dated 1 April 2010, signed by the Respondent and the Claimant, informing the latter of the decision of 31 March 2010 to reduce the salary with 10% for the months of March, April and May 2010. - a letter signed by the Claimant dated 21 October 2010 which reads: “I, Player P in the case of removal dated 21.10.2010 by Disciplinary Commission of my disqualification, I refuse of payment to me in sum EUR 30,000 from Club R. I that case, Club R will pay me only EUR 16,000. If the disqualification will not be removing, this document is void.” 13. The Respondent explained that the fine of 19 February 2010 was imposed on the Claimant for testing positive in an alcohol control. The second fine was issued on “28 March 2010” when the Claimant was involved in a bar fight. The Respondent clarified that it showed its goodwill to the Claimant by reducing the fine from 25% to 10%. 14. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that according to its financial records it had paid the Claimant EUR 14,189 more than he was entitled to, stating that it had paid the Claimant EUR 77,029.40 while he was only entitled to EUR 62,840. In this respect, the Respondent submitted a payment list which showed that the Respondent had paid the Claimant the amount of EUR 77,029.40, corresponding to his salaries, his rent and match bonuses. 15. The Respondent added that in its 100 year of history it never had to fine a player so often. Finally, the Respondent indicated that due to the Claimant’s assault of the referee, it had to pay EUR 5,000 to the country S FA. 16. The Claimant reverted to FIFA stating the following: - The Respondent did not submit any proof that it had complied with all its financial obligations; - The document dated 21 October 2010 contains a fake signature; - The Respondent’s explanations do not match with its actions; while blaming the Claimant’s misbehaviour which led to a fine on 19 February 2010 and warning him of a possible contract termination, on 26 February 2010, the Respondent offered a “high money bonus”; - He has never committed any violation of the Respondent’s disciplinary regulations stressing that “days off cannot be considered as ones, when discipline violation can be committed by a player”; - The letter of 19 February 2010 “was drafted very recently (…) and the signature is not mine and the sum of the fine is not persistent with any provisions of my contract or any club’s internal documents on reprimands.” - “The statement of 1 April 2010 is falsified, outlining that the sum of fines does not correspond – while real one is 25%, now club submits the document where it is allegedly is 10%. On original document the is not my signature”. 17. In reply thereto, the Respondent stated that: - “The document dated 21 October 2010 was sent in PDF format to our club manager”; - The letters of 19 February 2010 and 1 April 2010 are real and proven by a notary. 18. In this respect and upon request of FIFA, the Respondent provided the alleged original documents of the aforementioned letters. 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 17 June 2011. Consequently, the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. article 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 par. 2 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 an country U player and a country S club. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2010 and 2012) and considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 17 June 2011, the 2010 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. 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. 5. First of all, the Chamber emphasised that it was undisputed between the parties that the Respondent terminated the contract with the Claimant in writing on 11 June 2010. 6. Turning to the claim of the Claimant, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant was not contesting the termination of the contract as such, but rather that, on the basis of clause VI. par. 4 of the contract, the termination of the contract could only have effect as of 1 August 2010. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that clause VI. par. 4 of the contract stipulates that: “In case of terminating or premature terminating the Contract on the grounds, set by items 2 and 3, in the course of the month (as from first till last day of the calendar month) from the receipt of the notification, the Club fires the Player.” 7. As a result, the Chamber duly observed that the Claimant held that, considering that the contract was terminated on 11 June 2010 as well as taking into account clause VI par. 4 of the contract, the contract could only be considered terminated as from 1 August 2010 and, therefore, that he was still entitled to the salary of July 2010. 8. After a thorough examination of clause VI. par. 4 of the contract, the Chamber came to the unanimous conclusion that the wording of the relevant clause does not correspond to the interpretation of the Claimant. In particular, the members of the Chamber outlined that the relevant provision does not at all refer to a one-month notice period, as claimed by the Claimant. As a consequence of the foregoing conclusion, the Chamber decided that the Claimant’s request for the salary of July 2010 needed to be rejected. 9. In continuation, the Chamber turned its attention to the fines imposed on the Claimant. The Chamber duly examined the documentation made available to it by the Respondent and noted that the various fines had been signed by the Claimant. As a result, the Chamber, whilst pointing out that the Claimant had even signed an explicit acknowledgment to this end, as can be sustained from the letter dated 21 October 2010, determined that the fines imposed by the Respondent were accepted by the Claimant. For the sake of good order, the Chamber wished to underline that although the Claimant argued that the documents submitted by the Respondent were forged, the Respondent provided the original documents. At this stage, the DRC considered it appropriate to remark that, as a general rule, FIFA’s deciding bodies are not competent to decide upon matters of criminal law, such as the ones of alleged falsified signatures or documents, and that such affairs fall into the jurisdiction of the competent national criminal authority. 10. In this context, the DRC recalled that all documentation remitted shall be considered with free discretion and, therefore, it focused its attention on the original documents containing the Claimant’s signature, provided by the Respondent in the present dispute. After a thorough analysis of the relevant documents, in particular, comparing the relevant signatures of the Claimant on the fines with the signatures in the other documents provided in the present affair, the DRC had no other option but to conclude that, for a layman, the signatures appear to be the same. Therefore, the Chamber considered them to be valid and binding upon the Claimant. 11. As to bonus payments, the Chamber pointed out that the bonus in the amount of EUR 19,000 and payable on 31 July 2011, to which the Claimant deemed he was entitled, did not yet fall due at the moment that the contract was terminated by the Respondent. The Chamber concluded that there were no indications on file that the due date of this particular bonus payment had been changed to an earlier payment date. In fact, the amendment agreement provided by the Claimant specified that the bonus payment due on 31 January 2010 had been changed to the later date of 17 May 2010. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the Claimant was not entitled to this particular payment of EUR 19,000. 12. Having considered all the above, the Chamber came to the conclusion that the Claimant was entitled to the total amount of approximately EUR 77,000 for the period of time he was under contract with the Claimant. The Chamber then turned to the payment list provided by the Respondent and observed that the Respondent had paid the Claimant the amount of approximately EUR 77,000, however, including the amount of approximately EUR 10,000 for accommodation and match bonuses. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the Respondent still owed the Claimant the amount of EUR 10,000. 13. For all the above reasons, the Chamber decided to partially accept the Claimant´s claim and determined that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant the total amount of EUR 10,000 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest on said amount as from 17 June 2011. 14. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player P, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club R, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 10,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 17 June 2011 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received. ***** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 67 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS, a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives). The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following: Court of Arbitration for Sport Avenue de Beaumont 2 1012 Lausanne Switzerland Tel: +41 21 613 50 00 Fax: +41 21 613 50 01 e-mail: info@tas-cas.org www.tas-cas.org For the Dispute Resolution Chamber: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives