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 19 February 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member on the claim presented by the club, Club A, Country B as Claimant against the player, Player C, Country D as Respondent 1 and the club, Club E, Country D as Respondent 2 and the club, Club F, Country D as Respondent 3 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 19 February 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member on the claim presented by the club, Club A, Country B as Claimant against the player, Player C, Country D as Respondent 1 and the club, Club E, Country D as Respondent 2 and the club, Club F, Country D as Respondent 3 regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. According to the Club of Country B, Club A, (hereinafter: the Claimant), on 14 June 2013, the club and the Player of Country D, Player C (hereinafter: the Respondent 1), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the alleged contract), valid from 12 July 2013 until 10 June 2016. 2. In accordance with the alleged contract, the Respondent 1 was inter alia entitled to receive a monthly remuneration of 931,000. 3. On 19 July 2013, the Club of Country D, Club E (hereinafter: the Respondent 2), and the Club of Country D, Club F (hereinafter: the Respondent 3), concluded a transfer agreement for the transfer of the Respondent 1, from the Respondent 2 to the Respondent 3 for a transfer fee of 1,325,000. 4. On 1 July 2013, the Respondent 1 signed an employment contract with the Respondent 3, valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2016, and providing for a monthly remuneration amounting 10,000. 5. On 22 August 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent 1, the Respondent 2 and the Respondent 3, for breach of contract and for inducement to the breach, respectively. In its claim, the Claimant requested the following: - Compensation corresponding to the full contractual amount of the alleged player’s employment contract with the club (35 months = 32,585,000), plus six months indemnity (6 months = 5,586,000) and interests as from the date of breach; - A 6 months ban to be imposed on the Respondent 1; - Sporting sanctions to be imposed on the Respondent 2 and Respondent 3; - Legal fees and interests. 6. In particular, the Claimant explained that on 24 May 2013, it sent a letter to the Club of Country D, Club G, confirming its interest in the transfer of the Respondent 1. In the letter, the Claimant authorized Mr H to negotiate the terms and conditions of the transfer on behalf of the Claimant and recognized a commission for his services. 7. At the time, the Respondent 1 was engaged on a loan transfer from Respondent 2 to Club G. 8. According to the Claimant, the aforementioned letter was answered by the Respondent 2 on 31 May 2013 in a communication signed by Mr I acting as President of the Respondent 2. This response informed about the transfer fee for the player, and also authorized Mr H to negotiate the terms and conditions of the transfer with the Claimant. 9. Furthermore, the Claimant asserted that on 14 June 2013, it concluded the alleged contract with the Respondent 1 for the period commencing on 12 July 2013 and expiring on 10 June 2016. 10. In this regard, the Claimant declared that after not having received any further news from the Respondent 2 in order to complete the transfer, the Claimant sent a new letter on 19 June 2013 to the Respondent 2 ratifying the offer. 11. Moreover, the Claimant stated that it sent another letter to the Respondent 2 on 28 June 2013, requesting the signed copy of the transfer agreement. 12. Consequently, the Claimant sustained that it did not receive further notice from both the Respondent 1 and the Respondent 2 after allegedly reaching an agreement with both. 13. The Claimant stated that the Respondent 1 unilaterally breached the alleged contract without just cause, as he did not arrive on time in order to start the season, and entered into more than one employment contract during the same period as the one signed with the Claimant. 14. The Claimant further stated that the Respondent 3 induced the Respondent 1 into breaching the alleged contract with the Claimant by signing a new employment contract with him. 15. In his reply, the Respondent 1 rejected the Claimant’s claim. 16. First, the Respondent 1 stressed the absence of a transfer agreement between the Claimant and Respondent 2, which according to the Respondent 1 was confirmed by the conduct of the Claimant, by not uploading the operation into the Transfer Matching System (hereinafter: TMS). 17. In this respect, according to the Respondent 1, the letter allegedly signed by the Respondent 2 on 31 May 2013 was forged. 18. Furthermore, the Respondent 1 sustained that he never signed an employment contract with the Claimant, and that the signature appearing on the alleged contract is a forgery. 19. The Respondent 1 held that the Claimant was unable to prove the existence of the alleged contract, as it did not submit proof of contact with and flight tickets for him or the prior medical test. 20. Moreover, the Respondent 1 stated that all the alleged communications between the Claimant, him and Respondent 2, include the intervention of Mr H, representing the interests of the three parties, with no communications sent by either the Respondent 1 or Respondent 2 directly. First, Mr H was representing the Claimant in its letter dated 24 May 2013, then, appearing on the letter dated 31 May 2013 now being authorized by the Respondent 2 to negotiate the supposed transfer and finally, in the alleged contract as the agent of the Respondent 1. 21. In its reply, the Respondent 2 also rejected the Claimant’s submission, as it denied being part of any agreement with the Claimant. 22. Moreover, the Respondent 2 stated that it did not have any contact with the Claimant whatsoever, specifically denying it informed the Claimant about the transfer fee concerning the Respondent 1 and authorizing Mr H to negotiate in the name of the Respondent 2 the conditions of the alleged transfer agreement, as it never received any communication from the Claimant. 23. In addition, the Respondent 2 held that the signature from Mr I acting as President of Respondent 2 appearing on the letter dated 31 May 2013 was forged. 24. In its response, the Respondent 3 rejected the Claimant’s claim likewise and produced the same arguments as the Respondent 1. 25. Moreover, Respondent 3 held that it never induced the Respondent 1 into breaching the alleged contract, explaining that in order to sign the player, it had to reach an agreement with the Respondent 2 and then with Club G, as Club G possessed an option for the definitive transfer of the Respondent 1 after engaging the latter on loan from the Respondent 2. 26. Finally, the Respondent 3 declared that it was never informed by the Claimant of the alleged contract with the Respondent 1. 27. On 16 December 2013, the Claimant sent a letter to FIFA requesting the suspension of the proceedings, due to the possibility of reaching an amicable settlement with the respondents. 28. In this respect, on 29 January 2014, FIFA received a letter from the Claimant informing that a deal could not be reached in order to settle the case amicably. The Respondent 1 and the Respondent 3 sent a letter on 31 January 2014 communicating the same information. 29. Although requested several times by FIFA to submit the original of the alleged contract with the Respondent 1 and the original of the letters that were enclosed to its claim, along with its position on the response of the Respondent 1, Respondent 2 and Respondent 3, the Claimant did not provide any further comments and only submitted the same copies previously sent with the initial claim. 30. In his duplica, the Respondent 1 repeated his position. 31. Despite having been invited to do so, Respondent 2 did not present its final comments on the replica of the club, 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. 32. The Respondent 3 submitted its final comments in relation with this matter, upholding its position. 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 22 August 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 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 is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Club of Country B, a Player of Country D and two Clubs of Country D. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players 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 on 22 August 2013, the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (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. The members of the Chamber started by acknowledging that, according to the Claimant, it had, on 14 June 2013, concluded an employment contract with the Respondent 1 for a three-year period, after allegedly reaching an agreement with Respondent 2 for the transfer of the Respondent 1. The DRC took note that the Claimant argued that it did not receive further notice from both the Respondent 1 and the Respondent 2, and that Respondent 1 did not arrive on time to fulfil his contractual obligations, while entering into an employment contract with Respondent 3 during the same period as the employment contract signed with the Claimant. 6. Therefore, the Claimant requested to be awarded compensation for breach of contract corresponding to the full amount of the employment contract concluded with the Respondent 1, plus a six months indemnity and interests from the date of the alleged breach. Furthermore, the Claimant requested a 6 months ban to be imposed on the Respondent 1 and sporting sanctions to be imposed on the Respondent 2 and the Respondent 3, plus costs and legal fees. 7. The Dispute Resolution Chamber equally took due note of the fact that the Respondent 1, on his part, had categorically denied the conclusion of an employment contract with the Claimant. The chamber also acknowledged that the Respondent 1 argued that an agreement between the Claimant and the Respondent 2 regarding his transfer was never reached. Moreover, the DRC observed that the Respondent 1 pointed out that a person by the name of Mr H appeared in all the communications submitted by the Claimant, representing, at different moments, the Claimant, Respondent 1 and Respondent 2. 8. It was further observed by the Chamber that the Respondent 2 denied having had any contact with the Claimant with regard to the transfer of the Respondent 1, while also stating that the signature from the person acting as its representative on the document dated 31 May 2013 is forged. 9. The Dispute Resolution Chamber also gave due consideration to the arguments of the Respondent 3. Firstly, its assessment that it never induced the player into breaching an employment contract. Secondly, its conclusion that the claim should be rejected because the player never signed a written employment contract with the Claimant and the Claimant failed to prove the existence of the disputed contract. 10. At this stage, the DRC considered it appropriate to remark that, as a general rule, FIFA’s deciding bodies are not competent to decide upon matters of criminal law, such as the ones of alleged falsified signature or document, and that such affairs fall into the jurisdiction of the competent national criminal authority. 11. Subsequently, in view of the aforementioned dissent between the parties in respect of the basic question as to whether or not an employment contract between the Claimant and the Respondent 1 had been concluded, the members of the Chamber firstly referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. The application of the said principle in the present matter led the members of the Dispute Resolution Chamber to conclude that it was up to the Claimant to prove the existence of the employment contract on the basis of which compensation for breach of contract by the Respondent 1 is claimed. 12. Having stated the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber recalled that the Respondent 1 maintained that he never signed a written employment contract with the Claimant and maintained that his signature contained on the copy of the contract remitted by the Claimant was forged. What is more, the Claimant was unable to provide the relevant employment contract in its original form signed by the hand of the parties despite having been asked to do so. 13. On account of these considerations, the Chamber held that the fact the Claimant had only submitted a copy of the disputed contract was insufficient to establish the existence of the alleged contractual relationship. 14. In respect of the foregoing, the members of the Chamber had to conclude that the documents presented by the Claimant did not prove beyond doubt that the Claimant and the Respondent 1 had validly entered into an employment contract. 15. As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that, since the Claimant had not been able to prove beyond doubt that an employment contract had validly been concluded between itself and the Respondent 1, there was no possibility for the Chamber to enter into the question whether or not such alleged employment contract had been breached. 16. All the above led the Dispute Resolution Chamber to conclude that the claim of the Claimant has to be rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is rejected. ***** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 63 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