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 in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 November 2015, by Philippe Diallo (France), 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 in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 November 2015, by Philippe Diallo (France), 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 2 February 2015, the Player of Country B, Player A (hereinafter: Claimant), and the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: Respondent) signed an agreement on the termination of the employment contract (hereinafter: termination agreement) that was previously concluded between the parties on 8 August 2014 and valid until 31 May 2016. 2. The termination agreement stipulates that “We hereby waive that we have received all of our rights and claims in accordance with the contracts/ Football Federation of Country D Professional Player Contract, which has been registered by 02.02.2015 and there is no outstanding amount due to us, except my outstanding for the period 01.02.2015- 31.05.2015, we hereby waive by 02.02.2015 from any of our future rights and claims, as well as any salary, minimum net fee, premium, severance and notice pay, bonuses transfer fee, transfer installment, match fee and any other fees that may as from the date 02.02.2015, and we hereby release each other from any other obligation, and we acknowledge and agree that any disputes that may arise due to the contract in question in the future, we shall not take an further action before the Football Federation of Country D Dispute Resolution Chamber/ Arbitration Board-FIFA, … “. 3. In addition, on 2 February 2015, the Claimant and the Respondent signed a document referred to as “payment agreement” (hereinafter: payment agreement), which refers to the mutual termination of the employment contract on 2 February 2015 and which stipulates that the Claimant received all his payables accrued until 2 February 2015. 4. In accordance with the payment agreement, due to the termination of the employment contract, the club undertook to pay EUR 40,000 to the player for the period between 1 February 2015 and 31 May 2015 as follows: a. EUR 10,000 on 28 February 2015 b. EUR 10,000 on 31 March 2015 c. EUR 10,000 on 30 April 2015 d. EUR 10,000 on 31 May 2015 5. On 16 September 2015, the player put the club in default of payment of the amount of EUR 40,000 setting 28 September 2015 as the time limit for the club to remedy the default. 6. On 29 September 2015, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent before FIFA asking to be awarded payment of the total amount of EUR 40,000 plus interest of 5% p.a. as of the day following the respective due dates of the aforementioned instalments. 7. In reply to the claim, the Respondent acknowledged that due to the termination of the employment contract it agreed to pay compensation to the Claimant until he would find a new club. According to the Respondent, as can be understood from the termination agreement, the purpose of this payment was to compensate the time frame until the Claimant would be transferred to a new club. 8. The Respondent further held that the Claimant immediately transferred to a new club after the termination agreement. Therefore, the Respondent deems that, since the Claimant found a new club, he was not in need of any compensation payment. 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, on 2 February 2015, the Claimant and the Respondent mutually terminated their employment relation, which originally was to run until 31 May 2016, in writing. On the same day, the Claimant and the Respondent signed a payment agreement, in accordance with which, as a result of the termination of the employment contract, the Respondent undertook to pay the amount of EUR 40,000 in four instalments to the Claimant for the period between 1 February 2015 and 31 May 2015. 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 40,000 corresponding to the amount set forth in the payment agreement. 7. In this context, the DRC judge took particular note of the fact that, on 16 September 2015, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the aforementioned amount, setting a time limit expiring on 28 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, alleges that it was, in fact, agreed upon between the parties that the amount of EUR 40,000 was payable as compensation until the Claimant would find a new club. According to the Respondent, given that the Claimant immediately transferred to another club, he is not entitled to such compensation. 10. In this regard, the DRC judge highlighted 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. In addition, the DRC judge pointed out that the terms of the payment agreement, and of the termination agreement, for that matter, are clear and do not include any such condition as referred to by the Respondent. 11. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC judge established that the Respondent failed to remit the Claimant’s receivables in the amount of EUR 40,000 in accordance with the payment agreement. 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 amount of EUR 40,000. 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. as of the day following the day on which each of the four instalments of EUR 10,000 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. In this context, the DRC judge highlighted that, on 18 November 2015, the Respondent had already been found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis and with the Respondent having responded to the relevant claim, as a result of which a warning had been imposed on the Respondent by the DRC judge. 17. Moreover, the DRC judge referred to art. 12bis par. 6 of the Regulations, which establishes that a repeated offence will be considered as an aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty. 18. Bearing in mind that the Respondent has replied to the claim of the Claimant as well as the consideration under number II./16. above, the DRC judge decided to impose a reprimand on the Respondent in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. b) 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 40,000, 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 10,000 as from 1 March 2015; b. 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 10,000 as from 1 April 2015; c. 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 10,000 as from 1 May 2015; d. 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 reprimand 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: Markus Kattner Acting Secretary General Encl: CAS directives