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 12 May 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 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 12 May 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 arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 26 January 2013, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as of 1 February 2013 until 30 June 2014. 2. Pursuant to art. 3 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to a total remuneration of USD 334,900 payable in 17 monthly instalments of USD 19,700 “from 1.02.2013”. 3. On 22 May 2014, the Claimant requested the Respondent “to remunerate [his] two months’ salary in the amount of 35166 (thirty five thousand one hundred and sixty six) US Dollars”. 4. On 12 July 2014, the Respondent proceeded to the payment of the amount requested by the Claimant. 5. On 6 August 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, requesting the amount of USD 19,700, plus interest, as one monthly outstanding remuneration, as well as the reimbursement of the procedural costs. 6. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent asserts that it complied with all its contractual obligations. First, the Respondent outlines that it paid the amount requested by the Claimant in its correspondence dated 22 May 2014. In addition, the Respondent points out that if the Claimant had considered that a salary remained outstanding, he would have put it in default, which he did not. 7. In his replica, the Claimant highlights that the correspondence sent on 22 May 2014 only makes reference to two monthly salaries without further indication. In this regard, the Claimant asserts that it can only be interpreted as referring to the salaries for April and May 2014, since the salary for June 2014 had not fallen due yet. In addition, the Claimant stresses that it is precisely because the salary for June 2014 was still to fall due that the aforementioned correspondence does not indicate that the payment of the two salaries would be made as final settlement. 8. In its final comments, the Respondent alleges that the Claimant failed to prove the origin of the debt that he is claiming. Moreover, the Respondent emphasises that it paid the Claimant USD 6,000 for his rent. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First, the DRC judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the DRC judge took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 6 August 2014. Consequently, the 2014 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is 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 3 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015), he is competent to decide on the present litigation, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player from country B and an club from country D. 3. Moreover, 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 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 (edition 2015), and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 6 August 2014, the 2014 edition of said Regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the present matter 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 doing so, he started by acknowledging the abovementioned facts of the case as well as the documentation contained in the file. However, the DRC judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to facts, arguments and documentary evidence which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. 6. In this respect, the DRC judge acknowledged that the parties had signed an employment contract on 26 January 2013, valid until 30 June 2014 and in accordance with which the player was entitled to receive a monthly salary of USD 19,700 “from 1.02.2013”. 7. In continuation, the DRC judge noted that the Claimant alleged that the Respondent had failed to pay the outstanding amount of USD 19,700 corresponding to his salary for June 2014. 8. Equally, the DRC judge took note of the position of the Respondent, which asserted that on 12 July 2014, it had paid the amounts requested by the Claimant on 22 May 2014, which included the salary for June 2014. 9. In this respect, the DRC judge recalled 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. 10. In continuation, the DRC judge pointed out that in accordance with the wording of art. 3 of the contract, the salary fell due on the first day of the month for which it was due. 11. Considering the foregoing, the DRC judge deemed it crucial to outline that when the Claimant put the Respondent in default, i.e. on 22 May 2014, the salary for June 2014 had not fallen due yet. In view of this, the DRC judge held that the two monthly salaries mentioned in the Claimant’s default notice can only refer to salaries having fallen due prior to 22 May 2014. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the Respondent, which explicitly acknowledged that the salaries paid on 12 July 2014 corresponded to the salaries claimed by the Claimant on 22 May 2014, implicitly recognised not having paid the Claimant’s salary for June 2014. 12. In view of the above, the DRC judge concluded that the Respondent has not provided evidence of its defence and that, therefore, it could be established that the Respondent had failed to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 19,700. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent must fulfil its obligations as per the contract concluded with the Claimant and, consequently, is to be held liable to pay the outstanding amount of USD 19,700 to the Claimant. 13. In addition, and with regard to the Claimant’s request for interest, the Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 6 August 2014 until the date of effective payment. 14. Moreover, the Chamber rejected any claim for procedural compensation in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the Chamber’s respective longstanding jurisprudence in this regard. 15. Finally, the DRC judge concluded his deliberations in the present matter by establishing 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 USD 19,700 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 6 August 2014 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the amount plus interest due to the Claimant in accordance with the above-mentioned point 2 is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA 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 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: Markus Kattner Acting Secretary General Encl. CAS directives