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 19 February 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Theodoros Giannikos (Greece), member on the claim presented by the player, Player S, from country I as Claimant against the club, Club K, from country T 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 19 February 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Theodoros Giannikos (Greece), member on the claim presented by the player, Player S, from country I as Claimant against the club, Club K, from country T as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 22 August 2012, the player from country I, Player S (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the club from country T, Club K (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid from the date of signature until 31 May 2014. 2. According to art. 6 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive EUR 650,000 net for each season, i.e. season 2012/2013 and 2013/2014. 3. On 1 July 2013, the parties concluded a “Mutual Termination” (hereinafter: termination agreement), by means of which they “fully agree that the [Claimant] is entitled to a receivable of total € 240,000.00 […]. Additionally, the parties fully agree that the total amount of the “termination indemnity” to be paid to the [Claimant] is € 285,000.00 […] due to the early termination of the Professional Football Player Agreement […]. The total net amount of € 525,000.00 […] to be paid to the [Claimant] will be paid as per the amounts and dates set out below: a. € 100,000.00 by 31.07.2013 b. € 100,000.00 by 25.09.2013 c. € 100,000.00 by 25.12.2013 d. € 100,000.00 by 25.02.2014 e. € 125,000.00 by 25.05.2014” 4. Equally, art. 5 of the termination agreement stipulated that “in the event of non-payment of € 100,000.00 that has undertaken to be paid by 31.07.2013 […], the mentioned amount shall constitute a “Transfer Prohibition” limited to such amount […] starting from 01.08.2013”. 5. Furthermore, art. 6 of the termination agreement stipulated that the Respondent “agrees, declares and undertakes to assign its receivables from the Football Federation from country T in favour of the [Claimant] for the remaining amounts limited to such amounts that have been undertaken to be paid, except for € 100,000.00 which has been undertaken to be paid on 30.07.2013”. 6. Also, on 1 July 2013, the parties signed another document denominated “Mutual Termination” (hereinafter: the waiver), by means of which the parties “deem necessary and therefore mutually terminate the Professional Football Player Agreement on 1 July 2013, which was executed between [the Respondent and the Claimant], effective as of 22 August 2012 and with a termination date of 31 May 2014. [Both parties] declare and agree that as of the date of mutual termination of the agreement, the mentioned agreement will have no effect, that we have received all of our rights and collect any receivables arising from the agreement and that we have no unsettled rights or receivables arising from the agreement and therefore, we have no objection before the Football Federation from country T, FIFA, UEFA and CAS; and we will not demand any rights or receivables within the scope of the agreement; and that we mutually discharge each other. 01.07.2013”. 7. On 24 March 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, requesting the payment of EUR 100,000, corresponding to the first instalment of the termination agreement, plus interest, as well as procedural costs. Equally, the Claimant also stated that he “wish[es] [FIFA] to impose the transfer embargo […], unless and until the [Respondent] pay [to the Claimant] the sum of € 100,000.00 […]” (cf. point I.4 above). 8. In his claim, the Claimant confirmed having signed the termination agreement and the waiver. In this respect, he explained that “€ 100,000 was to be paid directly by the [Respondent] by “31/02/13”. The 4 subsequent stage payments were to be paid by the Football Federation from country T from receivables due to the [Respondent]” (cf. points I.3 and I.5). In this context, the Claimant pointed out that the Football Federation from country T complied with the termination agreement and paid the agreed instalments. However, he explained that the Respondent failed to make the payment of the first instalment of the termination agreement amounting to EUR 100,000. As a consequence, the Claimant requested the payment of the outstanding sum, however, without allegedly receiving an answer or any payment from the Respondent in this regard. 9. In its response to the claim, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim and referred to the waiver signed by both parties on 1 July 2013 and stated that there is no overdue amount payable to the Claimant. Finally, the Respondent requested the “judicial costs and the attorneyship fees” to be borne by the Claimant. 10. In his replica, the Claimant stated that the Respondent’s position is unsustainable. In this context, he explained that “the agreement to which [the Respondent] refer[s] was executed simultaneously with the main agreement […], and as [the Claimant] understood it, it was simply intended to reflect that the [Claimant’s] agreement had come to end without any further claims beyond the settlement terms outlined in the main agreement”. Equally, the Claimant pointed out that the other instalments have been duly paid and that “this agreement remains effective, and they are in breach of it”. 11. In its final position, the Respondent maintained its previous arguments. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC or the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 21 par. 1 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules). The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 24 March 2014. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the edition 2012 of the Procedural Rules was applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC 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 2012), it is competent to decide on the present litigation, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension, between an player from country I and a club from country T. 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 (editions 2012 and 2014), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 24 March 2014, the 2012 edition of said 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 into the substance of the matter. In doing so, it started to acknowledge the facts of the case as well as the documents contained in the file. However, the DRC 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. Having said that, the Chamber recalled that it was undisputed by the parties that they had signed an employment contract on 22 August 2012, valid from the date of signature until 31 May 2014, in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive the total amount of EUR 650,000 net for each season, i.e. seasons 2012/2013 and 2013/2014. 6. In addition, the DRC further noticed that it was also undisputed by the parties that they had signed a termination agreement on 1 July 2013, by means of which the Respondent had recognized that it owed the amount of EUR 525,000 (cf. point I.3 above) to the Claimant. 7. Equally, the Chamber noted that it was also undisputed by the parties that on the same day, i.e. on 1 July 2013, the parties had signed a waiver, the wording of which can be verified in detail in point I.6 above. 8. In continuation, the Chamber noted that the Claimant, on the one hand, alleged that the Respondent failed to make the payment of the first instalment of the termination agreement due on 31 July 2013 and amounting to EUR 100,000. The Chamber also took due note that the Claimant confirmed having received the remaining instalments from the Football Federation from country T as agreed upon in the termination agreement (cf. point I.5 above). 9. The DRC further noted that the Respondent, on the other hand, rejected the claim of the Claimant and referred to the waiver concluded between both parties, by means of which, so the Respondent, the parties agreed that there would be no overdue amount payable to the Claimant (cf. point I.6 above). 10. At this point, the members of the DRC deemed it appropriate to recall the wording of the aforementioned waiver and to emphasize certain parts of it, as follows: “[the parties] deem necessary and therefore mutually terminate the Professional Football Player Agreement on 1 July 2013, which was executed between [the Respondent and the Claimant], effective as of 22 August 2012 and with a termination date of 31 May 2014. [Both parties] declare and agree that as of the date of mutual termination of the agreement, the mentioned agreement will have no effect, that we have received all of our rights and collect any receivables arising from the agreement and that we have no unsettled rights or receivables arising from the agreement and therefore, we have no objection before the Football Federation from country T, FIFA, UEFA and CAS; and we will not demand any rights or receivables within the scope of the agreement; and that we mutually discharge each other. 01.07.2013”. 11. Focusing its attention on the underlined parts above, the DRC deemed that the wording of the waiver signed by the parties on 1 July 2013 clearly and undoubtedly refers to the employment contract signed on 22 August 2012 and valid until 31 May 2014 and to the Claimant’s agreement not to claim any amounts therein established, as the parties had also on 1 July 2013 concluded a settlement agreement stipulating the amounts still due to the Claimant by the Respondent. Consequently, it is clear that the amounts established in the settlement agreement must be paid to the Claimant and that the latter by no means waived his right to receive them. 12. Thus, the DRC deemed that the Respondent’s argument in this regard had to be rejected and that the Claimant was entitled to claim from it the payment of any unpaid amounts established in the settlement agreement. 13. At this point, and for the sake of good order, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to remind the parties of 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. Bearing in mind the aforementioned principle, the DRC noted that in the present dispute, the Respondent bore the burden of proof regarding the payment of the Claimant’s claimed instalment. In this context, the DRC noted that not only the Respondent did not provide any proof of having paid to the Claimant the amount of EUR 100,000 claimed as outstanding, but also it did not even deny having failed to pay the Claimant such amount as per the settlement agreement of 1 July 2013. 14. Consequently, the DRC decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR 100,000, as well as 5% interest p.a. as from 24 March 2014 until the date of effective payment. 15. Finally, the Chamber rejected any claim for legal expenses and procedural compensation in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the Chamber’s respective longstanding jurisprudence in this regard. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player S, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club K, is ordered to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 100,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 24 March 2014 until the date of effective payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant in accordance with the above-mentioned number 2. plus interest is not paid within the above-mentioned time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and a formal decision. 4. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances are 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