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 20 August 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Taku Nomiya (Japan), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member on the claim presented by the player, Player B, from country H as Claimant/Counter-Respondent against the club, Club A, from country I 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 20 August 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Taku Nomiya (Japan), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member on the claim presented by the player, Player B, from country H as Claimant/Counter-Respondent against the club, Club A, from country I as Respondent/Counter-Claimant regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. In June 2011, Player B, from country H (hereinafter: the Claimant/Counter-Respondent), and Club A, from country I (hereinafter: the Respondent/Counter-Claimant or Club A), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid for seasons 2011/2012, 2012/2013 and 2013/2014. 2. According to art. 2, 5 and 6 of the contract, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant undertook to provide the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, inter alia, with the following benefits: - EUR 8,000 net as monthly salary; - EUR 20,000 net as sign-on fee, payable upon signature of the contract; - EUR 500 as bonus for each league point achieved by the club, in case he participates in the matches; - a furnished apartment; - a car. 3. Article C3 of the contract establishes that “This agreement is subject to the signing of a ‘transfer agreement’ between Club A and the player’s current club, Club S”. 4. On 7 July 2011, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and Club S, from country Z, signed a transfer agreement for the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 5. On 11 November 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for breach of contract, and requested, after amending his claim, the payment of the total amount of EUR 140,000, plus interests of 5% p.a. as of 1 November 2011, broken down as follows: - EUR 60,000 in outstanding salaries for the months of June 2011 (EUR 4,000), and of July 2011 to January 2012 (7 x EUR 8,000); - EUR 20,000 as the outstanding sign-on fee; - EUR 60,000 as compensation for breach of contract; - legal fees. 6. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims that, after his arrival in country I, he was provided an apartment and a car. However, he allegedly never received his monthly salaries or his sign-on fee, in spite of having trained with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on a regular basis. 7. By means of his letter dated 31 August 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent reminded the Respondent/Counter-Claimant of its arrears in the total amount of EUR 40,000, corresponding to his sign-on fee (EUR 20,000) and to his salaries for June to August 2011 (EUR 20,000). Having received the aforementioned notification, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant allegedly excluded the Claimant/Counter-Respondent from the trainings, evicted him and his family from the apartment and requested the return of the car. 8. On 5 and 23 September 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent contacted the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, in writing, requesting an explanation for having taken said measures. However, the aforementioned correspondence allegedly remained unanswered and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not pay the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the requested amounts. Thus, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent deems that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant breached the employment contract without just cause and should be held liable for the payment of his outstanding remuneration, as well as of compensation. 9. In its reply, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant claims that the transfer agreement with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s former club, Club S (hereinafter: Club S), was never concluded, since the parties never agreed upon its terms. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant explained that a signed version of the agreement was sent by Club A to Club S for approval and signature. Club S signed the agreement, but also erased some parts of it with a black marker, renumbering the articles, which the Respondent/Counter-Claimant cannot accept. Consequently, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant claims that the two clubs never concluded a final and binding agreement and, therefore, an ITC was never requested by Club A nor approved by Club S. 10. As per the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, in view of the failure of the negotiations with Club S for the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s transfer, Club A informed him that he had to be dismissed, as per art. C3 of the employment contract. As the Claimant/Counter-Respondent requested to keep training with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant until he found a new club, Club A in good faith allowed him to stay and to make use of its apartment and car. 11. On 31 August 2011, however, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was surprised to receive a letter from the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, in which he requested the payment of his remuneration as per the employment contract (cf. point I.7. above). The Respondent/Counter-Claimant allegedly informed the Claimant/Counter-Respondent that he was no longer allowed to train with it. On 6 September 2011, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant received a written request from the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to be readmitted to the training (cf. point I.8. above). The Respondent/Counter-Claimant claims that, by then, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was aware of the fact that Club A had not requested his ITC from Club S. On 20 September 2011, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant finally requested him to return the apartment and the car. 12. According to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, after leaving country I, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was transferred from Club S to the Club C, from country J (hereinafter: Club C), and in February 2012, to Club K, from country L (hereinafter: Club K). 13. Furthermore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant deems that, should the employment contract with Club A be considered valid, then 7 July 2011 should be considered as its start date, since it is the date on which the transfer agreement was signed. Thus, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent should not be entitled to his salary of June 2011. Moreover, since he allegedly left country I on 25 September 2011, he should also not be entitled to his salaries for the period of October 2011 to January 2012. 14. In view of the previous arguments, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant deems that no compensation is due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, since there exists no contractual relationship between them. In case the DRC considers that the contract between the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is valid, Club A requests that the amount that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent earned with Club C and Club K should be deducted from any amount payable to him. Since the Claimant/Counter-Respondent suffered no damages, he shall also not be entitled to additional compensation in the amount of EUR 60,000. 15. Finally, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant requests that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent should be held liable to pay Club A the amount of EUR 15,000, corresponding to the legal fees and the costs incurred by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in connection with his allegedly unlawful claim. 16. In his replica, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent rejects the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s argument, according to which a transfer agreement between Club S and Club A was never concluded. According to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the problem started when the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to pay the transfer compensation to Club S. 17. In addition, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims that the fact that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant never requested his ITC and never registered his contract – as confirmed by the country I Football Association in response to his inquiry of 31 August 2011, on file – does not impact the validity of the contract. 18. Furthermore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent denies the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s arguments according to which he was allowed, as per his own request, to train with Club A until he would find new employment. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims to have arrived in country I in mid-June 2012 and departed only on 25 September 2012, because his visa had expired and the club failed to request its renewal. 19. For the aforementioned reasons, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent deems that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant breached the contract without just cause, during the protected period and should, therefore, be held liable for the payment of compensation. 20. In its duplica, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant rejects all the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s arguments and maintains its previous position. In addition, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant claims that, if the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had indeed had any employment relationship with Club A, the latter would be entitled to request the payment of transfer compensation from Club K, which is not the case. 21. As per the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, a proof that no agreement was reached between Club A and Club S is that the latter allegedly cancelled the invoice for the payment of transfer compensation for the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and decided not pursue its claim for such payment in front of FIFA. 22. After the closure of investigation, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent remitted new, unsolicited correspondence to FIFA, by means of which he insisted on his previous argumentation and further stated that he was allegedly presented to a “large number of photographers” as the “new significant team addition” and also played several friendly matches with Club A. 23. In its final position, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant maintains its previous argumentation, denies that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent has ever been presented as a new member of Club A and points out that no evidence in this regard was presented by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 24. Finally, as to his contractual situation, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent states to have remained unemployed until January 2012, when he was transferred from Club S to Club C. However, according to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, this contract was terminated shortly after its signing, i.e. still in January 2012, in order that the contract with Club K could be signed. Thus, “there was not transfer between Club S and Club C […], but the Claimant registered with Club C […] to be finally able to leave for country L”. 25. According to the Transfer Matching System (TMS) and to the information provided by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the latter concluded the following contracts: - Club C (country J): information provided by the player, but transfer cancelled in TMS. - Club K (country L), valid as from 20 February 2012 and, according to the player, terminated in July 2012, for a total remuneration of USD 300,000 net. - Club Y (country W), valid as from 1 August 2011 until 30 May 2013, for a total remuneration of USD 125,000 net. - Club P (country G), valid as from 2 September 2013 until 30 June 2015, for a monthly salary of EUR 818.25, payable 12 times a year, as well as an amount of EUR 56,800 net, payable in instalments from September 2013 to April 2014. 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 11 November 2011. Consequently, the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. article 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules, in combination with art. 18 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 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2014) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a country H player and an country I club. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010, 2012 and 2014), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 11 November 2011, the 2010 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the 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, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant signed an employment contract, in June 2011. 5. According to the employment contract, the parties established, among others, that the employment would be valid for seasons 2011/2012 to 2013/2014 and that the Claimant would be entitled to receive, inter alia, a monthly salary of EUR 8,000 net, EUR 20,000 net as sign-on fee, EUR 500 as match bonus, an apartment and a car. In addition, art. C3 of the contract (cf. point I.3. above) conditioned the validity of such employment contract to the signature of a transfer agreement between the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s former club, Club S. 6. In his claim, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent maintained that, in fact, an employment contract with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant as well as a transfer agreement between the latter and Club S were entered into. Consequently, the employment contract entered into force and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for its early termination by having failed to comply with its terms, including the failure to pay the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s remuneration, to provide him with training, an apartment and a car. 7. In this respect, the members of the Chamber took note of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s default notices dated 31 August 2011, 5 and 23 September 2011 addressed to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, by means of which the Claimant/Counter-Respondent reminded the Respondent/Counter-Claimant of its salary arrears towards him, and subsequently questioned it about his exclusion from training, his eviction from the apartment and his obligation to return the car he had been granted the use of. 8. The Chamber also took due note of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s arguments, according to which no valid and binding employment contract had been concluded between the parties. In this respect, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant referred to art. C3 of the employment contract (cf. point I.3. above) and explained that, due to the fact that it had not agreed with Club S upon the terms of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s transfer, no agreement was concluded between said clubs and, consequently, the employment contract did not enter into force. Thus, the Claimant’s ITC was not requested and the employment contract was not registered with the country I Football Association. 9. From the outset, the members of the Chamber highlighted that the fundamental disagreement between the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant – and the central issue to the present dispute – is whether the employment contract signed between the parties established can be considered as a valid and binding contract. 10. In this context, the Chamber first recalled that in order for an employment contract to be considered as valid and binding, apart from the signature of both the employer and the employee, it should contain the essentialia negotii of an employment contract, such as the parties to the contract and their obligations, the duration of the employment relationship, the remuneration and the signature of both parties. After a careful study of the employment presented by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the Chamber concluded that all such essential elements are included in the pertinent document, in particular, the fact that the contract establishes that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is entitled to receive remuneration, including a monthly salary, in exchange for his services to the club as a player. Therefore, already at this point, the Chamber could conclude that the parties had signed a valid employment contract, by which they were bound. 11. The Chamber, however, deemed it important to analyze the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s allegation, according to which the condition of validity stipulated in art. C3 of the contract had not been fulfilled, as the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and Club S had not come to an agreement as to the terms of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s transfer. Therefore, the employment contract would not have come into force. In particular, the DRC took note of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s allegation according to which it had pre-signed the transfer agreement dated 7 July 2011 for the player and only then, sent it to Club S for their signature. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant claims that the transfer agreement, in spite of bearing the signature of both parties, is not valid, since Club S made several changes to the text of the agreement, to which the Respondent/Counter-Claimant could not agree to. 12. At this point, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to emphasize that a party signing a document of legal importance, as a general rule, does so on its own responsibility and is consequently liable to bear the possible legal consequences arising from the execution of such document. 13. In the present case, the Chamber noted that not only an employment contract, containing all the essentialia negotii had been signed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, but even the validity clause of such contract, namely its art. C3, had been fulfilled, since a transfer agreement for the player, bearing the signature of both parties had also been concluded on 7 July 2011 and brought to the file as evidence. The fact that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant might have signed the agreement before the changes were allegedly made by Club S by no means exempts the Respondent/Counter-Claimant from its obligations established in and arising from the signature of the employment contract. 14. Furthermore, the Chamber also noted that the parties even started executing the employment contract, since it is undisputed by the parties that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had, for a certain period of time, trained with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and that the latter had even provided him with an apartment and a car, as established in the employment contract. 15. For the sake of completeness, the DRC also referred to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s argument, according to which the employment contract signed between the parties would not have entered into force, since the Claimant’s ITC was not requested and the contract was never registered by the country I Football Association. In this regard, and bearing in mind the content of 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 to 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. As regards the case at stake, the club acknowledged that no ITC was requested. 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 precedent of receipt of an ITC by willfully choosing not to proceed with the application for an ITC request. By analogy, the same applies to the finalisation of documents or procedures related to the transfer of a player, e.g. the signature of a transfer agreement, the payment of transfer compensation or the registration of the employment contract at the association. For these reasons, the members of the Chamber decided to reject the Respondent’s arguments in this regard. 16. On account of all of the above, the members of the Chamber concluded that not only a valid and binding employment contract had been concluded between the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, but that such contract even started being executed by the parties, as the Claimant/Counter-Respondent undisputedly trained with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and was provided by the latter, for a certain period of time, with a car and an apartment, as foreseen in the contract. 17. Having established that a valid and legally binding employment contract had been in force between the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the Chamber went on to analyse whether such contract had been breached and, in the affirmative, which party is to be held liable for it. 18. To this end, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not contest that it had not performed any of its financial obligations under the employment contract or that, after receiving the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s reminders referred to in points I.7. and I.8. above, it excluded him from training and ordered the eviction of the apartment and the return of the car. 19. Bearing in mind the aforementioned considerations about the validity of the employment contract concluded between the parties in June 2011, the Chamber concluded that, in fact, such contract was breached by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. Namely, the Chamber took into account that it remained undisputed by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant that it failed to comply with its obligations as per the employment contract and that it did not intend to respect such obligations, as it did not consider the employment contract to be valid. 20. On account of the above circumstances, the Chamber concluded that such conduct of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant clearly constitutes a breach of contract and, accordingly, decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the premature termination of the employment contract entered into between the parties. In conclusion, the Chamber established that the contract was terminated by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent with just cause, on 25 September 2011, as he left country I, after having sent the Respondent/Counter-Claimant the reminders referred to in points I.7. and I.8. above. 21. Having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract without just cause, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequences of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent an amount of money as compensation for breach of contract. 22. Prior to establishing the amount of compensation for breach of contract due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the DRC proceeded with the calculation of the outstanding monies payable to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent under the terms of the employment contract until the date of termination, i.e. on 25 September 2011. 23. In this regard, the Chamber noted that it remained undisputed by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant that no remuneration had been paid to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent for the entire duration of the contract. In this context, the DRC observed that the sign-on fee of EUR 20,000 net due upon signature of the contract as well as the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s monthly salaries for June to August 2011 had remained unpaid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 24. Taking into consideration the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim as well as the reasons previously exposed, the DRC concluded that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant must fulfill its obligations as per the employment contract concluded with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and, consequently, is to be held liable to pay the total amount of EUR 40,000, as outstanding sign-on fee and salaries for June to August 2011. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim for legal fees is to be rejected. 25. The Chamber further established that an interest rate of 5% p.a. would apply over the aforementioned amount, as from 1 November 2011, as per the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 26. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including, in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the 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. 27. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contains a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake. 28. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the 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 enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages. 29. The Chamber noted that, during the period as from 25 September 2011 until 19 February 2012, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had remained unemployed. Subsequently, the Chamber noted that on 20 February 2012, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had signed an employment contract with another club and that, from that date and until June 2014, i.e. the original expire date of the employment contract concluded with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, he had had almost uninterruptedly professional labour relationships with three different clubs, enabling him to earn a total income of approximately EUR 272,392 during said period of time. 30. In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that, for the period as from 25 September 2011 to 19 February 2012, during which the Claimant/Counter-Respondent remained unemployed, the residual value of the contract signed with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was EUR 40,000. 31. For the period as from 20 February 2012 until June 2014, the Chamber observed that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent would have been entitled to receive the total amount of EUR 232,000, had he remained employed with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. This amount is lower than the one he actually received from the clubs he subsequently signed an employment contract with, mentioned in point II.29. above. Therefore, the Chamber concluded, in accordance with its well-established jurisprudence, that for said period of time, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was not entitled to receive any compensation, since he was not only able to mitigate his damages, but also to guarantee an even higher remuneration than the one he would have earned with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 32. Based on the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is entitled to receive EUR 40,000 as compensation for breach of contract from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 33. The Chamber further established that an interest rate of 5% p.a. would apply over the aforementioned amount, as from 1 November 2011, as per the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 34. Finally, the Chamber concluded that any further claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected. 35. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that, in view of all the aforementioned considerations, the counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had to be entirely rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Player B, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club A, is ordered to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 40,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 November 2011 until the date of effective payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant is ordered to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 40,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 November 2011 until the date of effective payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 4. Any further claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent are rejected. 5. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent plus interest are not paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant 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/Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent/Counter-Claimant 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. 7. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is rejected. ***** 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