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 13 January 2016, 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 on 13 January 2016, 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 27 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 the date of its signature until 31 July 2014 and whereby the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent a monthly salary of USD 7,500. 2. On 23 June 2015, the Claimant started a proceeding against the Respondent in front of FIFA requesting the amount of USD 15,000 as outstanding salaries of June and July 2014 in accordance with the contract. 3. On 26 July 2015, the Respondent made a proposal to the Claimant to pay the outstanding remuneration in three equal payments of USD 5,000 payable on 1 August, 1 September and 1 October 2015. 4. On 3 September 2015, the Claimant informed FIFA that he had accepted the Respondent’s proposal and acknowledged having received the first payment. 5. By correspondence dated 16 November 2015, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of USD 10,000 as per the payments due on 1 September and 1 October 2015 in accordance with the proposal setting a time limit of 10 days in order to remedy the default. 6. On 29 October 2015, and completed on 26 November 2015, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent requesting the amount of USD 10,000 corresponding to the second and third payments as per the proposal plus interests. 7. In reply to the claim, the Respondent held that “we are ready to pay the specified sum, but our circumstances are very difficult in the present time, and we hope you give us an additional six months in the hope of improving our conditions and paying our debts”. 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 October 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 October 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, the DRC judge acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent signed an employment contract valid from 27 January 2014 until 31 July 2014, in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent, inter alia, a monthly salary of USD 7,500. 6. Furthermore, the DRC judge took note that, on 26 July 2015, the Respondent made a proposal to the Claimant to pay him USD 15,000 as outstanding remuneration in 3 equal payments of USD 5,000 payable on 1 August, 1 September and 1 October 2015, which was accepted by the Claimant on 3 September 2015. 7. As the Respondent apparently paid only one out of the three instalments, 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 USD 10,000 corresponding to the second and third payments as per the proposal. 8. In this context, the DRC judge took particular note of the fact that, on 16 November 2015, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the aforementioned amount, setting a time limit of 10 days in order to remedy the default. 9. 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). 10. Subsequently, the DRC judge took into account that the Respondent, for its part, raised financial difficulties in order to justify the non-payment of the due amounts. 11. In this regard, the DRC judge considered that the argument raised by the Respondent cannot be considered a valid reason for non-payment of the monies claimed by the Claimant, in order words, the reasons brought forward by the Respondent in its defence do not exempt the Respondent from its obligation to fulfil its contractual obligations towards the Claimant. Along these lines, the DRC judge wished to emphasise that it was the Respondent itself which offered to make the payments of the amounts due to the Claimant in accordance with the proposal. 12. Consequently, the DRC judge decided to reject the argumentation put forward by the Respondent in its defence. 13. 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 USD 10,000 corresponding to the second and third payments in accordance with the proposal. 14. 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. 15. 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 USD 10,000. 16. Furthermore, taking into account the Claimant’s request, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 10,000 as from 29 October 2015 until the date of effective payment. 17. In continuation, taking into account the consideration under number II./14. 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. 18. Along these lines, the DRC judge established that by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations, he has competence to impose sanctions on the Respondent. Bearing in mind that the Respondent 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. 19. 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 USD 10,000 plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as from 29 October 2015 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant 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: Markus Kattner Acting Secretary General Encl: CAS directives