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 Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member Jon Newman (USA), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member on the claim presented by the player, Player C, from country G as Claimant against the club, Club E, from country B as Respondent 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 Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member Jon Newman (USA), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member on the claim presented by the player, Player C, from country G as Claimant against the club, Club E, from country B as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 14 August 2010, Player C, from country G (hereinafter: the Claimant), and Club E, from country B (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid from 1 July 2010 until 30 June 2011. 2. According to art. 11 and 13 of the contract, the Respondent undertook to provide the Claimant, inter alia, with a gross monthly salary of EUR 5,700, payable at the latest on the 7th working day of the subsequent month. 3. On 16 August 2010, the Respondent issued a document named “Attestation”, by means of which it undertook to pay the Claimant an amount of EUR 65,000 for the 2010/2011 season, payable as follows: - EUR 20,000 due on 30 November 2010; - EUR 25,000 due on 31 March 2011; - EUR 20,000 due on 30 July 2011. 4. On 24 February 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, requesting, after amending his claim, the payment of the total amount of EUR 103,547.86 net, plus interest of 5% p.a. as from each due date, broken down as follows: - EUR 5,000 as full salary for July 2010, plus interest as from 8 August 2010; - EUR 5,000 as full salary for August 2010, plus interest as from 8 September 2010; - EUR 1,979.36 as partial salary for September 2010, plus interest as from 8 October 2010; - EUR 1,880.85 as partial salary for October 2010, plus interest as from 8 November 2010; - EUR 20,000 as the full instalment due on 30 November 2010, as per the “Attestation” , plus interest as from 1 December 2010; - EUR 1,335.84 as partial salary for November 2010, plus interest as from 8 December 2010; - EUR 1,988.65 as partial salary for December 2010, plus interest as from 8 January 2011; - EUR 2,471.39 as partial salary for January 2011, plus interest as from 8 February 2011; - EUR 2,471.38 as partial salary for February 2011, plus interest as from 8 March 2011; - EUR 25,000 as the full instalment due on 31 March 2011, as per the “Attestation” , plus interest as from 1 April 2011; - EUR 2,471.39 as partial salary for March 2011, plus interest as from 8 April 2011; - EUR 4,476.10 as partial salary for April 2011, plus interest as from 8 May 2011; - EUR 4,472.90 as partial salary for May 2011, plus interest as from 8 June 2011; - EUR 5,000 as full salary for June 2011, plus interest as from 8 July 2011; - EUR 20,000 as the full instalment due on 30 July 2011, as per the “Attestation”, plus interest as from 31 July 2011. 5. According to the Claimant, he was prohibited from taking part in the Respondent’s activities as from 11 February 2011, without any explanation. In spite of the Claimant’s alleged request, the Respondent refused to readmit him to the club’s activities. 6. Furthermore, according to the Claimant, several payments established in the contract and in the “Attestation” remained outstanding, as detailed in point I.4. above. The Claimant deems that the amounts established in the “Attestation” are to be considered as net. In this regard, the Claimant claims that said document fails to specify whether the payments therein established are net or gross and such an omission should be interpreted in favour of the employee. 7. In its reply to the Claimant’s claim, the Respondent claims that the “validity of the contract depended on the suspensive condition that the plaintiff [the Claimant] possessed a work permit as well as an international transfer certificate (ITC)”. In this respect, the Respondent provided FIFA with a print out from the Transfer Matching System (TMS), indicating that the Claimant’s ITC was issued on 18 August 2010. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent deems that the Claimant’s contract entered into force on 1 September 2010 and expired on 30 June 2011. Thus, no payments are due for the months of July and August 2010, as claimed by the Respondent. 8. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that all payments due to the Claimant from 18 August 2010 until 30 June 2011 were duly made. In this regard, the Respondent presented the following payment statements: - EUR 3,020.64, dated 8 October 2010, for the period of September 2010; - EUR 3,119.15, dated 5 November 2010, for the period of October 2010; - EUR 3,664.16, dated 2 December 2010, for the period of November 2010; - EUR 3,011.15, dated 4 January 2011, for the period of December 2010; - EUR 2,528.61, dated 2 February 2011, for the period of January 2011; - EUR 2,528.62, dated 3 March 2011, for the period of February 2011; - EUR 2,528.62, dated 5 April 2011, for the period of March 2011; - EUR 527.10, dated 5 May 2011, for the period of April 2011; - EUR -3.20, dated 23 April 2011, for the period of March 2011; - EUR 527.10, dated 4 June 2011, for the period of May 2011; - EUR 0.00, dated 10 June 2011, for the period of May 2011; - EUR 0.00, dated 23 June 2011, for the period of May 2011; - EUR 527.10, dated 2 July 2011, for the period of June 2011. - Total: EUR 19,703.05 9. In continuation, the Respondent explains that on 24 April 2011 it was informed about an order to seize the Claimant’s remuneration, which “[…] resulted from the plaintiff’s [the Claimant’s] tax debts to the country F fiscal government for the years 2009 and 2010, EUR 181,566.47 in total”. In this regard, the Respondent provided a copy of a court order of execution dated 21 April 2011, issued upon request of the collector of direct taxes of XY, country F, as a result of the demand for assistance of the relevant country F authorities. The Respondent also provided a copy of a statement issued by the Centre of Public Finances of country F, according to which the amount of EUR 180,539 is due by the Claimant. The aforementioned writ orders the Respondent to retain the Claimant’s remuneration in order to obtain the payment of the total amount of EUR 181,566.47 plus interest as from 1 May 2011. In particular, the Respondent is requested to retain the entire amount of remuneration exceeding EUR 1,300 per month. 10. In this regard, the Respondent claims that “In attempt to enforce the seizure the defendant was prohibited from making payments to the plaintiff. The remaining amount of EUR 30,277.77 (after deduction of country B taxes) is subject to the seizure and could therefore not be paid to the plaintiff. As this amount was properly accounted for, it consequently has to be considered as the fulfilment of the plaintiff’s salary demands. The remaining amount is payable to the competent enforcement authority”. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent claims that no amounts are due to the Claimant. 11. Finally, the Respondent claims that the parties never agreed that the amounts stipulated in the contract are to be considered as net. In addition, the Claimant never contested the deduction of taxes made every month to his remuneration. Thus, the Respondent deems that the Claimant’s claim should be entirely rejected. 12. In his replica, the Claimant points out that the Respondent did not provide substantial evidence of having paid his full remuneration, as it claims. In addition, the Claimant rejects the Respondent’s argument that the salaries for July and August 2010 are not due and claims that the validity of the contract – explicitly stipulated in its art. 2, as from 1 July 2010 until 30 June 2011 – is not subject to the issuance of a work permit or of an ITC in favour of the Claimant. 13. The Claimant further claims that the Respondent did not provide a copy of the work permit, issued allegedly after the start date of the contract. In any case, even if the DRC would take into account the date of the issuance of the ITC, i.e. 18 August 2010, the Claimant would be entitled at least to his pro rata salary for August 2010. The Claimant further points out that the Respondent did not contest the assertion that his gross salary of EUR 5,700 corresponds to EUR 5,000 net. 14. With regard to the court order of execution dated 21 April 2011 (cf. point I.9. above), the Claimant claims that the payment of the remuneration due to him by the Respondent up to that date shall not be affected in any way by such order. Consequently, the salaries claimed by the Claimant for the period as from July 2010 until March 2011 (cf. point I.4. above), in the total amount of EUR 69,598.86, should be paid in full by the Respondent to the Claimant, since the order of execution of 21 April 2011 does not have a retroactive effect. 15. With regard to the salaries payable after 21 April 2011, in the total amount of EUR 33,421.90 (cf. point I.4. above), the Claimant states that they could in principle be affected by the court order of execution, provided that he still received a minimum amount of EUR 1,300 as monthly wage (cf. point I.9. above). However, according to the Claimant, the Respondent did not provide any evidence that the remuneration due to him as from 21 April 2011 was either paid to him or to the relevant tax authorities. Thus, as the Respondent bears the burden of proof in this regard, this argument must be rejected, as it is not supported by any substantial evidence. 16. In addition, the Claimant points out that the Respondent failed to explain how the amount of EUR 30,277.77 (cf. point I.10. above) was calculated. As per the Claimant, the Respondent equally failed to present any evidence of the alleged deduction of country B taxes from the aforementioned amount. Finally, the Claimant claims that no evidence was provided by the Respondent that it paid to the Claimant at least the minimum amount due per month, as per the order of execution, i.e. EUR 1,300. In view of all the aforementioned, the Claimant claims that also the remuneration payable after 21 April 2011, in the total amount of EUR 33,421.90 remains outstanding and should be paid to him by the Respondent. 17. In the alternative that the DRC deems that the order of execution should be taken into account for the calculation of the amounts due to the Claimant, the latter claims that he should be entitled to receive at least the amount of EUR 2,321.90 net, corresponding to the minimum amount due to him from April to June 2011 (3 x EUR 1,300 = EUR 3,900) minus the amount actually paid by the Respondent for this period (EUR 523.90 + EUR 527.10 + EUR 527.10 = EUR 1,578.10). 18. Furthermore, the Claimant insists that the “Attestation” be interpreted in his favour and that in the absence of an explicit stipulation the amounts therein established should be considered as net. In this respect, the Claimant claims that, if he never contacted the Respondent before requesting the payment of the net amounts stipulated in the “Attestation”, that is because the Respondent never paid him any of the amounts therein stipulated. Thus, the Claimant maintains his initial claim. 19. In its final position, the Respondent maintains its previous allegations and insists on the fact that the contract only started to be executed on 1 September 2010. In this regard, the Respondent provides a copy of an e-mail of Mr P, from company E, addressed to the former general manager of the club, dated 7 October 2010, according to which the Claimamnt’s contract would start on 1 September 2010. The date mentioned in the contract, i.e. 1 July 2010, was a mistake, according to the Respondent. 20. The Respondent further claims that the Claimant’s net remuneration as per the contract is not EUR 5,000, as claimed by the Claimant, but varies every month, in accordance with the obligatory deductions that should be made by the Respondent, concerning social security or income tax, for example. In this regard, the Respondent refers to the payment statements mentioned in point I.8. above and indicates that each of them contains a detailed explanation of the amounts deducted from the Claimant’s gross remuneration from September 2010 to June 2011. In particular, the Respondent refers to the payment statement of September 2010, in which the following amounts are indicated: - EUR 5,700 as basic monthly remuneration; - minus EUR 256,20 as contribution to the social security; - minus EUR 1,506.59 as prepayment over normal remuneration; - minus EUR 236.57 as supplementary prepayment; - minus EUR 680 as advance payment; - EUR 3,020.64 as amount paid out. 21. According to the Respondent, the “prepayment over normal remuneration” corresponds to the payment of income taxes. All other deductions made by the Respondent to the Claimant’s monthly remuneration, as detailed in the pay slips provided as evidence (cf. point I.8. above), correspond to mandatory tax deductions, in accordance with country B tax law. Thus, the Respondent claims that all the Claimant’s salaries as per the contract were duly paid until March 2011 and no amount is due to the Claimant in this regard. 22. With regard to the amount of EUR 65,000 stipulated in the “Attestation” (cf. point I.3. above), the Respondent claims that this amount should be considered as gross. As per the pay slip dated 10 June 2011, for the period of May 2011 (cf. point I.8. above), the amount of EUR 34,643.83 was deducted from the amount of EUR 65,000 as income tax and contribution to the social security. The residual amount of EUR 30,227.77 was paid to the relevant authority in accordance with the court order of attachment of the Claimant’s remuneration. In this context, the Respondent claims that according to country B law, a party that fails to seize an amount in disrespect of a court order is subject to sanctions, among which the payment of two-fold the amount that should have been seized. 23. The Respondent further claims that, in principle, the amount EUR 1,300 would be due to the Claimant, corresponding to the maximum amount payable to him from the “Attestation” (cf. point I.9. above, in fine). 24. As to the salaries due to the Claimant from April to June 2011, the Respondent refers to the relevant pay slips provided and maintains that the amount of EUR 92.90 per month is in fact still due to the Claimant, considering the amount of EUR 1,300 which the Respondent should have paid to the Respondent (cf. point I.9. above, in fine). 25. However, the amounts mentioned in points I.23. and I.24. above are no longer due to the Claimant, since he remained in the apartment rented for him by the Respondent even after the expiry of his contract on 30 June 2011, in violation of the “convention” signed by the parties on 14 September 2010, by means of which the Respondent undertook to sign a contract of lease for the Claimant’s apartment, to be occupied by him during the validity of his contract with the Respondent. The “convention” further states that the rent and the relevant expenses would be deducted from the Claimant’s salary and detailed in the pay slips. 26. The Respondent further states that the Claimant correctly received all his salaries from September 2010 to July 2011, never having made any remark as to his current allegation that his net monthly salary would amount to EUR 5,000. 27. Finally, the Respondent provides a copy of the correspondence exchanged between the Respondent and the Claimant’s former legal representative and points out that the latter, on 28 September 2011, allegedly lodged a complaint before the arbitration body of the country B Football Association, requesting inter alia the payment of half of his salary for August 2010, his full salaries for January and June 2011, as well as the payment of EUR 65,000 as per the “Attestation” and the holiday bonus, as per the collective bargain agreement. A copy of the aforementioned claim dated 28 September 2011 was provided by the Respondent. Thus, the claim of the Claimant before FIFA should not be admissible. 28. FIFA has contacted both the Respondent and the Claimant in order to obtain further information on the aforementioned claim apparently lodged in front of the country B Football Association, in particular, on its current status. The Respondent failed to reply to FIFA’s request, whereas the Claimant claimed not having been able to obtain any information in this regard. In addition, he claims that the Respondent bears the burden of proof of its allegations and, as per the documentation provided in their support, the claim lodged at FIFA and the one allegedly – and at a later stage – lodged at the country B Football Association do not have the same object, cause or parties. Therefore, according to the Claimant, the case would not be subject to lis pendens or res iudicata. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC or the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 21 par. 1 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules). The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 24 February 2011. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the edition 2008 of the Procedural Rules was applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 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 b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010, 2012 and 2014; hereinafter: the Regulations), the Dispute Resolution Chamber was, in principle, competent to adjudicate on employment-related dispute between a country G player and a country B club. 3. At this point, the Chamber stated that, prior to deliberating on the substance of the matter, the DRC must verify whether the competent FIFA body would be able to deal with the present affair or not for formal reasons. In particular, the Chamber took note of the formal objection of the Respondent, according to which the Claimant’s claim would not be admissible due to res judicata, as the Claimant had allegedly lodged a complaint before the arbitration body of the country B Football Association, requesting the same amounts contemplated in the claim lodged before FIFA. 4. In this context, the DRC deemed it appropriate to remind the parties of the content of 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”. 5. In continuation, the Chamber noted that the Respondent provided FIFA with a copy of the claim allegedly lodged by the Claimant in front of the country B Football Association, on 28 September 2011. On the one hand, the Chamber noted that its request addressed both to the Claimant and to the Respondent with a view to obtain more information on the claim allegedly pending before the country B Football Associaiton remained unanswered by the Respondent. On the other hand, the Chamber noted that, in reply to the aforementioned information request, the Claimant rejected the Respondent’s objection regarding litis pendens and pointed out that the Respondent bore the burden of proof of its allegations. 6. In view of the aforementioned, the DRC deemed that the Respondent indeed was the party responsible to provide documentary evidence in support of its allegation of an alleged situation of litis pendens – or even res judicata – affecting the claim at hand. However, it failed to reply to FIFA’s request for information. 7. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that while the claim allegedly lodged by the Claimant in front of the country B Football Association is dated 28 September 2011, the claim of the Claimant in front of FIFA was lodged on 24 February 2011, i.e. prior to the one allegedly pending in country B. Therefore, FIFA should be considered as the competent forum for the analysis and decision of the present dispute involving the Claimant and the Respondent. 8. Based on the aforementioned, the DRC concluded that the present claim is not affected by litis pendens or res judicata and that the Chamber is competent to analyse the substance of the dispute. 9. Having established that the Claimant’s claim of 24 February 2011 is admissible, the Chamber went on to analyse which regulations were applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Regulations (editions 2010, 2012 and 2014), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 24 February 2011, the 2010 edition of said regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 10. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 11. In this respect, the members of the DRC acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that, on 14 August 2010, the Claimant and the Respondent signed an employment contract valid as from 1 July 2010 until 30 June 2011, in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive a gross monthly salary of EUR 5,700. 12. Furthermore, the Chamber acknowledged that it was also undisputed by the parties that, on 16 August 2010, the Respondent issued an “Attestation”, according to which it undertook to pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 65,000 for the 2010/2011 season, as stipulated in point I.3. above. 13. In continuation, the Chamber noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant claims that several payments, due from July 2010 to July 2011, as per the contract and the “Attestation” remain outstanding. In this regard, the Claimant claims that his gross salary of EUR 5,700 established in the contract corresponds to the amount of EUR 5,000 net. As to the “Attestation”, since the latter does not specify whether the amounts therein established should be considered gross or net, they should be interpreted in favour of the employee and considered as net. Based on the foregoing, the Claimant claims from the Respondent the payment of the total amount of EUR 103,547.86, detailed in point I.4. above. 14. On the other hand, the Chamber noted that the Respondent entirely rejects the Claimant’s claim. Firstly, the Respondent deems that the contract concluded between the parties is valid only as from 1 September 2010, since its validity is dependent on the issuance of a work permit and of the Claimant’s ITC. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent deems that the salaries claimed by the Claimant for the months of July and August 2010 are not due. Furthermore, the Respondent states that all payments due to the player were duly made, and in this regard it provided copies of detailed statements of payment referring to the period of October 2010 to July 2011. In addition, it points out that the Claimant never complained about the monthly deductions made to his salaries, which are obligatory and correspond to income tax or social security, inter alia. 15. Furthermore, the Respondent claims that it received a court order dated 21 April 2011, according to which it should seize the Claimant’s remuneration in order to guarantee the payment of his tax debts in country F, which amount to EUR 181,566.47. Therefore, according to the Respondent, the Claimant’s salaries due after 21 April 2011 were affected by said court order. 16. In principle, the Respondent admits owing the Claimant the amount of EUR 92.90 per month from April to June 2011. However, since the player remained in the apartment rented by the Respondent for him even after the expiry of his contract, this amount is no longer due. Thus, the Respondent claims to have no outstanding debts towards the Claimant. 17. The Chamber also took note of the content of the Claimant’s replica, in which he rejects the Respondent’s allegations and maintains that the start date of the contract is 1 July 2010, since its validity does not depend on the issuance of a work permit or of an ITC. Furthermore, the Claimant rejects the deductions made by the Respondent to his monthly salaries and insists on the fact that, as from 21 April 2011, he should have received at least EUR 1,300 per month. Thus, he maintains his claim. 18. Finally, the DRC noted that the Respondent maintained its argumentation in its final position on the Claimant’s claim. 19. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the claim of the Claimant and the allegations of the Respondent, was to determine which was the outstanding remuneration towards the Claimant, if any. 20. In this context, the Chamber first deemed it appropriate to address the Respondent’s allegation related to the date of entry into force of the employment contract concluded between the parties. 21. In this regard, bearing in mind art. 18 par. 4 of the Regulations, the Chamber considered relevant to recall its jurisprudence in accordance with which the validity of an employment contract cannot be made conditional upon the execution of (administrative) formalities, such as, but not limited to, the registration procedure in connection with the international transfer of a player, which are of the sole responsibility of a club and on which a player has no influence, or the issuance of a work permit. Bearing in mind that according to Annexe 3 of the Regulations an ITC request depends on the new club’s application to the new association to register a professional, the club is actually in the position to prevent the occurrence of the condition preceding the receipt of an ITC by willfully choosing not to proceed with the application for an ITC. For these reasons, the members of the Chamber decided to reject the Respondent’s arguments in this regard and to establish that the employment contract entered into force on 1 July 2010. 22. As a consequence, the DRC also had to reject the Respondent’s argument according to which the Claimant’s salaries for July and August 2010 were not due, based on the alleged entry into force of the contract only on 1 September 2010. 23. In continuation, the Chamber went on to analyse the content of the court order of execution dated 21 April 2011, issued by the tax authorities in country F, as well as its possible influence on the payment of the Claimant’s remuneration as per the contract and the “Attestation”. In this regard, the Chamber first noted that neither the Claimant nor the Respondent contest the existence or the validity of the court order. 24. From the content of the aforementioned court order as well as from the documentation related thereto presented by the Respondent, the DRC understands that the payments due to the Claimant prior to 21 April 2011 cannot be affected by such writ and are, therefore, due as specified in the employment contract and in the “Attestation”. Nevertheless, all payments due to the Claimant by the Respondent as from 21 April 2011 are affected by the court order of execution, as the parties themselves mention. However, a payment of EUR 1,300 per month should be guaranteed to the Claimant, in accordance with the content of the court order of 21 April 2011. The Chamber noted that this understanding is not disputed by the parties. 25. Having established the foregoing and bearing in mind the content of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber noted that the Respondent has submitted several statements of payment, related to the period from October 2010 to July 2011 (cf. point I.8. above). Such statements contain a detailed explanation of all monthly payments made to the Claimant for the indicated time period, specifying every discount, its amount and what it corresponds to. The Chamber deemed that such documentation consisted of substantial and reliable evidence in order to determine the amounts that were indeed paid to the Claimant during the relevant time frame. In fact, the Chamber noted that the amounts indicated in the statements of payment provided by the Respondent are indeed in line with the claim of the Claimant, differing only in the fact that the Claimant deducts the amounts received from the net amount he deems to be entitled to, and that the Respondent does so based on different amounts, which can vary each month. 26. At this point, the DRC deemed that, in order to establish the amount or even the existence of any outstanding remuneration due to the Claimant by the Respondent, and given the parties’ divergent positions in this regard, it would have to address the question as to whether the amounts stipulated in the contract and in the “Attestation” are to be considered as net or gross. 27. In this respect, the DRC noted that the evidence provided by the Respondent in this regard, as explained before, is very detailed and consistent, whereas the figure indicated by the Claimant, i.e. EUR 5,000 net, is not supported by any evidence. Therefore, the Respondent’s explanation with regard to the net amount of the Claimant’s remuneration as per the contract should be upheld. 28. As to the “Attestation”, the DRC has taken due note of the diverging allegations of the parties and referred, therefore, to the wording of the “Attestation”. Indeed, the Chamber observed that the “Attestation” establishes an amount of remuneration payable to the Claimant, namely EUR 65,000, without making any reference as to whether such amount should be considered net or gross. In order to preserve the good faith of the Claimant when signing the “Attestation”, and in the absence to any evidence to the contrary, the Chamber concluded that the amount therein established is to be considered as net. 29. Having established all the foregoing, the Chamber focused its attention on the payments due before 21 April 2011, as per the employment contract. In this regard and for the reasons detailed in points II.20. to II.22. above, the Chamber concluded that the remuneration for the months of July and August 2010 was due to the Claimant and had not yet been paid by the Respondent. 30. In line with the analysis made in point II.27. above, the Chamber deemed that it had to determine the net amount of remuneration due to the Claimant as per the contract for the aforementioned months. In order to determine this amount and in absence of any other explicit indication, the Chamber calculated the average of the amounts paid to player as monthly salary between October 2010 and April 2011 and came to the result of EUR 2,915. This amount is to be considered the Claimant’s average monthly salary and, as a consequence, the total amount of EUR 5,830 was due to the Claimant as outstanding remuneration for July and August 2010, as per the contract. An interest rate of 5% p.a. as from each due date should apply to this amount, as requested by the Claimant. 31. For the months of September 2010 to March 2011, the Chamber deemed that the Respondent, in compliance with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, provided consistent and sufficient evidence of the payment of the Claimant’s remuneration as per the employment contract, as evidenced by the relevant payment statements provided to FIFA. Thus, the DRC concluded that the Claimant’s request for outstanding remuneration as per the contract for the months of September 2010 to March 2011 could not be upheld. 32. As to the payments due to the Claimant after 21 April 2011 as per the employment contract, the Chamber once again asserted that they are affected by the court order of the 21 April 2011, in accordance with the previous considerations. However, the DRC stated that, as per the same court order, the payment of EUR 1,300 per month should be guaranteed to the Claimant. In this respect, the Chamber noted that for the period from April to June 2011, the total amount of EUR 3,900 should have been paid to the Claimant. However, as per the payment statements provided, only the amount of EUR 1,578.10 was effectively paid. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 2,321.90 still had to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant for the aforementioned period. An interest rate of 5% p.a. as from each due date should apply to this amount, as requested by the Claimant. 33. Subsequently, the Chamber went on to establish the amounts due to the Claimant as per the “Attestation” until 21 April 2011, which should be considered as net, as previously established. In the absence of relevant proof of payment provided by the Respondent, the Chamber could establish that the total amount of EUR 45,000 was to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant, corresponding to the instalments due on 30 November 2010 and on 31 March 2011, in full. An interest rate of 5% p.a. as from each due date should apply to this amount, as requested by the Claimant. 34. As to the amounts due to the Claimant as per the “Attestation” after 21 April 2011, namely the instalment of EUR 20,000 payable on 30 July 2011, the Chamber noted that, due to the monthly limit of EUR 1,300 established by the court order of 21 April 2011, said amount would exceed the limit. Thus, the Claimant’s request in this respect cannot be upheld. 35. In conclusion, the Chamber decided that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and that the Respondent is ordered to pay to the Claimant the total amount of EUR 53,151.9 plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment, as follows: a. 5% p.a. as of 8 August 2010 over the amount of EUR 2,915; b. 5% p.a. as of 8 September 2010 over the amount of EUR 2,915; c. 5% p.a. as of 8 May 2011 over the amount of EUR 773.9; d. 5% p.a. as of 8 June 2011 over the amount of EUR 773.9; e. 5% p.a. as of 8 July 2011 over the amount of EUR 773.9; f. 5% p.a. as of 1 December 2010 over the amount of EUR 20,000; g. 5% p.a. as of 1 April 2011 over the amount of EUR 25,000. 36. Finally, the Chamber decided that any further claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player C, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted. 3. The Respondent, Club E, is ordered to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 53,151.9 plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment, as follows: a. 5% p.a. as of 8 August 2010 over the amount of EUR 2,915; b. 5% p.a. as of 8 September 2010 over the amount of EUR 2,915; c. 5% p.a. as of 8 May 2011 over the amount of EUR 773.9; d. 5% p.a. as of 8 June 2011 over the amount of EUR 773.9; e. 5% p.a. as of 8 July 2011 over the amount of EUR 773.9; f. 5% p.a. as of 1 December 2010 over the amount of EUR 20,000; g. 5% p.a. as of 1 April 2011 over the amount of EUR 25,000. 4. Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected. 5. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant plus interest are not paid by the Respondent 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. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent 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