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 21 January 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Zola Percival Majavu (South Africa), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, from country B as Claimant / Counter-Respondent against the club, Club C, from country D 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 the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 21 January 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Zola Percival Majavu (South Africa), member on the claim presented by the player, Player A, from country B as Claimant / Counter-Respondent against the club, Club C, from country D as Respondent / Counter-Claimant regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 17 May 2010, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant/Counter-Respondent) and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent/Counter-Claimant) concluded a “Civil Agreement” (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 1 July 2010 until 30 June 2014. 2. According to clause V.5.1 of the contract, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was entitled to receive as remuneration from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, inter alia, as follows: a. EUR 50,000 “paid within 5 days after receiving the International Transfer Certificate”; b. (…); c. (…); d. (…); e. EUR 192,000 payable in 12 instalments of EUR 16,000 “during the period from 01.07.2013 – 30 .06.2014”. 3. Moreover, clause VI of the contract stipulated that “Any sums worked out and due to [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] under this Agreement shall be paid in equal monthly instalments, until the 25th of next month…” 4. In addition, clause XII of the contract provided that “Any dispute between the Parties arising from or in connection with this Agreement, including its validity, interpretation, execution or termination, shall be settled amicably. Unless the Parties shall reach an amiable resolution then any such dispute shall be submitted to the competent bodies of the Football Association from country D and the Professional League with respect of the Legislation in country D”. 5. On 19 November 2010, the parties entered into an “Agreement” (hereinafter: the first agreement) by means of which they agreed to “Decrease the amount of the bonus for signing the Convention, set out in article 5.1 letter (a) from EUR 50,000 net value to EUR 42,193 net value”. 6. According to the first agreement, the EUR 42,193 were to be paid as follows: a. EUR 2,193 “until 01.12.2010”; b. EUR 40,000 “will be paid in 10 equal monthly instalments starting with December 2010 until September 2011”. 7. Subsequently, on 25 July 2011, the parties concluded another “Agreement” (hereinafter: the second agreement) by means of which it was agreed between them that “[the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] will pay the due sum of EUR 28,500 (…) until August 31 2011”. 8. On 1 August 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the club from country F, Club E, signed a loan agreement (hereinafter: the first loan agreement) for the temporary transfer of the player from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to Club E until 30 June 2012. Clause 6 of the first loan agreement provided that “[the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] declares that he has no financial claim or any other claim against [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant]”. 9. On 6 August 2012, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the club from country H, Club G, concluded a loan agreement (hereinafter: the second loan agreement) for the temporary transfer of the player from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to Club G until 30 June 2013. 10. According to clause 8 of the second loan agreement “[the Claimant/Counter-Respondent], by the signature of [the second loan agreement] declares that he no longer has any type of claims from [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant], financial or of another sort, except the salary of EUR 15,000 net/month due according to [the contract] signed with [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant]”. 11. On 26 July 2013, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and Club G signed a new loan agreement (hereinafter: the third loan agreement) for the temporary transfer of the player from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to Club G as of 1 August 2013 until 30 June 2014. 12. According to clause 8 of the third loan agreement “[the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] is responsible to pay to [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] the monthly salary of EUR 16,000 due according to article 5.1 a) of [the contract] related to the season 2013/2014”. 13. On 25 February 2014, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent lodged a claim against the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in front of FIFA requesting as follows: a. EUR 86,000 for part of his salary of August 2013 as well as for his salaries as of September 2013 until January 2014; b. EUR 12,000 for “three instalments of EUR 4,000 that were due on 25 July, 25 August and 25 September 2011” as per the first agreement; c. EUR 28,500 as “the addition amount agreed in [the second agreement] (…) that was due on 31 August 2011”; d. 5% interest p.a. on all amounts “from the respective due date”. 14. In particular, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent explained that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to pay the three last instalments of the first agreement and the amount due as per the second agreement. 15. Moreover, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent stressed that in accordance with clause 8 of the third loan agreement concluded on 26 July 2013, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant “had the exclusive responsibility to pay his monthly salary of EUR 16,000”. In this respect, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent argued that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to remit his salaries as from August 2013 until January 2014. 16. On 17 March 2014, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant replied to the claim and contested the competence of FIFA to deal with this particular matter. According to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, in view of clause XII of the contract “the parties mutually and out of their own free will opted that the judicial bodies of the [Football Federation from country D] as well as of the Professional Football League in country D should be competent to deal with any sort of disputes related to the employment contract”. Therefore, the parties “have excluded any alleged original competence of FIFA Judicial / Bodies / Committees / Chambers concerning any dispute related to the Employment Contract”. 17. Having been requested by FIFA to provide documentary evidence that would prove that there exists an independent arbitration tribunal on national level, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant argued that “important changes concerning the settlement of football-related disputes has taken place in country D with effect as of 2 February 2014. In light of such changes, [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] should have filed the present dispute to the competent judicial bodies of the Football Federation from country D and, in fact, not to those of the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Professional Football League in country D (…) but rather to the competent National Dispute Resolution Commission (NDRC) of the Football Federation from country D”. 18. In addition, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant enclosed a copy of the following documents: i) the Statutes of the Football Federation from country D, ii) the “Agreement between the Football Federation from country D and the Professional Football League in country D”, iii) the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players of the Football Federation from country D and iv) the Addendum no. 1 to Convention no. 1474/21.06.2013 between the Football Federation from country D and the Professional Football League in country D. In this respect, the club argued that it can be concluded from the enclosed documents that the NDRC of the Football Federation from country D complies with the requirements established in art. 22 b) of the FIFA Regulations. 19. As to the substance of the matter, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant argued that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is not entitled to the amount of EUR 12,000 nor to the amount of EUR 28,500 since in accordance with clause 6 of the first loan agreement and clause 8 of the second loan agreement, he “expressly agrees, confirms and declares that he has no financial claim or any other claim against the club”. What is more, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent signed the first and the second loan agreement in order to accept the terms contained therein. 20. In addition, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant argued that when the Claimant/Counter-Respondent returned from the first loan, he did not claim any of these amounts and it was only until his claim at FIFA when he first brought them up. 21. Furthermore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant alleged that, in any case, the claim of the above-mentioned amounts is barred by the statute of limitations as per art. 25 par. 5 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. 22. As to the claimed amount of EUR 86,000, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant sustained that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent did not present any adequate means of proof which may confirm that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant should pay him said amount since the copy of the third loan agreement enclosed to his claim is not signed by any party. Therefore, according to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent did not prove that he is entitled to any amount. 23. On 14 May 2014 by means of an unsolicited correspondence, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant informed FIFA that it had paid to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the amount of EUR 70,000 however, pointing out that said payment was “without acknowledgement of any legal obligation and/or responsibility” and that it was only made because it “was obliged by the relevant licensing department of the Football Federation from country D to execute payment (…) otherwise it would have not received the license to participate in the top division in country D”. In this respect, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant stressed that since the Claimant/Counter-Respondent failed to prove that he was entitled to any amount, he was “unjustified enriched” and thus, it lodged a counter-claim against the Claimant/Counter-Respondent asking for the reimbursement of the EUR 70,000. 24. On 7 July 2014, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent confirmed that on 31 March 2014, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant paid “the salaries from September, October, November and December 2013”. However, he stressed that, as expected, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to pay his salaries as from January until June 2014. Therefore, he “actualized his request” of EUR 86,000 to EUR 96,000 as outstanding salaries from January until June 2014. 25. In his replica, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent stressed that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to prove the existence of an independent arbitration tribunal in the framework of the Football Federation from country D and which is recognized by FIFA. 26. Moreover, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent argued that “it is commonly accepted that the validity of any competence clause will depend of the clear reference of the national arbitration tribunal”. In this respect, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent stressed that in clause XII of the contract “there are not identified the jurisdictional bodies that would be competent to settle the litigations, nor makes any reference to a national arbitration body”. 27. In continuation and in relation to clause 6 of the first loan agreement and clause 8 of the second loan agreement, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent stressed that he “never exonerated [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] from the debts of EUR 12,000 and EUR 28,500 nor renounced to its receipt”. According to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, said clauses “are merely generic and do not make any reference to the credits in question nor to the respective additional agreements”. 28. As to the question of whether his above-mentioned claims are time-barred, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent asserted that “the event that give rise to this dispute is the persistent breach by [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] of the contract concluded (…) The payment breach by [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] it’s a juridical fact that persisted in time, until the date when the contract expired and is extensible to the several contractual credits in debt”. Therefore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent sustained that the two years deadline “should be counted since the date when the employment contract has expired, i.e. 30.06.2014”. 29. Furthermore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent enclosed a duly signed copy of the third loan agreement and reaffirmed that in accordance with clause 8 of said agreement, “[the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] would continue with the exclusive responsibility to pay to the player his monthly salary of EUR 16,000”. Therefore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent stressed, while rejecting the counter-claim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, that “his rights are properly founded”. 30. In its duplica, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant reiterated all its previous statements. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also 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 25 February 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 hand (cf. art. 21 of the 2012 and 2014 editions 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 and 2 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. As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber would, in principle, be competent to decide on the present litigation involving a player from country B and a club from country D regarding an alleged breach of the employment contract concluded between the aforementioned parties. 4. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant contested the competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of clause XII of the contract, which, according to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, excludes the competence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber to adjudicate on the present matter. 5. Taking into account all the above, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 22 lit. b) of the 2014 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, it is competent to deal with a matter such as the one at hand, unless an independent arbitration tribunal, guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of players and clubs, has been established at national level within the framework of the association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. With regard to the standards to be imposed on an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings, the Chamber referred to the FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20 December 2005. Equally, the members of the Chamber referred to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008. 6. In relation to the above, the Chamber also deemed it vital to outline that one of the basic conditions that needs to be met in order to establish that another organ than the DRC can settle an employment-related dispute between a club and a player of an international dimension, is that the jurisdiction of the relevant arbitration tribunal derives from a clear reference in the employment contract. 7. Therefore, while analysing whether it was competent to hear the present matter, the Dispute Resolution Chamber considered that it should, first and foremost, analyse whether the employment contract at the basis of the present dispute actually contained a clear jurisdiction clause. 8. Having said this, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to clause XII of the employment contract on the basis of which the Respondent/Counter- Claimant contested FIFA’s jurisdiction. Said article stipulates that “Any dispute between the Parties arising from or in connection with this Agreement, including its validity, interpretation, execution or termination, shall be settled amicably. Unless the Parties shall reach an amiable resolution then any such dispute shall be submitted to the competent bodies of the Football Association from country D and the Professional League with respect of the Legislation in country D”. 9. In this respect, and regardless of the fact that the relevant employment contract contains a reference to dispute resolution at national level, the Chamber pointed out that such wording was unclear in the sense that it merely refers to “the competent bodies of the Football Association from country D and the Professional League with respect of the Legislation in country D” and not to a specific deciding body in the sense of art. 22 lit. b) of the aforementioned Regulations. 10. In view of the foregoing and in accordance with its well-established jurisprudence, the Chamber held that clause XII of the employment contract cannot be considered as a clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of a specific national body within the framework of the Football Federation from country D or the Professional Football League in country D. 11. In continuation and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant argued that “important changes concerning the settlement of football-related disputes has taken place in country D with effect as of 2 February 2014” and that “In light the above, (…) [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] should have filed the Claim to the competent National Dispute Resolution Commission (NDRC) of the Football Federation from country D”, which, according to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, guarantees fair proceedings and complies with the principle of equal representation of players and clubs. 12. In this respect, the Chamber wished to emphasise that the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Football Players of the Football Federation from country D provided by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant came into force on 14 August 2013 only. Moreover, the “Addendum No. 1” which apparently stipulates certain changes to the structure of dispute resolution within the Football Federation from country D only came into force on 2 February 2014, as it is also acknowledged by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. In this context, the DRC pointed out that the contract at the center of the present dispute was already signed on 17 May 2010. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that, the aforementioned set of rules only came into force long after the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had signed the employment contract and are therefore nor applicable to the contract relationship between the parties. 13. Having established that the first criteria for the recognition of the competence of a national decision-making body is not fulfilled in the present matter, the Chamber deemed it unnecessary to examine any further points which would need to be assessed in relation to the composition of the NDRC of the Football Federation from country D or any other national body. 14. In view of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber established that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s objection towards the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected and that the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent, on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, to consider the present matter as to the substance. 15. Notwithstanding the above, the members of the Chamber stated that prior to deliberating on the substance of the matter, the DRC must also verify whether it would be able to deal with the present affair or not due to formal reasons regarding the timeliness of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim. In particular, the Chamber took note of the formal objection of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, according to which the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim of EUR 12,000 in accordance with the first agreement and of EUR 28,500 in accordance with the second agreement are barred by the statute of limitations. 16. In this context, the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations, in connection with the Procedural Rules, which stipulate that the decision-making bodies of FIFA shall not hear any dispute if more than two years have elapsed since the facts leading to the dispute arose and that the application of this time limit shall be examined ex officio in each individual case. 17. In view of the above, the DRC deemed it fundamental to underline that in order to determine whether it could hear the above-mentioned claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, it should, first and foremost, establish which is “the event giving rise to the dispute”, i.e. which is the starting point of the time period of two years as set out under art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations. In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that according to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the above-mentioned period “should be counted since the date when the employment contract has expired, i.e. 30.06.2014”. 18. Having said this, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent of EUR 12,000 as per the first agreement and noted that said amount was payable in three instalments of EUR 4,000 each due on 25 July 2011, 25 August 2011 and 25 September 2011 respectively. Moreover, the claim of the amount of EUR 28,500 as per the second agreement was payable on 31 August 2011. 19. In this respect, the DRC was of the unanimous opinion that, contrary to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s argument, the “event giving rise to the dispute” of the above-mentioned claims should be considered the failure to pay the relevant amounts on the date on which the claimed amounts were actually due. 20. In view of the foregoing and considering that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim was received on 25 February 2014 only, the members of the DRC unanimously decided that the claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent of EUR 12,000 as per the first agreement and EUR 28,500 as per the second agreement are barred by the statute of limitations contained in the art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations and are thus inadmissible. 21. Having established that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim of 25 February 2014 is only partially admissible, the Chamber went on to analyse 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 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2012 and 2014) and considering that the present claim was lodged on 25 February 2014, the 2012 edition of said Regulations is applicable to the present matter as to the substance. 22. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber continued its acknowledgment of the above-mentioned facts as well as of 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 substance of the matter at hand. 23. In this context, the Chamber took note that on 17 May 2010, the parties concluded a contract valid until 30 June 2014 and according to which, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was entitled to receive for the season 2013/2014 EUR 192,000 payable in 12 instalments of EUR 16,000. 24. In continuation, the Chamber acknowledged that on 26 July 2013, the parties and Club G entered into a loan agreement for the temporary transfer of the player from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to the said club from country H valid as of 1 August 2013 until 30 June 2014. Clause 8 of said agreement provided that “[the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] is responsible to pay to [the Claimant/Counter-Respondent] the monthly salary of EUR 16,000 due according to article 5.1 a) of [the contract] related to the season 2013/2014”. 25. Having said this, the DRC took note of the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent who sustains that in accordance with the above-mentioned clause the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was responsible to cover his salaries for the season 2013/2014. In this respect, the Chamber observed that, after amending his initial claim, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent requests from the Respondent/Counter- Claimant the payment of EUR 96,000 as outstanding salaries from January until June 2014. 26. Furthermore, the Chamber noticed that in relation to the aforementioned claim, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant limited itself to argue that since the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had not provided a duly signed copy of the third loan agreement in his original claim, he did not prove that he is entitled to any amount. Hence, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant requests the reimbursement of EUR 70,000 which it was “forced” to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent by the Football Federation from country D. 27. With the above-mentioned considerations in mind, the DRC stressed that in his replica, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent did provide a duly signed copy of the third loan agreement and that, in spite of having had the possibility to do so, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not submit any further comments in this regard. Furthermore, a duly signed copy of the third loan agreement had been uploaded in the Transfer Matching System. In this respect, the members of the Chamber were of the unanimous opinion that the content of clause 8 of the third loan agreement leaves no room for doubt as it clearly establishes that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is the party responsible to cover the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s salaries for the entire 2013/2014 season. 28. On account of the above, while rejecting the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s counter-claim, the members of the DRC unanimously decided that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is entitled to receive from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant EUR 96,000 as outstanding salaries for the months of January, February, March, April, May and June 2014. 29. In addition and taking into consideration the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim, the Chamber decided to award the latter interest on said amount at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the respective due dates. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Player A, is partially accepted, insofar as it is admissible. 2. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 96,000 plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows: a. 5% p.a. as of 26 February 2014 on the amount of EUR 16,000; b. 5% p.a. as of 26 March 2014 on the amount of EUR 16,000; c. 5% p.a. as of 26 April 2014 on the amount of EUR 16,000; d. 5% p.a. as of 26 May 2014 on the amount of EUR 16,000; e. 5% p.a. as of 26 June 2014 on the amount of EUR 16,000; f. 5% p.a. as of 26 July 2014 on the amount of EUR 16,000. 3. In the event that the aforementioned sum 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/Counter-Respondent is rejected. 5. The counter-claim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is rejected. 6. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent/Counter-Claimant 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