F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 23 July 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member John Bramhall (England), member 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 (2015-2016) - controversie di lavoro - ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 23 July 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member John Bramhall (England), member 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 21 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 from the date of the signature until 30 June 2013. 2. Article 9 of the contract established that “All disputes between the parties are settled by the Appeals Committee for the Resolution of Financial Disputes (PEEOD) at first instance and, the Court of Arbitration of the Football Federation from country D at second instance” 3. On the same date, i.e. 21 January 2013, the parties signed an “Agreement” valid for the same period as the contract, establishing inter alia that the club was obliged to provide the player with “1 round trip air ticket, business class, having country B as the destination city, with max cost the amount of 3.000€. It is underlined that this ticket is additional to the Player’s round trip air ticket by which the Player travelled to country D on 27.12.2012.” (hereinafter: the Agreement). 4. The Agreement does not contain a jurisdiction clause. 5. On 3 February 2015, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent, claiming the payment of the amount of EUR 7,436, regarding flight tickets. 6. According to the Claimant, he was entitled to be reimbursed for one round trip business class flight ticket between country B and country D as well as EUR 3,000 to cover the cost for another round trip flight ticket. 7. In this respect, the Claimant submitted a copy of the “invoice” he issued on 23 February 2013 in the total amount of EUR 7,436, specified by the player as follows: a) EUR 4,436 (“air ticket for the player”) regarding a trip from country B to country D on 27 December 2012 and from country D to country B on 27 June 2013. In this respect, the Claimant submitted a document issued by a travel agency in his name on 22 December 2012, in the amount of 495,300. b) EUR 3,000 (“air ticket for the wife and children of player”) regarding a trip from country B to country D in March 2013 and from country D to country B in April 2013. In this respect, the Claimant submitted a receipt dated 21 January 2013 in the amount of 523,840 regarding an air ticket fee in the name of the Respondent. 8. The Claimant further submitted emails exchanged with the Respondent regarding the reimbursement of the flight tickets. 9. The Claimant pointed out that the reimbursement and payment of the flight tickets could have been made by the Respondent until the end of the contractual period, i.e. 30 June 2013. 10. The Respondent submitted its position and, on a preliminary basis, challenged the competence of the DRC to decide on the present matter based on article 9 of the contract. In this respect, the Respondent held that the parties agreed on the competence of the arbitration tribunal within the Football Federation from country D, which is an independent arbitration tribunal that guarantees fair proceedings, making reference to jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration of Sport. 11. In continuation, the Respondent held that the claim is time-barred, considering that the first flight ticket was issued on 22 December 2012 and the second flight ticket requested is based on the Agreement concluded on 21 January 2013. 12. In addition, the Respondent pointed out that the contract and the Agreement established the obligation of the Respondent to provide flight tickets to the Claimant and not to his family members. Moreover, the Respondent held that it had to provide the flight ticket to the Claimant upon request and not to reimburse him. 13. The Respondent held that a flight ticket, business class, to country B would cost EUR 2,115.88 and it submitted a price simulation of a flight ticket extracted from the internet in this amount. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, 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 3 February 2015. 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 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 par. 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015) the Dispute Resolution Chamber would, in principle, be 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. 3. However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent contested the competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of article 9 of the contract. 4. The members of the Chamber took into account that the flight tickets claimed by the Claimant are established in the Agreement, while the contract does not contain any clause regarding flight tickets. 5. While analysing whether it was competent to hear the present matter, first and foremost, the Chamber deemed it of utmost importance to recall that the Agreement does not contain any arbitration or jurisdiction clause. 6. In view of all the above and considering that the contractual basis of the claim is the Agreement, the Chamber established that the Respondent’s objection to the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter on the basis of article 9 of the contract has to be rejected. 7. On account of the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber established that it is competent, on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, to consider the present matter as to the substance. 8. The Chamber then reverted to the argument of the Respondent, according to whom the present matter is barred by the statute of limitations considering the date of issuance of one flight ticket, i.e. 22 December 2012, and the date of the signature of the Agreement, which established the entitlement to flight tickets, i.e. 21 January 2013. 9. In this regard, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, according to which, inter alia, the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall not hear any case subject to the said Regulations if more than two years have elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute. 10. In this respect, the members of the DRC took note that, on the one hand, the present claim was lodged in front of the DRC on 3 February 2015. On the other hand, the flight tickets were contractually agreed upon in the Agreement, which was signed on 21 January 2013 and valid until 30 June 2013.The DRC highlighted that the Agreement does not establish a due date for the payment of the flight tickets and therefore, concluded that the flight tickets were payable the latest until expiry of the Agreement, i.e. 30 June 2013. 11. Taking into account all the above, the members of the Chamber had to reject the respective argument of the Respondent and confirmed that the present petition was lodged in front of the DRC within said two years’ period of time. The matter is, thus, not barred by the statute of limitations in accordance with art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. 12. In continuation, 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 (edition 2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 3 February 2015, the 2014 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 13. 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. 14. As to the substance of the matter, the Chamber acknowledged that the parties had signed the contract and the Agreement, both valid from 21 January 2013 until 30 June 2013. 15. In continuation, the members of the DRC took note that the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent related to the payment of flight tickets. 16. In this context, the DRC recalled that the flight tickets were foreseen solely in the Agreement, which therefore, constitutes the contractual basis of the present matter. 17. In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant requested the total amount of EUR 7,436 regarding two round trip flight tickets. In particular, the DRC recalled that the Claimant detailed his claim explaining that the amount claimed was composed of the following: a. one round trip flight ticket for the Claimant in the amount of EUR 4,436; and b. one round trip flight ticket for the wife and children of the Claimant in the amount of EUR 3,000. 18. On the other hand, the DRC considered that the Respondent rejected the claim, stating that the player was entitled to receive only one round trip flight ticket for himself, but that, in any case, the Respondent had the obligation to buy the flight ticket and not to reimburse the Claimant. Finally, the Respondent alleged that a flight ticket to country B would cost much less than the amount requested by the Claimant. 19. Considering the conflicting position of the parties, the Chamber proceeded to analyse the wording of the Agreement regarding flight tickets and took due note that the Claimant was entitled to one round trip business class flight ticket with a maximum cost of EUR 3,000 in addition to the flight ticket by means of which he travelled to country D to join the club. 20. Therefore, the DRC confirmed that the Claimant was indeed entitled to the flight ticket he apparently paid to travel to country D on 27 December 2012. In particular, the members of the DRC considered that the argument of the Respondent that it only had the obligation to buy the flight tickets, but not to reimburse the Claimant could not be sustained and had to be rejected. 21. Having established the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the amount claimed by the Claimant for the flight ticket by means of which he travelled to country D on 27 December 2012. In this regard, the Chamber highlighted that no maximum amount was specified for this ticket in the Agreement. 22. At this point, the DRC 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. 23. In this regard, the Chamber took into account that the Claimant submitted a document from a travel agency regarding said flight ticket, dated 22 December 2012, in the amount of 495,300. Furthermore, the DRC noted that the Respondent did not demonstrate having paid for this flight ticket. 24. On account of all the above, the DRC concluded that the Respondent had to reimburse the Claimant the amount of 495,300 in connection with the flight ticket by means of which the Claimant travelled to country D on 27 December 2012. 25. Subsequently, the DRC analysed the Claimant’s request for the reimbursement of the “air ticket for the wife and children of player” in the amount of EUR 3,000. 26. In this regard, the members of the DRC were eager to point out that the Agreement does not include any obligation of the Respondent to pay for flight tickets for the Claimant’s wife and/or children. 27. Therefore, the DRC considered that there is no contractual basis for this request and that, therefore, such request must be rejected. 28. The Chamber concluded by stating that any further claim of the Claimant is rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted. 3. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of 495,300, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision. 4. In the event that the aforementioned sum is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the aforementioned time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 6. 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber: Markus Kattner Acting Secretary General Encl. CAS directives