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, Country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, Country D 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 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, Country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, Country D as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 24 August 2010, the Player of Country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 23 August 2010 until 30 June 2013. 2. On 22 June 2011, the Claimant and the Respondent signed a document (hereinafter: the termination agreement), by means of which both parties acknowledged the termination of the contract and established that the Respondent had to pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 36,800. 3. According to the termination agreement: “After the payment of the mentioned amount, [the Claimant] declares that he has received all amounts due [the Respondent] and has not; neither will have any financial claims towards [the Respondent]”. 4. The termination agreement did not establish a due date for payment. 5. On 21 June 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent before FIFA, requesting the payment of the total amount of EUR 41,800 plus interest, made up of: • EUR 36,800 corresponding to the outstanding amount set in the termination agreement; • EUR 5,000 corresponding to “sporting damages incurred as a consequence of the end of the link between them”. 6. In addition, the Claimant requested sporting sanctions to be imposed on the Respondent and legal expenses to be awarded. 7. According to the Claimant, the Respondent has failed to pay the amount due as established in the termination agreement. 8. In its response to the claim, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s arguments, stating that the people of the current management of the Respondent were informed by the former owners that all outstanding amounts had been paid to the Claimant. The Respondent held that the fact that it received its license from the Licensing Committee of the Football Union of Country D proves that the corresponding amount was paid to the Claimant. 9. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that the request of EUR 5,000 for sport damages by the Claimant should be considered irrelevant, null and void, as the termination agreement was signed on mutual consent, and the Claimant understood the consequences of this act. 10. In his replica, the Claimant repeated his position, arguing that the Respondent did not provide any proof of payment and that the fact that the Respondent was given a license by the Football Union of Country D only enabled the Respondent to compete but did not rule over the payment or non-payment of the amount in dispute. 11. Despite having been invited to do so, the Respondent did not present its final comments on the replica of the Claimant, although it was informed that, in absence of a reply, the Dispute Resolution Chamber would take a decision on the basis of the information and evidence at disposal. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as DRC or Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 21 June 2013. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2012; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) are 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 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 Player of Country B and a Club of Country D. 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 Claimants (editions 2012 and 2014), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 21 June 2013, the 2012 edition of the aforementioned 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. In this respect and first of all, the DRC acknowledged that following the conclusion of an employment contract, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an agreement on 22 June 2011, by means of which both parties acknowledged the termination of the contract and established that the Respondent would pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 36,800. 6. It was considered by the Chamber that the Claimant contacted FIFA on 21 June 2013, indicating that the Respondent had not fulfilled its obligations as established in the termination agreement. Therefore, the Claimant requested to be paid the alleged outstanding amount of EUR 36,800, plus an amount of EUR 5,000 corresponding to “sporting damages”, as well as interest. In addition, the Claimant requested an unspecified amount for legal expenses and sporting sanctions to be imposed on the Respondent. 7. Subsequently, the DRC noted that the Respondent, in its defence, rejected the Claimant’s allegations, arguing that all outstanding amounts had been paid to the Claimant. 8. In relation to the argument raised by the Respondent, 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. 9. In this context, the Dispute Resolution Chamber noted that the Respondent did not provide any documentation in support of its allegations. 10. Consequently, the Chamber considered that the Respondent had not sufficiently substantiated its defence, as it did not present any conclusive documentary evidence which could corroborate that the amount established in the termination agreement was paid to the Claimant. 11. In view of all the above and, in particular, taking into account that the Respondent failed to discharge its burden of proof, the DRC 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 EUR 36,800. 12. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of compensation as of the date on which the claim was lodged, i.e., 21 June 2013 until the date of effective payment. 13. Subsequently, the DRC analysed the request of the Claimant corresponding to compensation for “sporting damages” in the amount of EUR 5,000. In this regard, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to point out that the request for said compensation presented by the Claimant had no legal or regulatory basis and pointed out that no corroborating evidence had been submitted that demonstrated the damage suffered or its quantity. 14. Moreover, as regards the claimed legal expenses, 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by rejecting any further claim of the Claimant. ***** Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 36,800 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 21 June 2013 until the date of effective payment. 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 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 article 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