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 (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 17 March 2015, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player A, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, from 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 (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 17 March 2015, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player A, from country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, from country D as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 July 2013, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: player or Claimant), and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: club or Respondent), signed an employment contract valid as from its signature until 30 May 2014. 2. In accordance with the employment contract, “the player will earn 77 000 neto for session” and the club undertook to provide accommodation to the player. 3. By letter dated 23 July 2014, the player put the club in default of payment of the amount of EUR 14,000 setting a time limit expiring on 1 August 2014. 4. On 1 September 2014, the default notice having remained without reaction, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA asking to be awarded the amount of EUR 14,000 plus 15% interest p.a. as well as that the club bears the costs of the procedure. 5. The player asserts that, having received EUR 63,000 only, the club failed to pay the amount of EUR 14,000 out of the total contractual receivables of EUR 77,000. 6. In reply to the claim, the club acknowledges that according to the employment contract the total amount of EUR 77,000 was payable to the player, but stresses that the player was fined with the amount of EUR 7,000 for having missed training as of 26 June 2013 and that the costs related to the accommodation of the player’s partner, amounting to EUR 7,250, must also be deducted. 7. The player, in his replica, highlights that the contract only entered into force on 1 July 2013 and that therefore, he cannot be punished for infringements that allegedly took place prior to that date. In addition, he states that he never received the club’s decision. He also rejects the club’s position regarding separate accommodation costs for his partner, highlighting that the club was contractually obliged to provide accommodation. He admits that his wife was living together with him, like all players’ spouses, but refutes that the club arranged for separate housing for his wife. 8. The club has not presented any final comments, in spite of having been invited to do so. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First of all, the DRC judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 1 September 2014. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2014; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015) he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player from country B and an club from country D. 3. Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2014 and 2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 1 September 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 judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC judge started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the DRC judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. Having said this, the DRC judge acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent signed an employment contract valid as from the date of signature on 1 July 2013 until 30 May 2014, in accordance with which the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant the total amount of EUR 77,000 during the 11 months’ contractual duration and to provide the Claimant with accommodation. 6. According to the Claimant, the Respondent failed to pay the amount of EUR 14,000 out of the aforementioned total of EUR 77,000, in spite of having served a default notice on the Respondent. 7. The DRC judge duly noted that the Respondent, for its part, does not deny that it has not paid the amount of EUR 14,000 to the Claimant, but argues that the Claimant was fined with the amount of EUR 7,000 and that costs amounting to EUR 7,250 that it allegedly incurred in connection with accommodation of the Claimant’s partner should be deducted from the Claimant’s receivables. As a result, the Respondent maintains that it has no debt towards the Claimant and that, therefore, the Claimant’s claim should be rejected. 8. Therefore, the DRC judge concluded that it has to be established as to whether the arguments put forward by the Respondent in its defence can be considered acceptable and a valid justification for the non-payment of the amounts claimed by the Claimant. 9. With respect to the fine of EUR 7,000, which was imposed by the Respondent on the Claimant by means of a decision passed on 3 July 2013 for allegedly having missed training as of 26 June 2013, the DRC judge highlighted that a) the parties’ mutual obligations took effect as of 1 July 2013 only, b) the Claimant does not appear to have been informed of such disciplinary measure, and c) the amount of EUR 7,000, which constitutes 100% of the Claimant’s monthly income, must be considered disproportionate. 10. Subsequently, the DRC judge turned his attention to accommodation costs, which the Respondent maintains having incurred to the benefit of the Claimant’s partner. The DRC judge took into account that the document presented by the Respondent in this respect consists of an invoice issued by a resort bearing the name of the alleged partner of the player and which makes no reference to the club. Furthermore, the DRC judge took into account that the Claimant rejected the allegation of the Respondent, who stressed that his partner was living with him in the accommodation provided by the Respondent in accordance with its contractual obligation, and that this statement was not rebutted by the Respondent. 11. On account of the above, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent’s arguments relating to the deduction of the amount of EUR 7,000 for said fine and of the amount of EUR 7,250 for alleged extra accommodation costs cannot be considered as valid and, thus, were rejected by the DRC judge. 12. Consequently, the DRC judge decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay the amount of EUR 14,000 to the Claimant. 13. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. as from 1 September 2014 until the date of effective payment. 14. The DRC judge concluded the deliberations in the present matter by deciding that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. III. Decision of the DRC judge 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, the amount of EUR 14,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 September 2014 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 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 DRC judge 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 DRC judge: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl.: CAS directives