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 27 November 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member on the claim presented by the player, Player N, from country R as Claimant against the club, Club L, 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 the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 November 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member on the claim presented by the player, Player N, from country R as Claimant against the club, Club L, from country C as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On an unspecified date, Player N, from country R (hereinafter: the Claimant), and Club L, from country C (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as of 16 February 2013 until 31 December 2013. 2. According to the contract, the Claimant is to receive the following fixed remuneration: EUR 500,000 as sign-on fee, due by 28 February 2013; EUR 1,000,000 as total salary. 3. Article 4.5 of the contract stipulates inter alia that “all salary and bonus are net”. 4. On 22 July 2013, the parties put an end to the contract by signing a termination agreement (hereinafter: the termination agreement). 5. As per article 1 of the termination agreement, “Party A [the Respondent] should give Party B [the Claimant] 500,000 EURO as compensation within 30 days after signing this agreement”. 6. On 10 March 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, requesting the payment of EUR 239,859.33 corresponding to outstanding amounts based on the termination agreement, plus 5% interest p.a., as well as legal costs to be borne by the Respondent. 7. The Claimant holds that the Respondent only paid the amount of EUR 260,140.67. In particular, the Claimant listed the payments made by the Respondent between 16 August 2013 and 12 December 2013. 8. Therefore, the Claimant deems that the amount of EUR 239,859.33 remains outstanding. 9. In its statement of defence, the Respondent explains having deducted the amount of EUR 223,135.12 from the compensation due to the Claimant, pursuant to the Chinese personal income tax applied to foreigners. In this respect, the Respondent refers to article 5 of the Regulations for Implementation of the Law of the People’s Republic of country C on Individual Income Tax according to which “income from personal services provided inside the People’s Republic of country C because of tenure of an office, employment or performance of a contract, etc…, whether the place of payment is inside the People’s Republic of country C or not, shall be income derived from sources inside the People’s Republic of country C”. 10. Consequently, the Respondent alleges that the after-tax compensation amounts to EUR 276,865. Therefore, the respondent deems that considering the amount already paid to the player – which it states being EUR 260,611.29 – only the amount of EUR 16,253.71 remains outstanding. 11. Finally, the Respondent asserts being willing to pay the aforementioned amount within fifteen working days. 12. In his replica, the Claimant holds that when signing the termination agreement, the parties agreed upon a compensation corresponding to the residual value of the contract, which is in a net amount pursuant to article 4.5 of the contract. 13. The Claimant also provides bank statements evidencing that the payments made by the Respondent between August and December 2013 amount to EUR 260,140.67, and not the amount stated by the Respondent. 14. The Claimant further sustains that the country C law should not apply since the Respondent submitted its position to the FIFA administration and thus, only the FIFA Regulations shall be applicable. 15. In spite of having been invited to do so, the Respondent did not submit its final comments pertaining to the matter at stake. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the 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 10 March 2014. 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 stake (cf. art. 21 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 R player and a country C 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 2012 and 2014), and considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 10 March 2014, the 2012 edition of said Regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered the substance of the present 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 and in a first instance, the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an employment contract valid as from 16 February 2013 and set to run until 31 December 2013. 6. Equally, the Chamber took note that, on 22 July 2013, the parties put an end to the contract by signing a termination agreement according to which the Respondent had undertaken to pay the amount of EUR 500,000 as compensation within 30 days after the signing of said termination agreement. 7. Subsequently, the DRC observed that the Claimant seized FIFA indicating that the Respondent had not fulfilled its obligation of payment as established in the said termination agreement, since it paid the Claimant a partial amount of EUR 260,140.67. Therefore, the Claimant requested to be paid the alleged remaining amount of EUR 239,859.33 as well as interest at the rate of 5%. 8. On the other hand, the Chamber deemed it fit to recall that the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim relating to the said outstanding amount of EUR 239,859.33. According to the Respondent, the amount of EUR 223,135.12 was deducted from the relevant compensation pursuant to the Chinese personal income tax policy which applies to foreigners, and the amount of EUR 260,611.29 had been already paid to the Claimant. Therefore, the Respondent deemed that only the amount of EUR 16,253.71 was outstanding. 9. At this point and for the sake of good order, the Chamber 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 from an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. 10. In this respect, the Chamber deemed that the Respondent bore the burden of proof regarding the fulfilment of all payments mentioned as outstanding by the Claimant. In the present case, the Chamber noted that the Respondent did not provide any evidence regarding the alleged payment of the total amount of EUR 260,611.29 to the Claimant. The DRC also took into consideration the payment slips provided by the Claimant evidencing that the Respondent in fact paid a total amount of EUR 260,140.67. The Chamber further observed that the Respondent did not provide the DRC with its final comments pertaining to the said payment slips. 11. In continuation, the Chamber took note of the Respondent’s argument, according to which the amount of EUR 223,135.12 had been retained by the Respondent in order to comply with its obligation to pay taxes over the compensation due to the Claimant. In this respect, bearing in mind the legal principle of burden of proof and the wording of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the DRC considered that the Respondent did not provide any documentation pertaining to its alleged obligation to deduct taxes from the amount payable to the Claimant as compensation. In addition, the Chamber observed that such deduction was not stipulated in the contract which provides for net amounts as per article 4.5 of the contract. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the aforementioned argument of the Respondent could not be upheld. 12. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC established that the Respondent had failed to pay to the Claimant the remaining amount of EUR 239,859.33 in accordance with the termination agreement. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that, in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 239,859.33. 13. In continuation and taking into account the Claimant's request for interest, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 239,859.33 as from 10 March 2014 until the date of effective payment. 14. In addition, as regards the claimed legal costs, the Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as to its long-standing and well-established jurisprudence, in accordance with which no procedural compensation shall be awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject the Claimant’s request relating to legal expenses. 15. The DRC concluded his deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 239,859.33 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 10 March 2014 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the aforementioned amount plus interest is not paid within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s 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: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives