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 the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 16 October 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Todd Durbin (USA), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member John Bramhall (England), member on the claim presented by the club, Club G, from country C as Claimant / Counter-Respondent against the player, Player L, from country B as Respondent I / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club V, from country B as Respondent II 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 the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 16 October 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Todd Durbin (USA), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member John Bramhall (England), member on the claim presented by the club, Club G, from country C as Claimant / Counter-Respondent against the player, Player L, from country B as Respondent I / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club V, from country B as Respondent II regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 15 February 2013, Club G, from country C (hereinafter: the Claimant / Counter-Respondent), and Player L, from country B (hereinafter: the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the date of signature until 31 December 2014, i.e. 2 years. 2. According to the contract: a) Art. 5.1.(1): “Basic wage is USD 96,250 per month (after tax) from 15 February 2013 to 31 December 2013. Wage payment time is the 20th day of every month since 20 March 2013 (totally 10 moths).” b) Art. 5.1.(2): “Basic wage is USD 91,667 per month (after tax) from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2014. Wage payment time is the 20th day of every month since 20 January 2014 (totally 12 moths).” c) Art. 12.2.(5): “[The Claimant / Counter-Respondent] may cancel the contract in case any of the following occurs: (5) [the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant] concurrently has an employment relationship with another party, which materially affects the performance of the contract, and [the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant] refuses to rectify the matter upon [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent]’s request.” d) Art. 13.1: “Any dispute during the performance of this contract shall be solved by negotiation.” 3. On 15 February 2013, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant also signed a supplemental agreement (hereinafter: the agreement) valid for the same period as the contract. 4. According to the agreement: a) Art. V.2.: “If [the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant] breaches the agreement to cancel the contract […], [the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant] shall pay a penalty of USD 500,000.” b) Art. V.12.: “If penalty above mentioned from Sub-Clause 2 to 10 can not enough compensate the losses of [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent], [the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant] shall continue to compensate all losses to [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent].” c) Art. VII.2.: “If the working contract is terminated or be unilaterally cancelled in accordance with Clause 12 of the working contract […], [the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant] shall have not right to demand any compensation or request [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] to pay any fees and bear any responsibility.” 5. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant and Club V (hereinafter: the Respondent II) signed an undated loan contract (hereinafter: the loan) valid as from 15 July 2013 until 31 December 2013. 6. According to the loan: a) Art. 3: “[The Respondent II] shall pay [to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] USD 0 as loan fee.” b) Art. 5.2.: “[The Respondent II] shall guarantee to complete all the procedures to ensure [the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant] can return back to [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] before 10 January 2014 (include but not limit all procedures make [the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant] come back to [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent]). Otherwise, [the Respondent II] shall pay USD 900,000 to [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] as compensation.” c) Art. 5.5.: [[The Respondent II]’s Duties and guaranties] “Undertake [the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant]’s remuneration from 15 July 2013 to 31 December 2013, and [the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant]’s board, travel, insurance and medical expense during the loan period, total remuneration will be USD 275,000 (net).” d) Art. 5.6.: “[The Respondent II] shall pay [to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] USD 1,200,000 as compensation if [the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant] terminates the work contract and loan agreement with [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] due to [the Respondent II]’s fault.” e) Art. 5.7.: “[The Respondent II] will pay [the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant]’s monthly salary in case [the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant] gets injured during the loan period (July 2013 – December 2013) till [the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant]’s recover.” f) Art. 6.1.: [[The Respondent I / Counter-Claimant]’s Duties and guaranties] “Shall guarantee to complete all the procedures to ensure [the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant] can return back to [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] before 10 January 2014 (include but not limit the all procedures make [the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant] come back to [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent]). Otherwise, [the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant] shall pay USD 1,200,000 to [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] as compensation.” g) Art. 6.3.: “[The Respondent I / Counter-Claimant] agrees [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] shall undertake [the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant]’s monthly remuneration USD 46,250 within the loan period (totally 5.5. months, USD 254,375 net); [the Respondent II] shall undertake [the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant]’s monthly remuneration USD 50,000 net within the loan period (totally 5.5. months, USD 275,000 net).” h) Art. 7.4.: “On the date of the termination of this Contract, [the Respondent II] and [the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant] shall conduct all the matters for the [the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant]’s return to [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] immediately and unconditionally (including but not limited to complete the transaction within 10 days after the termination of this Contract). And [the Respondent II] shall guarantee that the [the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant] returns to [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] within 10 days after the termination of this Contract. Otherwise [the Respondent II] shall pay a penalty of USD 1,200,000.” i) Art. 9.1.: “[The Respondent II] and [the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant] shall undertake the joint and several liabilities according to the contract.” j) Art. 9.2.: “The loan period should include the period of round-trip journey.” k) Art. 9.5.: “The amount of any Compensation that shall be paid to [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] which is titled in the Contract should be paid in full by [the Respondent II] and the [the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant] within 15 days after receiving the notification of [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent]. Otherwise [the Respondent II] and [the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant] shall pay a penalty of USD 10,000 for every expired day.” l) Art. 9.6.: “If [the Respondent II] wish to transfer [the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant] from [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] after the loan period (July 2013 – December 2013), the transfer fee shall be not less than USD 1,200,000.” m) Art. 8.2.: “Any dispute during the performance of this contract shall be solved by negotiation.” 7. On 14 February 2014, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated the employment contract with the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant, in writing, based on the absence of the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant for allegedly more than a month in the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s training camp. Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim 8. On 17 February 2014, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent lodged a claim before FIFA against the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant and the Respondent II, requesting, after amending its claim, sporting sanctions on the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant and the Respondent II, legal costs, procedural costs and the payment of the total amount of USD 4,950,006, plus 5% interest p.a. from the breach of the contract and the loan until the date of effective payment, broken down as follows: a) USD 1,200,000 from the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant, as compensation for breach of the loan in accordance with art. 6.1 of the loan (cf. point I.6.f) above), plus a daily penalty of USD 10,000 as from 20 January 2014; b) USD 900,000 from the Respondent II, as compensation for breach of the loan in accordance with art. 7.4 of the loan (cf. point I.6.h) above), plus a daily penalty of USD 10,000 as from 20 January 2014; c) USD 1,650,006 from the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant, as compensation for breach of the contract, corresponding to USD 1,100,004, as residual value of the contract in accordance with the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, and USD 550,002, as an additional 6 (six) months of salary under the contract to cover the damages arising from the specificity of sport; d) USD 1,200,000 from the Respondent II, as compensation for breach of contract in accordance with art. 5.6 of the loan (cf. point I.6.d) above). 9. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent claims that the Respondent II sent a fax on 9 January 2014 requesting permission to keep the player with them until his full recovery from an injury but the Claimant / Counter-Respondent never gave its permission to do so. 10. On 20 January 2014, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent would have sent two letters to the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant and the Respondent II, respectively, requesting from the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant to “communicate the exact date you will return” and from the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant and the Respondent II to “pay […] the USD 1,200,000 agreed as compensation within the next 15 days”. However, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent did not receive any answer from them. 11. On 10 February 2014, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent warned in writing allegedly for the second time both the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant and the Respondent II of the breach of the contract and the loan, indicating to the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant that “[the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] must consider that [the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant] terminated without just cause the employment contract as [the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant has] missed the last 40 days of training without any explanation.” 12. On 12 February 2014, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant informed the Claimant / Counter-Respondent that he was “completely ready to fulfil [his] obligations towards my employment contract with [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent]” and requested to be informed about the details of the flight to be booked by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 13. Consequently, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent states that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant did not return on time and breached the loan and the contract. Thus, it terminated the contract and the loan on 14 February 2014 (cf. point I.7. above). 14. Regarding the requested compensation, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent explains that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant additionally breached the contract and should, therefore, pay USD 1,100,004 according to the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players and USD 550,002 in application of the specificity of sport. 15. In this sense, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent indicates that the residual value of the contract is USD 1,100,004. 16. Furthermore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent refers to the amount of USD 550,002 as being an additional 6 (six) months of salary under the contract to cover the damages arising from the specificity of sport. Respondent I / Counter-Claimant’s claim 17. On 21 February 2014, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent for breach of contract, requesting the payment of the total amount of USD 962,504, plus 5% interest p.a. from 14 February 2014 until the date of effective payment. 18. The Respondent I / Counter-Claimant also requests sporting sanctions on the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, legal costs and procedural costs. 19. In his claim, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant states that he suffered a serious injury on 28 July 2013 that required a surgery and a 6-months recovery period, which was informed by the Respondent II to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent by means of a letter dated 31 July 2013. 20. On 8 August 2013, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent answered the afore-mentioned letter and informed the Respondent II in writing that “we agree [the Respondent II] to find appropriate hospital for the [Respondent I / Counter-Claimant] to have the surgery in country B” and requested the Respondent II “to cover all expense of [the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant]’s medical treatment, rehabilitation and [the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant]’s remuneration until his recover”. 21. On 9 January 2014, the Respondent II requested the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s “authorization for the [Respondent I / Counter-Claimant] to stay in country B for the period of additional 30 (thirty) days” (cf. point I.9. above). 22. The Respondent I / Counter-Claimant argues that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had reached the quota of foreign players stipulated by the country C Football Association’s regulations (hereinafter: the country C Football Association’s regulations) and because of the foregoing it did not request the ITC for his return and it was not interested on his services. 23. Additionally, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant claims to have informed the Claimant / Counter-Respondent of his willingness to resume his activities with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent on 12 February 2014, as already referred to in point I.12. above, and sustains that the Respondent II also sent a letter to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in this sense, indicating that it was arranging the return of the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 24. Moreover, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant states that only “after termination of contract by [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent on 14 February 2014], the [Respondent I / Counter-Claimant] was provided by [the Respondent II] with a letter sent on 10 February 2014 by [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] to [the Respondent II], by means of which [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] was alleging that [the Respondent II] had breached its Loan Agreement and induced the [Respondent I / Counter-Claimant] to breach his Employment Contract.” 25. The Respondent I / Counter-Claimant further argues that the termination of the contract by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was without just cause because his absence was due to his rehabilitation process after being injured, which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent authorized by means of its letter dated 8 August 2013 (cf. point I.20. above). As such, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant affirms that an injury may not be considered as just cause to terminate the contract. 26. Finally, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant claims that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent failed to put him in default since he did not receive the letters dated 20 January 2014 and 10 February 2014 (cf. points I.10. and I.11. above). In this sense, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant highlights that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent breached art. 13 of the contract and 8.2. of the loan because the dispute was not solved by negotiations (cf. points I.2.d) and I.6.m) above). Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s reply 27. In its reply, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent points out that the Respondent II had to arrange the return of the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent as per art. 5.5 of the loan (cf. I.6.c) above). 28. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent also clarifies that it did not invoke an injury as just cause to terminate the contract but the 42 (forty-two) days of delay of the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant in returning to country C “without explanation, without permission and even without answering the letters sent by [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent]”. 29. Finally, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent emphasises that there was a slot for the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant in accordance with the country C Football Association’s regulations until the end of February. Respondent I / Counter-Claimant’s and Respondent II’s replies 30. In his reply, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant requests to dismiss the claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and claims that the Dispute Resolution Chamber should focus on the exchange of correspondence between the parties in connection with the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant’s medical issues. 31. In this sense, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant insists on the fact that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent authorized him “to remain with Club V until his full recovery” (cf. point I.20. above). 32. The Respondent I / Counter-Claimant further explains that, after the request sent on 9 January 2014 to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the latter did not answer, did not inform him about the dates of trainings and competitions, did not request any information on his clinical situation and did not start the ITC procedure. 33. Moreover, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant claims that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had only an economic interest since its letter allegedly sent on 20 January 2014 offers to “solve this dispute amicably […] paying an amount of USD 1,200,000 agreed as compensation within the next 15 days.” 34. Finally, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant stresses that neither him nor the Respondent II had any sporting or economic advantage from extending the period in which the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant remained with the Respondent II. 35. As to the compensation requested by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant expresses that it is undue and disproportionate because it is a request to “pay a double kind of compensation for the same damage”, i.e. not returning to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent after expiration of the loan period. 36. In addition, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant argues that, in case of a compensation award in favour of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the loan, subsequent to the contract, should be used in order to determine the amount of such a compensation since it contains a penalty clause in case of failure of the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant to return to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent (cf. point I.6.d) above). 37. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant maintains that the abovementioned penalty is excessive and has to be reduced by the Dispute Resolution Chamber considering the nature and duration of the contract, the seriousness of the misconduct and breach of contract and the economic situation of the parties. 38. In connection with the compensation for breach of the contract requested by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant claims that the residual value of the contract is USD 962,504. Furthermore, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant argues that, in this case, the residual value of the contract does not represent the actual damage suffered by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent because it corresponds to an amount that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent did not have to pay to the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant and also because the value of the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant’s services decreased as a consequence of his injury. 39. The Respondent II submitted the same arguments and requests as the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant, acknowledging receipt of the letter dated 10 February 2014 sent by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 40. Additionally, the Respondent II claims that it cannot be considered as the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant’s new club because it has not signed any employment contract with the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant after the alleged breach of contract and still pays the salaries of the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant after expiration of the loan period to the advantage of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, while fulfilling its obligations according to the loan. 41. Finally, the Respondent II requested to be awarded legal costs and procedural costs. Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s replica 42. In continuation, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent argues that the correct interpretation of art. 5.7 in relation with art. 7.4 of the loan (cf. points. I.6.e) and h) above) is that the Respondent II had to pay the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant’s salaries until his rehabilitation but not that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant should have remained in country B until then. In this sense, art. 7.4 of the loan clearly provides for the immediate and unconditional return of the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant by 10 January 2014. 43. Consequently, the letter dated 8 August 2013 was sent to remind the Respondent II of its obligations as per the loan and the Respondent II understood its content because it sent a letter to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent on 9 January 2014 requesting authorization for the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant to stay in country B. 44. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent also expresses that in its letter dated 20 January 2014 it requested the return of the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant from the loan and that an ITC request is not a condition for the return of the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant. 45. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent further indicates that the compensation to be paid by the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant and the Respondent II should consider the specificity of sport since it paid USD 3,500,000 for the transfer of a substitute for the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant plus the corresponding salaries (cf. point I.29. above). 46. Finally, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent states that, notwithstanding the fact that a new employment contract between the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant and the Respondent II has not been signed, the Respondent II induced the breach of both the contract and the loan. Respondent I / Counter-Claimant’s and Respondent II’s replicas 47. In his comments to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s reply, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant claims that there were more lenient measures than terminating the contract in case he had actually breached it, especially considering that the Respondent II and not the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was paying his salaries and that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant was still unable to play for the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the Respondent II or any other club until 12 February 2014. 48. On the other hand, the Respondent II states that the alleged delay of the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant to return to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent did not report any sporting or economic advantage to the Respondent II since the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant did not play in any official competition for the latter, although the Respondent II paid his salaries. Duplicas 49. The Respondent I / Counter-Claimant adds that an interpretation in good faith of the letter sent by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent on 8 August 2013 (cf. point I.20. above) comprises also “to take care of the [Respondent I / Counter-Claimant], in all aspects”. According to the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant’s interpretation, the foregoing actually meant an authorization by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent for the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant to remain in country B until his full rehabilitation. In this sense, it was reasonable to interpret it in such a way because the Claimant / Counter-Respondent accepted the treatment proposed by the Respondent II and there was no reason or advantage to continue such treatment in country C after the expiration of the loan. 50. As to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent II, both clubs reaffirm their respective positions and arguments. 51. Finally, the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant informed FIFA that he has been unemployed since 14 February 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 matter at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 17 February 2014. Consequently, the 2012 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 is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a country C club, on one hand, and a country B player and a country B club, on the other. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which edition of the 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 claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was lodged on 17 February 2014 and the claim of the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant, on 21 February 2014, the 2012 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 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. 5. The members of the Chamber acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that they were contractually bound by the loan, valid as from 15 July 2013 until 31 December 2013, and that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant were contractually bound by means of the contract and the agreement, both valid as from 15 February 2013 until 31 December 2014. 6. In addition, the DRC pointed out that the parties did not dispute that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant suffered an injury on 28 July 2013 and that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was informed that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant would require a recovery period of six months, in principle. It is also undisputed that the Respondent II requested on 9 January 2014 authorization from the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in order for the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant to stay in country B until 8 February 2014 and complete his recovery program. 7. Finally, the DRC also noted that the parties did not dispute that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated the contract on 14 February 2014, in spite of having being warned by the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant on 13 February 2014, by means of his letter dated 10 February 2014, of his readiness to fulfil the contract. 8. The Chamber further noted that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, on the one hand, lodged a claim against the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant and the Respondent II for breach of contract and inducement, respectively, arguing that it terminated the contract and the loan with just cause since the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant breached art. 7.4 of the loan by failing to return to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent within the respective deadline, i.e. 10 January 2014. 9. The Chamber also noted that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant, on the other hand, lodged a claim against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent for breach of contract, arguing that the latter terminated the contract and the loan without just cause since it failed to put him in default and because his alleged failure to comply with art. 7.4. of the loan was due to the length of his rehabilitation process, which was previously known and authorized by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 10. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the respective claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant, was to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 11. In view of the above, the DRC first of all took into consideration the content of art. 14 of the Regulations, which provides that “a contract may be terminated by either party without consequences of any kind (either payment of compensation or imposition of sporting sanctions) where there is just cause”. 12. The Chamber stressed that the definition of just cause and whether just cause exists shall be established in accordance with the merits of each particular case. 13. In this sense, the members of the DRC recalled the content of art. 7.4 of the loan, which provides that “on the date of […] termination of [the loan], [the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant] shall return to [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] immediately and unconditionally (including but not limited to complete the transaction within 10 days after the termination of this Contract) […]”. Therefore, the Chamber took due note that the original agreement of the parties was for the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant to return from the loan by no later than 10 January 2014. 14. The Chamber noted, however, that the Respondent II requested the authorization of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent for the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant to stay in country B in order to complete his recovery treatment before the aforesaid deadline expired, i.e. on 9 January 2014. 15. In connection with the abovementioned request, the Dispute Resolution Chamber found it important to note that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent argues that it never agreed to such request. Nevertheless, according to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Claimant / Counter-Respondent entered a transfer instruction, requesting on 9 January 2014 the International Transfer Certificate of the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant for his return after the loan, which it cancelled on the same day. The Chamber formed the belief that, by doing so, it can be established that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent tacitly consented to the request of the Respondent II referred to in point II.14. above. 16. Moreover, the members of the DRC took note that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant asserts that, between the request for authorization made on 9 January 2014 and the termination of the contract on 14 February 2014, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent did not warn the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant of any breach, neither requested his return. 17. On the other hand, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent argues that it warned the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant of his misconduct in respect of art. 7.4 of the loan by means of two letters dated 20 January 2014 and 10 February 2014 allegedly sent to the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant and the Respondent II (cf. points I.10. and I.11. above). 18. At this point, the members of the Chamber deemed it appropriate to refer the parties to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which stipulates that “any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof”. 19. In this regard, the DRC pointed out that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent submitted a copy of a letter dated 20 January 2014 addressed to the attention of the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant via the Respondent II but no proof of its delivery. In light of the counterstatement of both the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant and the Respondent II that may be found on file, the DRC deemed that no substantial proof was provided in order to evidence that the alleged email to which the letter would have being attached was actually received by its addressee. For the avoidance of doubt, the members of the DRC deemed it appropriate to emphasise that the addressee of such email is not the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant, who was the party in need to be warned of any alleged breach. 20. Likewise, the Chamber pointed out that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was not able to provide any proof of delivery of the fax allegedly sent to the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant on 10 February 2014. 21. Consequently, the DRC concluded that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was not able to prove that it had indeed warned the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant of a breach or misconduct that could justify the termination of the contract. In other words, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent failed to put the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant in default of his alleged breach and never requested his return. 22. In continuation, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract without prior warning. In other words, only when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect a continuation of the employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken in order for an employer to assure the employee’s fulfilment of his contractual duties, such measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of an employment contract can always only be an ultima ratio. 23. Moreover, the DRC observed that, in any case, there would have been more lenient measures to be taken (e.g., among others, a suspension or a fine) in order to sanction the alleged misconduct of the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant in respect of art. 7.4 of the loan, which would have consisted of an absence of less than a week, considering that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent tacitly accepted the extension of the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant’s recovery treatment. 24. On top of that, the members of the Chamber observed that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant notified the Claimant/Counter-Respondent of his readiness to fulfil the contract on 13 February 2014. However, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated the contract one day later, i.e. on 14 February 2014. 25. In view of the abovementioned notification, the Chamber was of the opinion that on 13 February 2014, as the Claimant/Counter-Respondent received the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant’s letter, there was clear and objective evidence that reasonably permitted the parties to expect a continuation of the employment relationship. 26. Overall, the Chamber decided that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had no just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship with the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant on 14 February 2014 and that, therefore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had breached the employment contract without just cause. 27. In continuation, the Chamber turned its attention to the consequences of the breach of contract without just cause by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. 28. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the DRC decided that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant is entitled to receive compensation from the Claimant/Counter-Respondent for the termination of the contract without just cause on 14 February 2014. 29. 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 Respondent I / Counter-Claimant 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. 30. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent contracts contain any 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 DRC noted that the contract, the agreement and the loan did not contain any clause regarding the amount of compensation payable to the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in case of breach of contract. 31. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that such amount of compensation payable by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to the the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant 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 article provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of payable compensation. Therefore, other objective criteria may be taken into account at the discretion of the deciding body. In this regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber emphasised beforehand that each request for compensation for contractual breach has to be assessed by the Chamber on a case-by-case basis taking into account all specific circumstances of the respective matter. 32. In order to estimate the amount of compensation due to the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant in the present case, the members of the Chamber first turned their attention to the remuneration and other benefits due to the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant under the existing contract and/or the new contract, which criterion was considered by the Chamber to be essential. The members of the Chamber deemed it important to highlight that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows the Chamber to take into account both the existing contract and the new contract, if any, in the calculation of the amount of compensation. 33. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the receivables of the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant under the contract as from its date of termination without just cause by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, i.e. 14 February 2014, until 31 December 2014, and concluded that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant would have received in total USD 962,504 as remuneration, had the contract been executed until its expiry date. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 962,504 serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand (cf. point I.2.b) above). 34. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant 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 Respondent I / Counter-Claimant's general obligation to mitigate his damages. 35. In this regard, the members of the Chamber noted that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant had not signed any new employment contract within the period of time between the termination of the contract and its original date of expiry and, thus, had not been able to mitigate damages. In this context, the Chamber found it reasonable that the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant had not been able to find new employment within the relevant period of 10 (ten) months only. 36. Taking into account the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant’s request and considering that his claim was lodged on 21 February 2014, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent must pay to the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant USD 962,504, as compensation for breach of contract, plus interest of 5% p.a. on such amount as from 21 February 2014 until the date of effective payment. 37. With regard to the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant’s claim for legal costs and procedural costs, 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. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided to partially accept the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant's claim and that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent must pay the amount of USD 962,504 as compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 21 February 2014 until the date of effective payment. 39. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further request filed by the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant is rejected and that the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Club G, is rejected. 2. The claim of the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant, Player L, is partially accepted. 3. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is ordered to pay to the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant compensation in the amount of USD 962,504, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 21 February 2014 until the date of effective payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 4. In the event that the amount due to the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant in accordance with the above-mentioned number 3., plus interest, is not paid by the Claimant / Counter-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. 5. Any further claims lodged by the Respondent I / Counter-Claimant are rejected. 6. The Respondent I / Counter-Claimant is directed to inform the Claimant / Counter-Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received. ***** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 67 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS, a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives). The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following: Court of Arbitration for Sport Avenue de Beaumont 2 1012 Lausanne Switzerland Tel: +41 21 613 50 00 Fax: +41 21 613 50 01 e-mail: info@tas-cas.org www.tas-cas.org For the Dispute Resolution Chamber: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl.: CAS directives