F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2013-2014) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2013-2014) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 18 March 2014, by Theo van Seggelen (the Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player A, country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, country D as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2013-2014) - controversie di lavoro - ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2013-2014) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 18 March 2014, by Theo van Seggelen (the Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player A, country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, country D as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 February 2011, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: player or Claimant), and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: club or Respondent), signed an employment contract valid as from 1 February 2011 until 31 January 2012 (hereinafter: the first contract). This contract included an annexe entitled ‘Special Terms and Conditions of the Professional Contract’ (hereinafter: the first annexe), valid for the same period as the first contract. 2. In accordance with the first annexe, the player was inter alia entitled to receive monthly remuneration of EUR 1,200 for the duration of the first contract, and a monthly bonus of EUR 1,300. 3. Equally, on 22 February 2012, the player and the club signed a second employment contract valid as from 22 February 2012 until 31 July 2012 (hereinafter: the second contract). This contract included an annexe entitled ‘Special Provisions of the Professional Agreement’ (hereinafter: the second annexe), valid for the same period as the second contract. 4. Similarly, in accordance with the second annexe, the player was inter alia entitled to receive monthly remuneration of EUR 1,200 for the duration of the second contract, and a monthly bonus of EUR 1,300. 5. On 1 December 2013, the player lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the club asking that he be paid outstanding remuneration relating to the first contract, in the amount of EUR 5,000, and the second contract in the amount of EUR 12,500, plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. 6. The player claims that certain payments due in accordance with the first annexe were never received. He claims to still be owed the payments: a. for December 2011, the sum of EUR 2,500; and, b. for January 2012, the sum of EUR 2,500. 7. Additionally, the player claims that certain payments due in accordance with the second annexe were never received. He claims to still be owed the payments: a. for March 2012, the sum of EUR 2,500; b. for April 2012, the sum of EUR 2,500; c. for May 2012, the sum of EUR 2,500; d. for June 2012, the sum of EUR 2,500; and, e. for July 2012, the sum of EUR 2,500. 8. The player claims to have had multiple discussions with club representatives who have promised the debt would be settled. 9. In spite of having been invited by FIFA to provide its position regarding the claim, the club did not respond to the claim or make any statements during the course of the investigation. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First, the DRC judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 1 December 2013. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2012; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and par. 3 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) he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player from country B and a club from country D. 3. Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 1 December 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 judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, he started by acknowledging the abovementioned facts as well as the arguments and documentation submitted by the parties. The DRC judge, however, emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. In this respect, the DRC judge acknowledged that the parties to the dispute had signed two subsequent employment contracts on 1 February 2011 and 22 February 2012 respectively, in accordance with which the Respondent would pay monthly remuneration of EUR 1,200 and a monthly bonus of EUR 1,300 to the Claimant as from 1 February 2011 until 31 July 2012. 6. In continuation, the DRC judge noted that the Claimant alleged that the Respondent had failed to pay the outstanding amount of EUR 5,000 in relation to the first employment contract, and EUR 12,500 in relation to the second contract. Consequently, the Claimant asked to be awarded with the payment of the total amount of EUR 17,500, plus interest. 7. Subsequently, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant, in spite of having been invited to do so. By not presenting its position to the claim, the DRC judge was of the opinion that the Respondent renounced its right of defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 8. Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the DRC judge held that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, he shall take a decision upon the basis of the documentation already on file; in other words, upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant. 9. The DRC judge took into consideration that according to the Claimant, the Respondent had failed to pay his remuneration of December 2011 and January 2012 as well as of March until and including July 2012, in the amount of EUR 2,500 per month. Consequently, the Claimant requested to be awarded with the payment of the total amount of EUR 17,500. 10. Taking into account the documentation presented by the Claimant in support of his petition, the DRC judge concluded that the Claimant had substantiated his claim pertaining to outstanding remuneration with sufficient documentary evidence. 11. With respect to the Claimant’s monthly remuneration, the DRC judge highlighted that since there was no other indication in the relevant employment contract, he departed from the presumption that the monthly payment fell due by the end of the month in which the player rendered his services to the club. 12. On account of all of the above, the DRC judge decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR 17,500 relating to the period as from December 2011 until July 2012. 13. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 17,500 as from 1 December 2013 until the date of effective payment. III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 17,500 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 December 2013 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid 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. 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 DRC judge 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 DRC judge: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives