F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) – debiti scaduti – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) – overdue payables – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed on 18 November 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 in connection with overdue payables

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) – debiti scaduti – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) – overdue payables – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed on 18 November 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 in connection with overdue payables I. Facts of the case 1. On 31 January 2014, the Player of Country B, Player A (hereinafter: Claimant), and the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: Respondent) signed an employment contract valid as from 31 January 2014 until 31 May 2015. 2. In accordance with the employment contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant remuneration of EUR 10,000 on a monthly basis. 3. By correspondence dated 15 September 2015, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the total amount of EUR 15,000, i.e. EUR 5,000 relating to the balance of the April 2015 salary and EUR 10,000 for the May 2015 salary, setting a time limit expiring on 25 September 2015 in order to remedy the default. 4. On 29 September 2015, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA asking that the Respondent be ordered to pay to him overdue payables in the amount of EUR 15,000 corresponding to his salary for April 2015 (EUR 5,000) and for May 2015 (EUR 10,000). 5. The Claimant further asks to be awarded interest of 5% p.a. as of 1 May 2015 on the amount of EUR 5,000 and as of 1 June 2015 on the amount of EUR 10,000. 6. In reply to the claim, the Respondent pointed out that it had orally agreed with the Claimant to terminate the contract without paying the outstanding balance and emphasised that it wished to settle this matter amicably. 7. Until the date of the present decision, no settlement agreement has been reached between the parties, in spite of FIFA’s indication to inform the DRC administration of any amicable settlement between the parties within 5 days of FIFA’s latest correspondence of 11 November 2015. 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 29 September 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 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. Furthermore, the DRC 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 considering that the present claim was lodged on 29 September 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 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 on file. 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. 5. Having said this, DRC judge acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent signed an employment contract valid as from 31 January 2014 until 31 May 2015, in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent monthly remuneration of EUR 10,000. 6. The Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, maintaining that the Respondent has overdue payables towards him in the total amount of EUR 15,000 corresponding to 50% of the April 2015 remuneration and the full instalment of EUR 10,000 for May 2015. 7. In this context, the DRC judge took particular note of the fact that, on 15 September 2015, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the aforementioned amounts, setting a time limit expiring on 25 September 2015 in order to remedy the default. 8. Consequently, the DRC 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 obligation(s). 9. Subsequently, the DRC judge took into account that the Respondent, for its part, refers to an alleged oral agreement with the Claimant and indicated that it wished to settle the matter amicably. 10. In this regard, the DRC judge highlighted that no amicable agreement had been reached between the parties and considered that the argument raised by the Respondent was not corroborated with any documentary evidence in accordance with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules. 11. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC judge established that the Respondent failed to remit the Claimant’s remuneration in the total amount of EUR 15,000 corresponding to 50% of the April 2015 salary in the amount of EUR 5,000 and the full May 2015 salary of EUR 10,000. 12. In addition, the DRC judge established that the Respondent had delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis. 13. Consequently, the DRC 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 15,000. 14. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on each of the relevant payments, as of the day following the day on which the relevant payments fell due, until the date of effective payment. 15. In continuation, taking into account the consideration under number II./12. above, the DRC 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. 16. The DRC 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 duly replied to the claim of the Claimant and in the absence of the circumstance of repeated offence, the DRC judge decided to impose a warning on the Respondent in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. a) of the Regulations. 17. In this respect, the DRC 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. 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 this decision, overdue payables in the amount of EUR 15,000, plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows: a. 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 5,000 as from 1 May 2015; b. 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 10,000 as from 1 June 2015. 3. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant, plus interest, 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. 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. 5. A warning is imposed on the Respondent. ***** 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 DRC judge: Marco Villiger Acting Deputy Secretary General Encl: CAS directives