F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2014-2015) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2014-2015) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of theDispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 28 August 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Jon Newman (USA), member on the claim presented by the player, Player M, from country I as Claimant/Counter-Respondent against the club, Club P, from country R as Respondent/Counter-Claimant regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2014-2015) - controversie di lavoro - ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2014-2015) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of theDispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 28 August 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Jon Newman (USA), member on the claim presented by the player, Player M, from country I as Claimant/Counter-Respondent against the club, Club P, from country R as Respondent/Counter-Claimant regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 15 July 2010, Player M, from country I (hereinafter: the Claimant/Counter-Respondent), and Club P, from country R (hereinafter: the Respondent/Counter-Claimant), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from the date of signature until 31 December 2012. 2. According to art. III and V of the contract, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant undertook to provide the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, inter alia, with the following: a) “4,000 euros netto monthly”; b) “2 fly tickets, per year, during the holiday periods, go and return, on the relation country R – country S”; c) “accommodation (…) from the available houses of the club”. 3. In addition, the parties agreed upon the following clauses: a) Article III: “1.(i) According to the net amounts actually granted, the club has the obligation to pay only the income tax.” b) Article III: “2. The player undertakes: (c) to observe the Statutes, Regulations, Decisions, and Resolutions of the management bodies of the club, FRF, LPF (country R Professional Football League) and AJF (County Football Association); (d) to fulfil the requirement of the organization and functioning regulations of the club.” c) Article III: “2.(i) The club can retain from every amount of money due to the player any fines or penalties, in accordance with sports country R Football Federation and the Regulations of Internal Order.” d) Article V: “For the entire period of the contract, the club takes the obligation to pay, up to 30.12.2010, the amount of 24.000 euros netto. If up to the above mentioned term, Club P does not pay the above mentioned amount, the player is free of contract, starting with 15.06.2011, the financial rights being paid to the player, up to 15.06.2011.” e) Article VII: “(2) The parties undertake not to refer to any law court for the settlement of the litigations until after finishing all the methods of the court of jurisdiction of FRF, LPF (country R Professional Football League) and/or AJF (County Football Association). (3) The litigation arising from the execution of the present agreement shall be settled following the procedural order: a) amicable way; b) by bringing the litigation before the court of jurisdiction of FRF, LPF and AJF, as the case may be.” 4. On 14 February 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent unilaterally terminated the contract based on the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s alleged breach of contract “consecutively for more than 3 months”. 5. On 14 March 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent lodged a claim for breach of contract in front of FIFA against the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, requesting the payment of the total amount of EUR 34,227, broken down as follows: a) outstanding salaries in the amount of EUR 12,000, corresponding to the monthly remuneration of November and December 2010 and January 2011, plus interests of 5% p.a. as from 14 February 2011; b) compensation in the amount of EUR 18,000, corresponding to the residual value of the contract (i.e. four and a half months from February 2011 until 15 June 2011), plus interests of 5% p.a. as from 14 February 2011 and minus “possible income during this period”; c) “one (1) monthly salary in the amount of EUR 4,000 as additional indemnity, since the interest rate of 5% is not covering the damage of this case for legal costs”; d) Hotel costs in the amount of currency of country R 115 (approx. EUR 27); e) EUR 200 for a one-way ticket country R – country S. 6. In his claim, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent explains that based on art. V of the contract, he deems that 15 June 2011 should be considered as the expiry date of the contract since the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to pay him “the additional payment of EUR 24,000.” 7. According to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, he received his remuneration for the first 3 and half months (i.e. from July until October 2010), as well as a bonus of EUR 250, totalling EUR 14,245. On 22 September 2010, he was warned by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant of his alleged bad performance and played the last official match on 10 October 2012. On 26 October 2012, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant sanctioned the player with a fine corresponding to 25% of his remuneration for the 2010/2011 season. On 20 December 2010, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent rejected the fine arguing that he did not fail with any obligations. 8. In spite of having reminded the Respondent/Counter-Claimant of its salary arrears towards him in the amount of EUR 8,000, by means of his letters dated 20 December 2010 and 13 and 26 January 2011, and in the amount of EUR 12,000, by means of his letters dated 2 and 9 February 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent allegedly did not receive any payments from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. Thus, he terminated the contract on 14 February 2011 (cf. point I.4. above). 9. In its response, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant rejects FIFA’s jurisdiction over the present dispute in favour of the deciding body of the LPF on the basis of art. VII of the contract (cf. point I.3.e) above) and provided an excerpt of the 2009 Statutes of the country R Football Federation and the 2010 Rules on Football Players’ Status and Transfer. 10. With regard to the substance of the dispute, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant rejects the claim and argues that the contract was terminated by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent on 14 February 2011 without just cause due to the fact that it paid the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s due remuneration in full, in accordance with article III.1.(i) of the contract (cf. point I.3.a) above), and fulfilled all its obligations, including flight tickets and accommodation. 11. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant states that “the obligation to pay the sum of EUR 24,000 was established in addition to the obligation of paying to the player monthly instalments remuneration in the amount of EUR 4,000. The payment of the above mentioned sum of EUR 24,000 was only to be deducted from the monthly remuneration, thus, this stipulation was playing the role of a subsequent condition. The said amount of EUR 24,000 included the July instalment –EUR 2,000–, the August 2010 to December 2010 instalments –EUR 20,000–, and, in advance, half of the instalment corresponding to the month of January 2011 –EUR 2,000–.” 12. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant further affirms that, according to article V of the contract (cf. point I.3.d) above), the following items were to be deducted from the amount of EUR 24,000 due to the player: a) EUR 3,392.55 corresponding to the player’s health insurance, unemployment and social security contributions; b) EUR 1,269.98 corresponding to a guarantee for equipment’s return; c) EUR 6,000 corresponding to the fine referred to in point I.7. above. 13. Therefore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant explains that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was actually entitled to EUR 13,337.59 and it paid him EUR 14,383 for his services until 31 December 2010. Thus, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had a credit against the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in the amount of EUR 1,045.61. 14. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant further states that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent showed lack of interest in his preparation since September 2010 and proceeded against him in a disciplinary proceeding that ended with the imposition of the fine (cf. point I.7. above). 15. Finally, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant lodged a counterclaim for breach of contract against the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, requesting the payment of the total amount of EUR 8,342.12, based on the costs incurred by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for the Claimant/Counter-Respondent (i.e. EUR 16,684.28) amortized by 50%, sporting sanctions and the reimbursement of the expenses incurred by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in connection with the present case. 16. In his reply to the counterclaim, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent rejects it in full, stating that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant breached the contract, and asserts that article V of the contract clearly sets forth that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is to receive EUR 4,000 net per month (cf. point I.2.a) above), so the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was liable to bear the financial cost of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s health insurance, unemployment and social security contributions. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent further notes that, from the documentation provided by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, it can be noted that he is the only one from whose salary the percentage of 16.5% was deducted as taxes. In particular, he noted that, while he had to pay 10.5% for social insurance, players with a higher remuneration were charged between 1% and 6%. 17. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent also claims not having signed the Internal Regulations neither being notified of the imposition of the fine, which he argues as being unlawful since he could not exercise his right to be heard and never granted an authorization to the sports director of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant that appeared in front of the country R deciding body apparently on behalf of both the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and also the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. He further claims that such representation proves a clear conflict of interests and, in addition, that the fine is excessive. 18. Finally, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent acknowledged to have been paid EUR 14,383, which corresponds to his salaries of July, August, September and October 2010, plus a bonus, and maintains all requests put forth in his original claim. 19. In its final position, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant asserts that the remuneration was established by the parties as net value in consideration only of the obligation by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to pay the income tax (cf. point I.3.a) above) and, therefore, the deductions to the monthly remuneration of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent were made according to the contract and the applicable law. Additionally, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant argues that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was aware of the right of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant under the contract to deduct fines and penalties according to its internal regulations (cf. point I.3.c) above). 20. After having invited the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s new club, Club A, to comment on the present dispute, the country C Football Association informed that such club is no longer affiliated. 21. Finally, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent informed FIFA that he signed the following new contracts: a) Club A, country C, from 16 June 2011 until 31 March 2012, for EUR 22,400 net. b) Club O, from country B, from 6 July 2012 until 30 June 2013, for currency of country B 14,320. 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 matter at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 14 March 2011. Consequently, the 2008 edition of the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 1 and par. 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 2014), the Dispute Resolution Chamber would, in principle, be competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an country I player and a country R club. 3. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant contested the competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of art. VII of the contract, highlighting that the parties to the contract had agreed that “(2) The parties undertake not to refer to any law court for the settlement of the litigations until after finishing all the methods of the court of jurisdiction of country R Professional Football League and/or County Football Association. (3) The litigation arising from the execution of the present agreement shall be settled following the procedural order: a) amicable way; b) by bringing the litigation before the court of jurisdiction of country R Professional Football League and/or County Football Association, as the case may be.” 4. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent rejected such position and insisted that FIFA has jurisdiction to deal with the present matter. 5. In continuation, the DRC referred to the above-mentioned article of the contract, on the basis of which the Respondent contested FIFA's jurisdiction. According to said article, “The litigation arising from the execution of the present agreement shall be settled […] by bringing the litigation before the court of jurisdiction of country R Professional Football League and/or County Football Association, as the case may be.” 6. Hence, the Chamber outlined that the content of the relevant article is not clear and that said clause does not explicitly refer to the competent national dispute resolution chamber or similar arbitration body in the sense of art. 22 lit. b) of the aforementioned Regulations but it actually refers to three different entities. Therefore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was not in a position to know at the moment of signing the contract to which body the potential disputes related to his employment relationship were to be submitted. 7. In view of all the above, the DRC concluded that, in line with its constant jurisprudence, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant 's objection to the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected and that the DRC 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. 8. In continuation, 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 2014), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 14 March 2011, the 2010 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 9. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the DRC 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. 10. The members of the Chamber acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that they were contractually bound by means of the contract, valid as from 15 July 2010 until 31 December 2012. Likewise, the DRC also noted that the parties did not dispute the fact that the contract was terminated by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent on 14 February 2011 and that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant paid EUR 14,383 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent until such day. 11. The Chamber further noted that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, on the one hand, lodged a claim for outstanding remuneration and breach of contract, arguing that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to comply with its contractual obligations by ceasing the payment of his receivables. 12. The Chamber also noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, on the other hand, maintains that it fulfilled all its financial obligations in accordance with the contract and, therefore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent would have terminated it without just cause. 13. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the allegations and counter-claim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, was to determine whether the contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent on 14 February 2011. The DRC also underlined that, subsequently, if it were found that the contract had been terminated with just cause by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, it would be necessary to determine the consequences for the party that caused the unjust breach. 14. In view of the above, the Chamber first focused its attention on the reason at the basis of the termination of the contract by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, i.e. the non-payment of his monthly remuneration of November and December 2010 and January 2011. 15. In view of the above, the DRC went on to deliberate as to whether the allegations of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent regarding the non-performance of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant's obligation to pay the Claimant/Counter-Respondent's remuneration for the months of November and December 2010 and January 2011 are corroborated by substantial pieces of evidence and whether they could be considered as a just cause to terminate the contract. 16. In this context, whilst referring to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof, the Chamber deemed it fit to highlight that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had presented substantial documentary evidence corroborating his allegations regarding the salary arrears towards him. In this respect, the DRC acknowledged the content of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent's correspondence of 20 December 2010, 13 and 26 January 2011 and 2 and 9 February 2011, requesting the payment of his outstanding remuneration, to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant (cf. point I.8. above), a copy of which is to be found on file. 17. Still bearing in mind the aforementioned principle, the Chamber noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant bore the burden of proof regarding the payment of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent's remuneration for November and December 2010 and January 2011. In this regard, the DRC established that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not provide any evidence of the payment of the aforementioned salaries, but it deemed that the amounts individualized in point I.12. above were to be deducted from the amount owed to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. Consequently, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant claimed that no amount was owed to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent but rather the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had a debit towards the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in the amount of EUR 1,045.61. 18. Likewise, the DRC highlighted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant undertook to provide the Claimant/Counter-Respondent with “4,000 euros netto monthly” (cf. point I.2.a) above) and, thus, the latter should have received by the termination date the amount of EUR 26,000 net as per the contract, i.e. the remuneration from July 2010 until January 2011. 19. On the other hand, the Chamber acknowledged that the parties agree on the fact that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent received from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant the amount of EUR 14,383 instead of EUR 26,000, meaning that there was a balance of approximately EUR 12,000 against the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 20. In this context, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant maintains to have deducted the total amount of EUR 10,662.53 referring to the player’s health insurance, unemployment and social security contributions, a guarantee for equipment’s return and the fine referred to in point I.7. above (cf. point I.12. above), which in any case does not cover the whole balance of unpaid remuneration. 21. The DRC further noticed that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent rejected the Respondent/Counter-Claimant's request that the amounts referred to in point I.12. above are to be deducted from his receivables, pointing out that the monthly salary was agreed to be paid on a net basis (cf. point I.2.a) above), so that his social security contributions were to be borne by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 22. Likewise, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent claimed that the factual basis for a fine did not exist, that he was prevented from exercising his right to be heard in the alleged disciplinary proceeding against him and that he was not notified of the imposition of any fine. 23. Finally, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent affirms that he did not sign the Internal Regulations of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. Thus, the deduction of the guarantee for equipment’s return from his receivables was not valid either. 24. In this context, the DRC noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant submitted spreadsheets prepared by itself, which refer to deductions of 5.5% of the gross income as health insurance contribution; 0.5% for unemployment; and 10.5% for social security from the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s remuneration. 25. The Chamber further noted that, pursuant to art. III.1.(i) of the contract, the parties stipulate that “according to the net amounts actually granted, the club has the obligation to pay only the income tax". Therefore, in principle, only the income tax to be paid by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was to be borne by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 26. The Chamber, however, could not conclude that EUR 3,392.55 (cf. point I.12.a) above) were actually deducted and paid as argued by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. In deciding so, the Chamber referred to art. 12 par. 6 of the Procedural Rules, according to which the evidence shall be considered with free discretion. In the absence of any proof other than documents produced by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant itself in order to discharge its financial obligations towards the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the DRC was of the opinion that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not satisfactorily carry the burden of proof regarding such discount. 27. In connection with the allegation of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in order to discount EUR 1,269.98 from the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s receivables, based on an alleged guarantee for equipment’s return (cf. point I.12.b) above), the DRC stressed the need for clarifying that, besides the payment of remuneration, one of the essential obligations of a club is to provide its players with adequate training. In this sense, the parties agreed that, in consideration of the services of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant undertook to “make available for the player the adequate training and competition equipment and other materials necessary for training” (cf. art. III.1.b) of the contract). 28. In view of the above and especially of the obligation undertaken by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant under the contract, the DRC see no valid reason or justification to transfer an obligation from one contracting party to the other and then discount an amount from the latter’s receivables. Therefore, the Chamber deemed that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is not entitled to set-off its debts regarding the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s outstanding remuneration against the alleged guarantee for equipment’s return. 29. Also, the DRC concurred that the fine imposed on the Claimant/Counter-Respondent by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant (cf. point I.12.c) above) shall be disregarded since the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not prove any alleged unprofessional behaviour of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the total amount of the fine imposed on the Claimant/Counter-Respondent by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant (i.e. “a sport penalty of 25% of the financial rights due for the competition season 2010 – 2011”) must be considered disproportionate. 30. In this respect, the Chamber further analysed, in first place, the findings of the decision no. 371 of the country R Professional Football League, dated 3 November 2010 and submitted by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, which ratified the penalty of 25% of the financial rights due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent for the season 2010/2011. The DRC noted that this is the only document upon which the Respondent/Counter-Claimant argues that it is entitled to discount EUR 6,000 from the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s receivables. Furthermore, the Chamber underlined that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent also claims not to have been informed of or to have participated in these proceedings. Thus, the allegation of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for the non-payment of the player’s remuneration cannot be upheld. 31. In addition, and irrespective of the foregoing considerations, the DRC wished to address the fact that the imposition of a fine, or any other available financial sanction in general, shall not be used by clubs as a method to set off outstanding financial obligations towards players. 32. On account of the above and taking into consideration its longstanding jurisprudence in this respect, the DRC concurred that the contract was terminated with just cause by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent on 14 February 2011, based on the non-payment of 3 monthly salaries and, consequently, that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment relationship. 33. Having established that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the contract with just cause by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequences of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the DRC decided that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is entitled to receive from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant an amount of money as compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding payments, on the basis of the contract and the evidence submitted in the course of this proceeding. 34. First of all, the DRC reverted to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent's financial claim, which includes outstanding salaries in the amount of EUR 12,000, corresponding to his monthly remuneration of November and December 2010 and January 2011. 35. Consequently, bearing in mind the considerations made in points II.24. to II.31. above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is liable to pay the amount of EUR 12,000 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 36. In addition, taking into account the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the members of the Chamber decided to award the Claimant/Counter-Respondent interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amount of EUR 12,000 as from 14 February 2011 until the date of effective payment. 37. With regard to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim for additional indemnity in the amount of EUR 4,000, the Chamber recalled the contents of art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as to its long-standing and well-established jurisprudence, which clearly stipulates that no procedural compensation is awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Therefore, the members of the Chamber had no other alternative than to reject this part of the claim. 38. With regard to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s request for the reimbursement of accommodation expenses, the DRC took due note that, although the Claimant/Counter-Respondent submitted proof regarding such expenses, no obligation in this regard is established in the contract. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant undertook to provide the Claimant/Counter-Respondent with “accommodation (…) from the available houses of the club” (cf. point I.2.c) above). Thus, based on article 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, such request of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent cannot be sustained. 39. On the other hand and with regard to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s request for reimbursement of travel expenses, the Chamber took due note that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent submitted satisfactory evidence in order to establish that a one-way ticket from country R to country S costs between EUR 190 and EUR 260. Therefore, based on article 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and the obligation of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to provide the Claimant/Counter-Respondent with “2 fly tickets, per year, during the holiday periods, go and return, on the relation country R-country S” (cf. point I.2.b) above), such request of the Claimant is sustained and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is order to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the amount of EUR 200 for this concept. 40. In continuation, the Dispute Resolution 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 DRC 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 any other 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. 41. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that, first of all, it had to clarify as to whether the contract contains a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the DRC established that no such compensation clause was included in the contract. 42. As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of payable compensation. 43. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent (cf. point I.6. above) and also the allegation of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant (cf. point I.11. above), the DRC proceeded with the calculation of the amount payable to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent under the terms of the contract until 15 June 2011, as per its Article V (cf. point I.3.d) above). Accordingly, the members of the Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 18,000 (i.e. salary as from February 2011 until 15 June 2011 under the contract) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 44. In continuation, the Dispute Resolution Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been able to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s general obligation to mitigate his damages. 45. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent, however, only signed a new employment contract with the Club A, from country C, on 16 June 2011, after the expiry of the contract as per its art. V. This, no deductions were to be made to the amount established in point II.43. above as the residual value of the contract. 46. In this respect and bearing in mind all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the DRC decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant must pay the amount of EUR 18,000 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter, in addition to the amount of EUR 12,000 as outstanding remuneration (cf. point II.35. above) and EUR 200 as reimbursement of travel expenses (cf. point II.39. above). 47. In addition, taking into account the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s request, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant must pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of compensation as from the date of the claim, i.e. 14 March 2011, until the date of effective payment. 48. In conclusion, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to pay EUR 12,000 and EUR 200 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent relating to outstanding remuneration and reimbursement of travel expenses, as well as EUR 18,000 as compensation for the unjustified breach of contract by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 49. 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 and that the counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is also rejected since the latter breached the contract by not paying three monthly remunerations to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, as described in the foregoing considerations. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Player M, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is partially accepted. 3. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club P, is ordered to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 12,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 14 February 2011 until the date of effective payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 4. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant is ordered to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the reimbursement of a flight ticket in the amount of EUR 200, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 5. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant is ordered to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent compensation in the amount of EUR 18,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 14 March 2011 until the date of effective payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 6. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in accordance with the above-mentioned numbers 3., 4. and 5. are not paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due on the amount referred to in number 4. above as of expiry of the aforementioned time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 7. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent are rejected. 8. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is rejected. 9. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent/Counter-Claimant 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