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 6 November 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Mohamed Al-Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member on the claim presented by the player, Player Z, from country S as Claimant against the club, Club G, from country C 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 6 November 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Mohamed Al-Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member on the claim presented by the player, Player Z, from country S as Claimant against the club, Club G, from country C as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 March 2011, Player Z, from country S (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the country C club, Club B, currently known as Club G (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the day of signing until 31 November 2011. 2. According to clause 7 par. 1 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to a monthly salary in the amount of USD 10,000. 3. Clause 7 par. 12 of the contract establishes that the contract “will be extended automatically from 01 December 2011 to November 31, 2012 upon Party B [the Claimant] reaches 60% appearance during the contract period”. 4. On 4 December 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, asserting that the contract had been automatically extended until 31 November 2012 on the basis of clause 7 par. 12 of the contract. 5. After modifying his initial petition, the Claimant requested outstanding salaries in the amount of USD 130,000 “with interest per year minimum %5 from the date on application to FIFA”, according to the following breakdown: - USD 10,000 corresponding to “first year monthly outstanding salary”; - USD 120,000 corresponding to the period as from “1st December 2011 to 31 November 2012”; 6. After the closure of the investigation-phase, the Respondent replied to the Claimant’s claim and informed that in June 2011, Club G took over Club B as the new legal successor of the latter. According to the Respondent, the Claimant was not included in the list of players that were acquired together with the Respondent’s club and, “in order to protect the interests of the player [the Claimant]” both parties initially negotiated “a new contract” without finally reaching an agreement. 7. In view of the above and as, according to the Respondent, the Claimant wished to continue in the Respondent’s club, the Respondent committed to pay the Claimant the amount specified in the contract until 31 November 2011 but, thereafter, the Claimant “did not rejoin our team before the start of the new season, that is to say, the country S player tacitly approved the above-mentioned contract had ended on 31 November 2011”. 8. In this regard, the Respondent considered that there was no employment relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent for the period as from 1 December 2011 until 31 November 2012. 9. The Claimant, in his replica, highlighted the aforementioned clause 7 par. 12 of the contract and insisted on the fact that he had reached the 60% of appearances during the contract period so, therefore, the contract was automatically extended until 31 November 2012. 10. Moreover, the Claimant stated that the new owner of the Respondent “also will be bound with previous signed agreements of the club”. 11. Despite having been invited by FIFA to reply to the Claimant’s replica, the Respondent did not provide any further comments. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter referred to as the DRC or the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 4 December 2012. Consequently, the 2012 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the 2012 and 2014 edition 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 shall adjudicate on employment-related disputes between a club and a player that have an international dimension. 3. In continuation, the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2012 and 2014), and, on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 4 December 2012. Therefore, the DRC concluded that the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations), is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, it started by acknowledging the abovementioned facts of the matter as well as the documentation contained in the file. 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. In this respect, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that the parties had signed a valid employment contract on 1 March 2011 according to which the Claimant would receive a monthly remuneration in the amount of USD 10,000. In addition, the members of the Chamber noted that the employment contract, which was set to expire on 31 November 2011, would be automatically extended until 31 November 2012 in the event that the Claimant appeared in at least 60% of the matches “during the contract period”. 6. The Chamber then turned its attention to the complaint of the Claimant, who stated that the Respondent failed to pay him one monthly salary for the year 2011 and the whole remuneration of the year 2012. In this respect, the DRC duly noted that the Claimant asserted that the employment contract had been automatically extended until 31 November 2012, maintaining that the condition for such extension had been indeed fulfilled. 7. In this regard, the Chamber duly noted that, on account of the above, the Claimant is seeking payment of the total amount of USD 130,000 plus 5% interest. 8. Equally, the members of the Chamber observed that the Respondent, for its part, in spite of having been invited to do so, failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant within the relevant time-limit. In fact, the reply of the Respondent was only received after the investigation-phase of the matter had already been concluded. As a result, the Chamber decided not to take into account the reply of the Respondent and established that, in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, it shall take a decision upon the basis of those documents on file that were provided prior to the closure of the investigation-phase, in casu, upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant. 9. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant stated not having received the amount of USD 10,000 for one monthly salary of the year 2011. 10. With due consideration to all the above, the Chamber concluded that it could be established that the Respondent had failed to pay the Claimant his salaries in the amount of USD 10,000 corresponding to one monthly remuneration of the year 2011. 11. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant, besides claiming part of his remuneration of the year 2011, requested as well the full amount of the year 2012, while affirming that the contract was automatically extended and, therefore, that there was an existing employment relationship between the parties effective until 31 November 2012. 12. In this respect, the DRC recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. 13. With due consideration to the above, the members of the Chamber stressed that the Claimant did not sufficiently substantiate his claim, as he did not present any evidence in respect of his statement that he had reached “60% of the appearances”. 14. In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant has not provided evidence of his allegations and that, therefore, it could not be established that the employment relationship between the Respondent and the Claimant had been extended to the 2012 season and that, thus, the latter had rendered his services to the Respondent as from 1 December 2011 until 31 November 2012, as asserted by the Claimant. In other words, the members of the Chamber determined that it was not sufficiently proven by the Claimant that there was an ongoing employment relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent, binding both parties for the above-mentioned period of time. 15. Having established the foregoing, the DRC determined that it could only be established that the Respondent had failed to pay to the Claimant part of the amounts agreed upon between the parties in the agreement, i.e. one monthly salary of the first year. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent must fulfil its obligations as per the contract concluded with the Claimant and, consequently, is to be held liable to pay the outstanding amount of USD 10,000 to the Claimant. 16. In addition, and with regard to the Claimant's request for interest, the Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 10,000 as from 4 December 2012 until the date of effective payment. 17. The Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim of the Claimant is rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player Z, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club G, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 10,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 4 December 2012 until the date of effective payment. 3. If the aforementioned sum plus interest is 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. 4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the 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