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 12 March 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member Santiago Nebot (Spain), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), 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 with the club, Club E, from country F as Intervening Party 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 12 March 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member Santiago Nebot (Spain), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), 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 with the club, Club E, from country F as Intervening Party regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. In January 2014, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: player or Claimant / Counter-Respondent) and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: Club C or Respondent / Counter-Claimant) signed an employment contract valid as from January 2014 until 31 May 2018. 2. In accordance with the employment contract, the player was entitled to receive the following remuneration: a. 2013-14 season: i. Signing-on fee of EUR 200,000; ii. EUR 350,000 payable in 4 equal instalments of EUR 87,500 each on 28 February, 31 March, 30 April, and 31 May 2014; iii. Match bonuses: EUR 10,000 per match in which he was fielded (1 out of 11 players); EUR 5,000 per match in which he enters the field as substitute; EUR 2,500 if he was included in 18 players’ match list. b. 2014-15 season: i. Yearly remuneration of EUR 1,100,000 ii. Same match bonuses as those for 2013-14 season. c. 2015-16 season: i. Yearly remuneration of EUR 1,100,000 ii. Same match bonuses as those for 2013-14 season. d. 2016-17 season: i. Yearly remuneration of EUR 1,200,000 ii. Same match bonuses as those for 2013-14 season. e. 2017-18 season: i. Yearly remuneration of EUR 1,200,000 ii. Same match bonuses as those for 2013-14 season. 3. In addition, the player was entitled to receive the following fringe benefits: a. Car; b. 4 business class round trip flight tickets country D-country B per season; c. Housing benefit of up to EUR 2,500 per month. 4. Articles 4 c) and 5 c) of the contract, dealing with the obligations of the club and the player, respectively, stipulate that the parties shall be obliged “To respect the Statutes, Regulations, including the Code of Ethics and Decisions of FIFA, UEFA and Football Federation from country D … .”. 5. According to art. 9 of the contract all disputes will be submitted exclusively to the FIFA DRC and resolved in accordance with the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players in first instance. 6. On 5 May 2014, the player put Club C in default in writing of payment of the total amount of EUR 370,000, which amount includes the first 3 instalments of EUR 87,500 falling due on 28 February, 31 March, and 30 April 2014, respectively, as well as EUR 100,000 in match bonuses and EUR 7,500 relating to rent, setting 12 May 2014 as deadline to pay. The default notice further includes the mention that the player “herewith reserves all his rights”. 7. On 14 May 2014, having received no reaction to his default notice, the player terminated the employment contract in writing. 8. On 10 July 2014, the player signed an employment contract with the club from country F, Club E, valid as from 1 July 2014 until 30 June 2018, in accordance with which the player was entitled to receive, inter alia, a monthly salary of EUR 150,000, to be increased by EUR 25,000 or EUR 10,000 retroactively as per 1 July in the event of the club having entered the UEFA Champions League group stage or UEFA Europa League group stage, respectively. 9. In addition, according to the new employment contract, the player is entitled to the guaranteed amount of EUR 420,000 as match bonuses and the guaranteed amount of EUR 400,000 as seasonal performance bonus for each of the 2014-15 and 2015-16 seasons, on condition that on the respective due dates (June and July of respective seasons) the player is still contractually bound to the club and was not transferred on a loan basis. Claim of the player 10. On 13 June 2014, the player lodged a claim against Club C in front of FIFA asking that it be established that he terminated the employment with just cause due to the persistent failure of Club C to comply with its contractual obligations, whereas he always duly complied with his obligations and no complaints had been received from Club C. 11. The player explains that after he terminated the contract, Club C paid him the amount of EUR 362,301 in several payments throughout the month of May 2014, in particular, as of 15 May 2014. 12. Therefore, the player asks to be awarded payment of outstanding remuneration and compensation for Club C’s breach of contract as follows: a. EUR 39,715.13 in outstanding salary and match bonus payments (i.e. EUR 402,016.13 due until 14 May 2014, minus EUR 362,301 received) plus 5% interest; b. EUR 8,750 in outstanding housing benefits (until 14 May 2014) plus 5% interest as of 14 May 2014; c. EUR 4,647,983.87 as compensation for breach plus 5% interest as of 14 May 2014 (residual value as of 15 May 2014 until 31 May 2018). 13. In addition, the player asks that sporting sanctions be imposed on Club C and that the legal expenses be paid by Club C. Club C’s response to the claim and counterclaim 14. Club C fully rejects the player’s claim, which it considers ill-founded and made in bad faith. 15. It highlights that it was known to all of its players that the club was suffering from financial distress due to the strong devaluation of the currency from country D against the Euro, bearing in mind that most of its debts were in Euro. It stresses that the player was not treated differently from the other players, who, for their part, had not brought up any claim. Club C’s position was that all players were treated equally under such financial circumstances. 16. Club C further points out that the player might have lost confidence in his position at the club, as due to restrictions imposed by the Football Federation from country D the club could only include 6 foreign players in match lists and as of the new season only 5 foreign players. In this regard, Club C highlights that the player had been included in the 18 players’ list in 10 out of the 17 super league matches “only”, which might not have been ideal for a young promising player. In support of its allegations, Club C presented press articles in which the player expressed his concern that he may be out of the 18 player list. 17. Club C further deems that the player cannot claim that he was in a financially precarious situation, since it had duly paid the EUR 200,000 signing-on fee to the player. 18. In addition, Club C points out that the player had not included any warning of termination of contract in his default notice and that he had not mentioned any such consequence during his subsequent phone conversation with the Club C’s administrative manager, in which the player allegedly informed Club C that he understood the situation. 19. Club C adds that, at his request, on 12 May 2014, the player was granted 2 days’ leave to deal with “personal affairs in country G”. Contrary to his statements, Club C then found out via the press that the player got married in country B on 13 May 2014 without informing anybody about it. According to the club, obviously the player already knew by then that he would not return to the club after his wedding. 20. According to Club C, instead, the player started negotiations with other clubs and signed on with the club from country F, Club E. 21. Club C considers that the player must already have been in contact with another club while he was still under contract with it and that his decision to terminate the contract must have been motivated by his negotiations with Club E. 22. Club C adds that it tried to settle the matter amicably in order to “win back” the player, without success. 23. According to Club C, apart from the FIFA regulations and Swiss law, the Football Federation from country D regulations are also applicable to the present matter in accordance with art. 5 (c) of the employment contract, art. 11 of the Football Federation from country D Regulations, art. 25 par. 6 of the FIFA regulations and art. 2 of the FIFA procedural rules. 24. Club C holds that the player had no just cause to terminate the contract and that he has not presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate such alleged just cause. 25. First of all, while referring to decisions issued by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and Swiss law, Club C points out that the player has not demonstrated that there was a “serious” breach by the club, i.e. a breach to such extent that the player is entitled to terminate the contract unilaterally. It considers that only 10% (“EUR 462,301 and USD 39,500”) of the total amount to be paid to the player during the contractual term (“EUR 5,000,000”) was outstanding. 26. Secondly, Club C holds that the player has not given an appropriate warning about his intention to terminate the contract, which is a prerequisite for terminating a contract with just cause due to non-payment of salaries. Therefore, the player’s reliance on non-payment as a ground for the termination demonstrates his bad faith and his notice only asking to proceed with payment does not satisfy this condition. 27. In this regard, Club C further highlights that the player had remained silent for a period exceeding two months and that only on 5 May 2014 did he send his sole default notice, only asking for payment of outstanding remuneration without indicating any further consequences. The notice of termination was then sent within a short time-frame, which, according to Club C, goes against the principle of good faith. 28. In continuation, Club C points out that the player failed to follow the formalities under the Football Federation from country D regulations. According to Club C, given that there is no rule at international level regarding the procedural requirements for terminating a contract, the Football Federation from country D regulations should be taken into consideration. 29. Club C stresses that according to the Football Federation from country D Regulations, the player should have sent a default notice via public notary giving the club a 30 days’ time limit to pay, 7 days following which he could have terminated the contract via public notary, which requirements were not followed by the player. 30. Club C further holds that the player has not respected the “notification procedure” of the contract referring to its art. 8, as a result of which fax communications allegedly are not valid. 31. As regards payments made to the player, Club C highlights that in addition to the amounts acknowledged by the player (cf. point I./11. above), it further paid him the amounts of EUR 87,500 (salary and/or rent) and EUR 12,500 (bonuses) as well as out of contract bonuses of USD 39,500 on 9 June 2014. 32. With respect to the amount of compensation sought by the player, Club C deems that it cannot correspond to the residual value of the employment contract, since compensation cannot be used as a tool for enrichment. 33. Club C considers that the player abused his alleged right to terminate the contract and acted in bad faith, since his real motive was enrichment and to sign on with another club without having to compensate for the transfer fee Club C paid for the player. 34. For these reasons, Club C lodged a counterclaim against the player for termination of the employment contract without just cause and asks to be awarded: a. Compensation in the amount of EUR 3,500,000; b. Interest of 5% as of 11 March 2014 over the instalment of EUR 875,000 that was already paid to the player’s former club; c. Unspecified compensation for the club’s expenses incurred for the replacement of the player; d. EUR 250,000 for “non-pecuniary damages”; e. Legal expenses. 35. In addition, Club C asks that sporting sanctions be imposed on the player. 36. The amount of compensation sought by Club C is based on the amount it has undertaken to pay to the player’s previous club in order to acquire the player’s services, i.e. EUR 3,500,000. 37. Club C further holds that the player’s early and unjustified termination has severely affected its sporting plans for the next season and that it will have to incur high costs to replace the player. 38. It asks to be awarded the additional amount of EUR 250,000 (cf. point I./34.d. above) for the club’s loss of reputation caused by the player’s actions. 39. Club C considers that this case should not be regarded as a simple case of a player not being paid three monthly salaries and having an alleged right to terminate the contract and insists that the parties’ intentions play a major role in the resolution of the dispute. Player’s reply to Club C’s counterclaim 40. The player maintains all of his claims and rejects all and any allegations and legal considerations put forward by Club C. 41. He points out that the present dispute centres on the failure of Club C to fulfil its contractual obligations during a considerable amount of time. 42. Referring to art. 9 of the employment contract, he further holds that the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players are applicable to this matter and not the Football Federation from country D regulations, which according to the player may apply only to national disputes between players from country D and clubs from country D. The player further holds that Swiss law is applicable. 43. The player denies that due to the payment of the EUR 200,000 signing-on fee he would not have been in a precarious situation highlighting his personal situation. He further points out that financial hardship is not a requirement to justify the termination of an employment contract. Furthermore, Club C’s assertion that the other players had not received their remuneration either cannot be a justification for non-payment. 44. In addition, the player highlights that the club never specifically informed him of its financial hardship and the reasons thereof and that he was never given any guarantees or timeline in respect of the payment of his remuneration. 45. The player asserts that he had preferred to stay with Club C and that he considered the termination as ultima ratio. He had lost confidence in his future with Club C and even if he had “threatened” the club with the termination of the contract many times before, the situation would not have been different in the light of the club’s liquidity problems. 46. The player highlights that the outstanding amount was substantial, rejecting Club C’s percentage calculation, and that he had given the club a warning. 47. The player denies that he was contacted by Club C after the club received his default notice of 5 May 2014 and highlights that Club C did not even reply to this notice. 48. He further denies that he gave interviews to the Turkish press and points out that the press articles presented by Club C were published almost one month after he terminated the contract. 49. For these reasons, the player rejects Club C’s request for compensation. In this sense, he reiterates that he terminated the employment contract with just cause due to Club C’s breach of its contractual obligations, as a result of which Club C is to be held liable for breach of contract and its counterclaim to be rejected. Position of the club from country F, Club E 50. Club E refers to the player’s statement of claim and reply to Club C’s counterclaim and further highlights that after it was publicly known, on 23 May 2014, that one of its key players would leave Club E, it was informed that the player, Player A, had terminated his employment contract with just cause. 51. After having verified the situation and negotiated with the player after his return from the World Cup in Brazil, it entered into an employment contract with the player on 10 July 2014. 52. Club E stresses that the player has not terminated his employment contract with the club from country D without just cause and holds that it has not induced the player to a breach of contract. Extra, unsolicited, position of Club C 53. In reaction to the player’s reply to the counterclaim, which it had received for information only, Club C deems that the player rather presented a replica as regards his own claim, as a result of which Club C holds that it was entitled to present its duplica allegedly in order to protect its right to be heard, in spite of FIFA’s indication that there is a second exchange of correspondence in special cases only. Club C deems that this is a special case. Should the Dispute Resolution Chamber decide differently, Club C asks that all paragraphs in the player’s last submission which relate to his own claim be deleted from the case record. 54. Club C highlights that the player failed to respond to its pecuniary claims as well as to its non-pecuniary claims regarding sporting damages and its loss of reputation due to the player’s breach of contract without just cause. 55. Club C rejects the player’s assertion that it attempts to bring the Chamber’s focus to irrelevant issues and stresses that it is the player who aims to distort the facts. 56. It further stresses that it considers that the Football Federation from country D Regulations apply in addition to CAS jurisprudence and Swiss law. According to the Football Federation from country D Regulations, a player first has to give a 30 days’ time limit to the club to remedy the breach, upon failure of which he has the right to terminate the contract with just cause. According to the club, this procedure was not followed by the player. 57. In addition, Club C deems that the delay in the payment of the player’s salary could not have affected the player bearing in mind that he did receive the EUR 200,000 signing-on fee. This, according to Club C, may have been the reason why the player has not put the club in default prior to 5 May 2014 and, thus, he apparently “tolerated” the delay and gave the impression to the club that he would continue to tolerate the late payment by not indicating his intention to terminate the contract in his letter of 5 May 2014. 58. Club C further stresses that the player has not given any written warning as regards his intention to terminate the employment contract in case of non-payment, which it considers a prerequisite for a valid termination with just cause due to late payment. The simple statement “Our client herewith reserves his rights” in his letter of 5 May 2014 is not sufficient to fulfil the condition of prior written warning. Furthermore, Club C highlights that, whereas the player indicated that he preferred to stay, he terminated the contract only 2 days after the time limit he had given to the club to pay. 59. In addition, Club C stresses that communication via fax is not a valid communication method according to the contract, which stipulates that any notice must be sent to the other party by mail. 60. In addition to a duplica with respect to the player’s claim, Club C presented further comments as regards its counterclaim. 61. In this regard, the player asks that Club C’s extra, unsolicited, position be disregarded by the Chamber considering, in particular, that the parties were duly granted the right to be heard in relation to the claims and counterclaim and in the light of art. 9 par. 3 of the FIFA Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and Dispute Resolution Chamber. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 13 June 2014. Consequently, the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2012; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 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 2015) 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 from country B and a club from country D and involving a club from country F. 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 Players (editions 2014 and 2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 13 June 2014, the 2012 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: 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 deemed it fit to first address the issue of the aforementioned unsolicited position received from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, who implicitly alleged that if such position were not taken into account it would consider that its right to be heard would not have been respected. In this regard, after duly having taken note of the exchange of correspondence and documents between the parties, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s right to be heard had been duly respected on the basis of and after one exchange of correspondence only (cf. art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). Consequently, the Chamber agreed that it could not back the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s assertions in this regard. 6. Having said this, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant were contractually bound by an employment contract valid as from January 2014 until 31 May 2018, which was terminated in writing by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent on 14 May 2014. 7. It was further noted that said contract termination was proceeded with by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent after he had put the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in default, on 5 May 2014, of payment of 3 monthly instalments, 3 rent allowances as well as match bonuses and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had not reacted to such default notice. 8. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent maintained that he terminated the employment contract with just cause at the fault of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in the light of the latter’s persistent failure to comply with its contractual obligations and that, therefore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for payment of outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract. 9. The Chamber noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, for its part, rejected the claim put forward by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. According to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is to be held liable for breach of contract without just cause arguing inter alia that the player had not included any warning of termination of contract in his default notice, that he had not acted in accordance with the procedural requirements relating to contract termination set out in the Football Federation from country D regulations, which the Respondent/Counter-Claimant deems to be applicable to the matter at hand, and that there was no “serious” breach of contract allowing the player to terminate the employment contract. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant claimed that, therefore, the player is to be held liable to pay compensation for breach of contract. 10. In continuation, the Chamber took into account that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent fully rejected the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim and maintained his claim. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent contested that the Football Federation from country D Regulations are applicable to the present matter and stressed inter alia that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant never replied to his default notice and that the amount of overdue payables is substantial. 11. Furthermore, the DRC noted that according to the Intervening Party, it signed an employment contract with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent on 10 July 2014 after having been informed that the latter had terminated his employment contract with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant with just cause and after verification of the situation. In addition, the Intervening Party stresses that it has not induced the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to a breach of contract. 12. On account of the above, the members of the Chamber highlighted that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the diverging position of the parties, was to determine as to whether the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had just cause to terminate the relevant employment contract on 14 May 2014 and to decide on the consequences thereof. 13. To begin with, the Chamber addressed the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s argumentation relating to the Football Federation from country D Regulations, which according to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant are applicable to the case at hand and which contain procedural requirements relating to the termination of an employment contract, which according to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant have not been respected by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 14. In this regard, the members of the Chamber highlighted that art. 9 of the relevant employment contract clearly establishes that disputes between the parties are exclusively submitted in front of the DRC and shall be resolved in accordance with the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. 15. In the light of the unambiguous contents of this clause, the DRC decided to reject the argument put forward by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in this respect and confirmed that the present matter shall be dealt with taking into account the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players as well as DRC jurisprudence. 16. In this context and for the sake of completeness, the members of the DRC noted that the employment contract at the basis of the present dispute does not contain any clause dealing with a procedure to be followed in the event of a party wishing to terminate the employment contract. 17. Having said that, the Chamber took into account that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant does not contest that the remuneration included in the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s default notice remained unpaid at the time when the player terminated the employment contract in writing. Furthermore, the DRC highlighted that it was only after the player had terminated the employment contract on 14 May 2014 that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant proceeded with transferring payments to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 18. In this context, the members of the Chamber agreed that the reasons put forward by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for the uncontested fact that salaries of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent remained unpaid, i.e. the player allegedly was not in a precarious financial situation since he had duly received the signing-on fee and all players of the team were treated equally in the light of the club’s alleged financial distress, cannot be accepted as valid. Even if the argument of financial distress should be considered valid, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant has not presented any documentation demonstrating that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent at least was informed by the club of such reasons for non-payment of his remuneration. Equally, the fact that the player was, allegedly, not in a precarious situation cannot possibly serve as a justification for non-compliance by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant of its contractually agreed obligations with respect to the timely payment of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s salary. 19. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber took into account that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant has not reacted to the default notice of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent within the time limit set by the latter. 20. As regards the argument of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant relating to the alleged necessity of including a warning of termination of contract in the default notice, the Chamber established that such position is not backed by DRC jurisprudence. More specifically, the DRC requires the party suffering from the counterparty’s breach of contract to, at the least, provide said counterparty with an opportunity to remedy such breach. Should the breach be remedied accordingly within the deadline set in the relevant default notice, the termination of the contract would likely not occur. Hence it is, in the Chamber’s view, not compulsory to include a warning of termination of the contract in a default notice. 21. On account of the above, in particular the fact that 3 monthly instalments, 3 rent allowances as well as match bonuses were outstanding at the time of the termination of the contract by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, and taking into consideration the Chamber’s pertinent longstanding and constant jurisprudence, the Chamber decided that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment contract on 14 May 2014 and that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the contract with just cause by the player. 22. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject the counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 23. In continuation, prior to establishing the consequences of the termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber held that it had to address the issue of any unpaid remuneration at the moment the contract was terminated by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 24. In this regard, the members of the Chamber took into account that until the date of termination of the contract, i.e. 14 May 2014, contractual payments totalling EUR 370,000 had fallen due, of which the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was put in default by the player and the composition of which, i.e. 3 monthly instalments, 3 rent allowances as well as match bonuses, remained uncontested by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. Furthermore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent acknowledged that he received the total amount of EUR 362,301 from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant after he had terminated the employment contract. Subsequently, the Chamber recalled that according to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, in addition to the amounts acknowledged as received by the player, it further paid the amounts of EUR 87,500 (salary and/or rent) and EUR 12,500 (bonuses) as well as out of contract bonuses of USD 39,500 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent on 9 June 2014. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had not presented any documentation demonstrating that these additional amounts indeed had been paid to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent (cf. art. 12 par 3 of the Procedural Rules). Regardless of such observation, the Chamber deemed that any “out of contract bonus” payments could not be considered to be in lieu of any contractual payment. 25. Having said this, the Chamber decided that, in virtue of the general legal principle pacta sunt servanda the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is liable to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 7,699. 26. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s petition, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant/Counter-Respondent interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 7,699 as of the day on which the employment relation between the parties had ended until the date of effective payment. 27. Having established the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question of the consequences of the termination of the employment contract by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent with just cause on 14 May 2014. 28. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is entitled to receive compensation for breach of contract from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 29. Subsequently, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including, in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period. 30. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contains a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake. 31. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent under the terms of the employment contract until 31 May 2018 and concluded that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent would have received a total remuneration of EUR 4,827,500 plus potential match bonuses had the contract been executed until its expiry date. 32. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages. 33. Indeed, on 10 July 2014, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent found employment with the club from country F, Club E. In accordance with the pertinent employment contract, valid as from 1 July 2014 until 30 June 2018, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is entitled to receive, inter alia, a monthly salary of EUR 150,000, to be increased by EUR 25,000 or EUR 10,000 retroactively as per 1 July in the event of the club having entered the UEFA Champions League group stage or UEFA Europa League group stage, respectively. 34. In addition, according to the new employment contract, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is entitled to the guaranteed amount of EUR 420,000 as match bonuses and the guaranteed amount of EUR 400,000 as seasonal performance bonus for each of the 2014-15 and 2015-16 seasons, on condition that on the respective due dates (June and July of respective seasons) the player is still contractually bound to Club E and not transferred on a loan basis. 35. Consequently, the Chamber established that the value of the new employment contract concluded between the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the new club for the period as from 10 July 2014 until and including May 2018 largely exceeds the residual value of the employment contract with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for the same period of time. Therefore, the Chamber decided that, even though the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is liable for the early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, there is no amount that should be awarded to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent as compensation for breach of contract for the period as from 10 July 2014 until 31 May 2018, since the Claimant/Counter-Respondent has been able to fully mitigate his damages for said time period. 36. However, the members of the Chamber noted that as from the termination of the employment contract on 14 May 2014 until the signature of his new employment contract on 10 July 2014 with Club E, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent remained unemployed and, therefore, decided that he should be entitled to receive compensation for this specific period of time. 37. In accordance with the employment contract at the basis of the present dispute, as from 14 May 2014 until 10 July 2014, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was entitled to receive the instalment of EUR 87,500 that fell due on 31 May 2014 as well as 2 monthly rent allowances of EUR 2,500 each, which all add up to the amount of EUR 92,500. 38. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is liable to pay compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 92,500 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. 39. In addition, taking into account the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s request, the Chamber decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant must pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of compensation as of the date on which the claim was lodged, i.e. 13 June 2014, until the date of effective payment. 40. In addition, 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/Counter-Respondent’s request relating to legal expenses. 41. The members of the Chamber concluded their deliberations by rejecting any further claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Player A, is partially accepted. 2. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club C, is rejected. 3. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 7,699 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 14 May 2014 until the date of effective payment. 4. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 92,500 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 13 June 2014 until the date of effective payment. 5. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent are not paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 6. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is rejected. 7. 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 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)