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 18 December 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Philippe Piat (France), member on the claim presented by the player, Player M, from country S as Claimant against the club, Club R, from country A 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 18 December 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Philippe Piat (France), member on the claim presented by the player, Player M, from country S as Claimant against the club, Club R, from country A as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. In January 2013, Player M, from country S (hereinafter: the Claimant), and Club R, from country A (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid for “1 year and 6 months (…) until (30.05.2014)”. 2. Article 5 of the contract specifies, inter alia, that the Respondent is to provide the Claimant with the following amounts: USD 5,000 as monthly salary; USD 10,000 as sign-on fee for the first year, due “after ITC come not late than 5 days”; USD 5,000 as sign-on fee “for the last half”; USD 600 per month for accommodation expenses. 3. On 18 August 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA against the Respondent, requesting the payment of USD 15,600 corresponding to outstanding amounts, plus 5% interest p.a. as of the due date of each payment, as well as sporting sanctions to be imposed on the club. 4. The Claimant holds that the sign-on fee for the last half of the season remained unpaid by the Respondent. Besides, the Claimant alleges that the Respondent did not pay his salary for April 2014 and May 2014. Finally, the Claimant states that the Respondent did not cover the apartment rent for May 2014. 5. Therefore, the Claimant deems that the Respondent owes him the amount of USD 15,600 as outstanding salaries, i.e. USD 5,000 as sign-on fee, plus USD 5,000 as salary for April 2014, plus USD 5,000 as salary for May 2014, plus USD 600 as accommodation expenses for May 2014. 6. In its statement of defence, the Respondent rejects the Claimant’s claim and considers having paid all amounts due to him. In this respect, the Respondent provides several payment slips in original language in order to corroborate the said payments. 7. The Respondent also points to the Claimant’s alleged low performance which apparently led to the relegation of the Respondent. In particular, the Respondent refers to article 7 of the “Internal Disciplinary Rules and Collection of Fines” (hereinafter: the Internal Rules) – apparently set up by the Respondent on 17 February 2014 and allegedly brought up to all the Claimant’s attention – according to which “if the club leaves the Premier League for 1 Division because of weak performance of players, one-month salary is not paid”. 8. In his replica, the Claimant asserts that he has neither received nor signed the aforementioned Internal Rules. The Claimant further states that the contract does not refer to these Internal Rules being applicable. In any event, the Claimant deems that article 7 of the Internal Rules is abusive. 9. Regarding the payment slips provided by the Respondent, the Claimant points to the fact that the relevant documentation does not contain the date of execution of each alleged payment. Moreover, the Claimant argues that a translated version of the documentation into one of the four FIFA languages was not provided by the Respondent. Finally, the Claimant sustains that the documentation is partly illegible. 10. Therefore, the Claimant reiterates his claim for outstanding remuneration amounting to USD 15,600. 11. In its duplica, the Respondent solely provided the FIFA administration again with several untranslated payment slips without adding any further comments. 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 18 August 2014. Consequently, the 2014 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 S player and an country A 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 (edition 2014), and considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 18 August 2014, the 2014 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, between 20 and 25 January 2013, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded an employment contract which was set to run until 30 May 2014, according to which the Claimant was to receive a sign-on fee amounting to USD 15,000 payable in two instalments, i.e. USD 10,000 due 5 days after receiving the ITC and USD 5,000 for the second half of the season, as well as a monthly salary in the amount of USD 5,000 and the monthly amount of USD 600 as accommodation expenses. 6. The DRC further observed that the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent seeking payment of the amount of USD 15,600, indicating that the Respondent had not paid the Claimant’s salary for April and May 2014, the accommodation expenses for May 2014 as well as part of the sign-on fee due for the second half of the season. Therefore, the Claimant deems that the amount of USD 15,600 remains outstanding. 7. Subsequently, the Chamber noted that the Respondent, in its defence, provided several payment slips in order to substantiate the payment of all the amounts due to the Claimant. 8. In relation to the documentation provided by the Respondent, the members of the Chamber recalled the basic principle of the 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. Similarly, the DRC referred to art. 9 par. 1 lit. e) of the Procedural Rules which stipulates that all documents of relevance to the dispute shall be submitted in the original version as well as translated into one of the official FIFA languages. 9. In this context, the DRC noted that the Respondent did not provide a translated version of the payment slips it enclosed to its submission in country A language only. In view of the foregoing and taking into consideration art. 9 of the Procedural Rules, the DRC decided that it could not take into account the relevant documents which were not translated into an official FIFA language. 10. Consequently, the DRC considered that the Respondent had not sufficiently substantiated its defence, as it did not present any conclusive documentary evidence which could corroborate that the claimed amounts were effectively paid to the Claimant. 11. In view of all the above, the Chamber decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent must fulfil its contractual obligations towards the Claimant and is to be held liable to pay the Claimant the amount of USD 15,600. 12. In continuation and with regard to the Claimant's request for interest, the DRC decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 15,600 until the date of effective payment as follows: a. 5% p.a. as of 2 January 2014 on the amount of USD 5,000; b. 5% p.a. as of 1 May 2014 on the amount of USD 5,000; c. 5% p.a. as of 1 June 2014 on the amount of 5,600. 13. The DRC concluded its deliberations in the present matter by rejecting any further claim of the Claimant. 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 USD 15,600 plus 5% p.a. interest until the date of effective payment as follows: a. 5% p.a. as of 2 January 2014 on the amount of USD 5,000; b. 5% p.a. as of 1 May 2014 on the amount of USD 5,000; c. 5% p.a. as of 1 June 2014 on the amount of USD 5,600. 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