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, Country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, Country D as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute 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, Country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, Country D as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 23 February 2012, the Club of Country E, Club F, and the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded a loan agreement (hereinafter: the loan agreement) for the temporary transfer of the Player of Country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant), from Club F to the Respondent for a loan fee of EUR 900,000. 2. According to clause 2 of the loan agreement, “The loan period shall start as from the date of the signature of the present Contract and shall expire on 31 December 2012”. 3. Moreover, according to clause 5 of the loan agreement, “the club shall have the option to purchase the sportive performance rights of the player on a definitive basis, whereas such purchase option shall be duly and officially communicated to the former club by no later than 31 December 2012”. 4. On 24 February 2012, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as follows: “the term of this contract is for two season(s), and shall commence on 24.02.2012 and shall continue until the end of 2013 Super League of Country D, unless earlier terminated in pursuance to this Contract”. 5. In accordance with the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive a monthly salary of EUR 45,000, payable until the 12th day of each month, for the 2012 season. 6. In addition, according to clause 24 of the contract, “In 10 working days after the end of 2012 season (Super League of Country D and Football Federation of Country D Cup matches), [the Respondent] have right to terminate this contract with [the Claimant] without any compensation. [The Respondent] also will not pay to [the Claimant] the rest salary”. 7. On 15 August 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA maintaining that the Respondent failed to pay his salary for November and December 2012 in the amount of EUR 45,000 each. Therefore, he requested that the Respondent be ordered to pay the total amount of EUR 90,000, plus 4% interest p.a. as from the due dates. 8. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent rejected the player’s claim. 9. According to the Respondent, the contract signed with the Claimant was valid only from February 2012 until the end of the 2012 Super League of Country D Season, which according to the Respondent finished on 3 November 2012. In addition, the Respondent stated that after the season ended, the Claimant went to Country B. 10. The Respondent declared that after not reaching an agreement with Club F regarding the extension of the loan agreement, the player was sent back to Club F. Furthermore, the Respondent argued that the Claimant’s claim was unreasonable, as according to the Respondent, the contract was valid only until the end of the 2012 season, and therefore, it only accepted to pay for 3 days of November 2012, amounting to a total of EUR 4,500. 11. In his replica, the Claimant stressed that the club explicitly recognized not having paid the November and December 2012 salaries. 12. The Claimant argued that the Respondent was responsible for the payment of the salaries until 31 December 2012, referring to the loan agreement signed by the Respondent and Club F, which established that the loan period shall start as from the date of signature (23 February 2012) and shall expire on 31 December 2012. 13. Finally, the Claimant rejected the Respondent’s offer to pay the salary for three days of November. 14. 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 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 15 August 2013. 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 2012, 2014 and 2015 editions 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 of Country B and a Club of Country D. 3. In particular, and in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 lit. i) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the DRC judge confirmed that he may adjudicate in the present dispute which value does not exceed CHF 100,000. 4. Furthermore, the DRC judge 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, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2012, 2014 and 2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 15 August 2013, the 2012 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 5. 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. 6. First of all, the DRC judge acknowledged that, on 23 February 2012, the Respondent and Club F concluded a loan agreement for the temporary transfer of the Claimant, valid from the date of the signature until 31 December 2012. Furthermore, the DRC judge noted that the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an employment contract valid as from 24 February 2012 until “the end of the 2013 Super League of Country D”, according to which the Claimant was entitled to a monthly salary of EUR 45,000. 7. Having said this, the DRC judge took note of the position of the Claimant, who stressed that the Respondent failed to pay him the salary of November 2012 and December 2012. 8. In this regard, the DRC judge observed that the Claimant argued that the Respondent was responsible for the payment of the salaries until 31 December 2012, while referring to the loan agreement the Respondent had concluded with Club F, and which ran from 23 February 2012 until 31 December 2012. 9. The DRC judge further noticed that, on its part, the Respondent rejected the claim since, according to the Respondent, the contract signed with the Claimant was valid only from February 2012 until the end of the 2012 Super League of Country D, which according to the Respondent, ended on 3 November 2012. 10. It was also taken into account by the DRC judge that the Respondent pointed out that it could not reach an agreement with Club F regarding the extension of the loan agreement. Furthermore, it was noted by the DRC judge that the Respondent offered to pay to the Claimant three days of the salary of November 2012, and said offer was rejected by the Claimant. 11. At this point, the DRC judge wished to recall the general legal principle set forth in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules which stipulates that any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. In casu, the Respondent bears the burden to prove that the contract with the Claimant was valid only until 3 November 2012. 12. In this respect, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent did not substantiate its defence, as it did not present any evidence in support of its claim. 13. In view of the foregoing, the DRC judge deemed it important to highlight that, after a careful study of the documentation on file in the matter at hand, the DRC judge concluded that the Respondent and Club F agreed on the temporary transfer of the Claimant, until 31 December 2012. Furthermore, the DRC judge observed that the Claimant was also a party to this loan agreement. 14. Moreover, the DRC judge took into consideration that the employment contract provided by the player stipulated that “the term of this contract is for two season(s), and shall commence on 24.02.2012 and shall continue until the end of 2013 Super League of Country D…”. 15. With the above-mentioned considerations in mind, the DRC judge was of the opinion that the Respondent did not provide any kind of evidence in support of its defence and that, therefore, it could not be established that the obligations of the Respondent towards the Claimant had ceased on 3 November 2012. As a consequence, the DRC judge referred to the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, according to which the Respondent must fulfil its obligations as per the employment contract concluded with the Claimant and hence, is to be held liable to pay to the Claimant the outstanding amount of EUR 90,000. 16. Finally, with regard to the claimed interests, the DRC judge noted that, according to the contract, the monthly salaries were to be paid until the 12th day of the respective month. Consequently, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent had to pay interest, as requested, at a rate of 4% p.a. over the amount of EUR 45,000 as from 12 November 2012 until the date of effective payment and 4% p.a. over the amount of EUR 45,000 as from 12 December 2012 until the date of effective payment. III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 90,000. 3. Within the same deadline, the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant interest as follows: - 4% p.a. over the amount of EUR 45,000 as from 12 November 2012 until the date of effective payment; - 4% p.a. over the amount of EUR 45,000 as from 12 December 2012 until the date of effective payment. 4. In the event that the amount plus interest due to the Claimant 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. 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 art. 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