F.I.F.A. – Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2015-2016) – controversie tra società – ———- F.I.F.A. – Players’ Status Committee (2015-2016) – club vs. club disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed on 29 July 2015 by Mr Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club, Club A, Country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, Country D as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties in connection with overdue payables

F.I.F.A. - Commissione per lo Status dei Calciatori (2015-2016) – controversie tra società – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Players’ Status Committee (2015-2016) – club vs. club disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed on 29 July 2015 by Mr Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club, Club A, Country B as Claimant against the club, Club C, Country D as Respondent regarding a contractual dispute between the parties in connection with overdue payables I. Facts of the case 1. On 4 July 2014, the Club of Country B, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent) signed a loan agreement regarding the loan of the Player E (hereinafter: the player) from the Claimant to the Respondent. 2. In accordance with the loan agreement, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant the total amount of EUR 1,070,000 in three instalments: - EUR 435,000 payable after receipt of the International Transfer Certificate (ITC); - EUR 335,000 payable within 15 November 2014; - EUR 300,000 payable within 15 March 2015. 3. According to the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the player’s ITC was received by the Football Federation of Country D on 17 July 2014. 4. By correspondence dated 21 April 2015, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the total transfer fee of EUR 1,070,000 setting a time limit of 15 business days in order to remedy the default. 5. By correspondence dated 5 May 2015, the Claimant once again put the Respondent in default of payment of the total transfer fee setting a time limit expiring on 15 May 2015 in order to remedy the default. 6. On 8 June 2015, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA requesting that the Respondent be ordered to pay overdue payables in the amount of EUR 1,070,000, corresponding to the total transfer fee. 7. The Claimant further asked to be awarded interest as from the dates the instalments fell due as well as EUR 20,000 in legal costs. 8. In spite of having been invited to do so, the Respondent did not reply to the claim. II. Considerations of the Single Judge of the Player’s Status Committee 1. First of all, the Single Judge of the Player’s Status Committee (hereinafter: the Single 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 8 June 2015. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2015; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the Single Judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 and par. 3 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. f) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015) he is competent to deal with the present matter, which concerns a dispute between two clubs affiliated to different associations. 3. Furthermore, the Single 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 (edition 2015), and reiterating that the present claim was lodged on 8 June 2015, the 2015 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the Single Judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the Single Judge entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Single Judge started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file. However, the Single 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 Single Judge acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent signed a loan agreement in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent the amount of EUR 1,070,000 in three instalments. 6. The Single Judge further acknowledged that the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, maintaining that the Respondent has overdue payables towards it in the total amount of EUR 1,070,000 corresponding to the total transfer fee. 7. In this context, the Single Judge took particular note of the fact that, on 21 April 2015, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the aforementioned amount, setting a time limit of 15 business days in order to remedy the default. On 5 May 2015, the Claimant once again put the Respondent in default setting a time limit expiring on 15 May 2015 in order to remedy the default. 8. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant had duly proceeded in accordance with art. 12bis par. 3 of the Regulations, which stipulates that the creditor (player or club) must have put the debtor club in default in writing and have granted a deadline of at least ten days for the debtor club to comply with its financial obligations. 9. Subsequently, the Single Judge took into account that the Respondent, for its part, failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant, in spite of having been invited to do so. In this way, the Single Judge considered that the Respondent renounced its right to defence and thus accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 10. As a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the Single Judge concurred that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules he shall take a decision upon the basis of the documents on file, in other words, upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant. 11. Having said this, the Single Judge reiterated that, in accordance with the loan agreement provided by the Claimant, the Respondent was obliged to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 1,070,000 as follows: - EUR 435,000 payable after receipt of the ITC; - EUR 335,000 payable within 15 November 2014; - EUR 300,000 payable within 15 March 2015. 12. Taking into account the documentation presented by the Claimant in support of its petition, the Single Judge concluded that the Claimant had substantiated its claim pertaining to overdue payables with sufficient documentary evidence. 13. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the Single Judge established that the Respondent failed to remit the amount of EUR 1,070,000 to the Claimant. 14. In addition, the Single Judge established that the Respondent had delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis. 15. Consequently, the Single Judge decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant overdue payables in the total amount of EUR 1,070,000. 16. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Players’ Status Committee, the Single Judge decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 1,070,000 as from the day after the due dates of the relevant instalments until the date of effective payment, whilst taking into account that the ITC of the player was issued on 17 July 2014. 17. As to the Claimant’s request for legal costs in the amount of EUR 20,000, the Single Judge rejected such request in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, which stipulates that no procedural compensation shall be awarded in proceedings in front of FIFA’s decision-making bodies. 18. In continuation, taking into account the consideration under number II./14. above, the Single Judge referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations which stipulates that any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis may be sanctioned in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations. 19. The Single Judge established that in virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations he has competence to impose sanctions on the Respondent. Bearing in mind that the Respondent did not reply to the claim of the Claimant and that the Respondent has previously been found to have neglected its contractual obligations, the Single Judge decided to impose a fine on the Respondent in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. c) of the Regulations. Furthermore, taking into consideration the amount due of EUR 1,070,000, the Single Judge regarded a fine amounting to CHF 60,000 as appropriate and hence decided to impose said fine on the Respondent. 20. In this connection, the Single Judge wished to highlight that a repeated offence will be considered as an aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty in accordance with art. 12bis par. 6 of the Regulations. 21. Finally, the Single Judge referred to art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in combination with art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to which in proceedings before the Players’ Status Committee including its Single Judge, costs in the maximum amount of CHF 25,000 are levied and which states that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and are normally to be paid by the unsuccessful party. 22. Taking into account that the responsibility of the failure to comply with the payment of the amounts as agreed in the loan agreement can entirely be attributed to the Respondent and that the Claimant has been the successful party, the Single Judge concluded that the Respondent has to bear the costs of the current proceedings before FIFA. According to Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. On that basis, the Single Judge held that the amount to be taken into consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 1,070,000. Consequently, the Single Judge concluded that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to CHF 25,000. 23. Considering the particular circumstances of the present matter, bearing in mind that the Respondent did not reply to the claim of the Claimant, the Single Judge determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of CHF 25,000 and concluded that said amount has to be paid by the Respondent in order to cover the costs of the present proceedings. ***** III. Decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club 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, overdue payables in the amount of EUR 1,070,000, plus default interest until the date of effective payment as follows: - 5% p.a. as of 18 July 2014 on the amount of EUR 435,000; - 5% p.a. as of 16 November 2014 on the amount of EUR 335,000; - 5% p.a. as of 16 March 2015 on the amount of EUR 300,000; 3. If the aforementioned amount plus interest is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, 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 Respondent is ordered to pay a fine in the amount of CHF 60,000. The fine is to be paid within 30 days of notification of the present decision to FIFA to the following bank account: UBS Zurich Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status) Clearing number 230 IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A 6. The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 25,000 is to be paid by the Respondent, within 30 days as from the notification of the present decision, as follows: a) The amount of CHF 5,000 by the Respondent to the Claimant. b) The amount of CHF 20,000 to FIFA to the above-mentioned bank account of FIFA (cf. point 5.). 7. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under point 2. and 6.a) are to be made and to notify the Single 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 Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee: Markus Kattner Deputy Secretary General Encl: CAS directives