F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2014-2015) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2014-2015) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 19 February 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), 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 (2014-2015) - controversie di lavoro – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2014-2015) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 19 February 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), 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 17 August 2010, Player A from country B (hereinafter: player or Claimant) and Club C from country D (hereinafter: club or Respondent) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: contract), valid as from 17 August 2010 until 1 June 2011. 2. According to the contract, the player was entitled to receive a monthly fee of EUR 300 in cash. 3. On 17 August 2010, the player and the club further signed an annex to the contract (hereinafter: annex), according to which the player was entitled to receive the amount of EUR 15,000, payable as follows: (1) EUR 3,000 immediately upon the signing of the contract and (2) EUR 12,000 in ten monthly instalments of EUR 1,200 each. 4. On 2 January 2012, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA, maintaining that the club failed to pay the total amount of EUR 9,100, based on the contract and the annex, in spite of having put the club in default. 5. Therefore, the player asks that the club be ordered to pay the total amount of EUR 9,100, plus 5% annual interest as from 1 June 2011 until the date of payment. 6. The player states that he spent 10 months at the club and that he therefore was entitled to receive EUR 3,000 based on the contract. 7. According to the player, he was entitled to receive the total amount of EUR 18,000, throughout the contractual duration, but the club had only paid him the amount of EUR 8,900. 8. The club alleges in reaction to the claim of the player that it is not obliged to pay the amount of EUR 9,100, since it has fulfilled all its contractual obligations towards the player. The club states that three monthly salaries were reduced by 50% due to fines, pension fund contributions and health insurance contributions. 9. According to the club, the fines were based on article 2 of the contract, and it presented receipts of salaries and housing allowances paid to the player. 10. In his replica, the player states that the club never delivered the disciplinary regulations to him, that the fines were unilaterally imposed and without his knowledge deducted from his salary and that he had had no possibility to defend his case, which led him to conclude that the disciplinary decisions of the club are void. 11. The player further states that the club presented receipts relating to accommodation and food allowance as receipts for salary payments and some of the payment receipts for salary twice. In this regard, the player explains that he sometimes had to sign two separate documents for one salary payment. 12. The documents presented by the club in support of its position led the player to conclude that the club only paid him the amount of EUR 8,190 for salaries. The player therefore amended his claim to the total amount of EUR 9,810, with 5% interest p.a. as from the due dates of the respective amounts. 13. In spite of having been invited to do so, the club has not reacted to the replica of the player. 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 2 January 2012. Consequently, the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 1 and par. 2 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 2014) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is 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. Furthermore, 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 2014), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 2 January 2012, the 2010 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. 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. 5. In this respect, taking into account the claim of the Claimant, as well as the reply of the Respondent, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that the following two questions needed to be addressed: i) Can the fines that were imposed by the Respondent on the Claimant as well as the other items that the Respondent considers to be deductible from the Claimant’s alleged outstanding receivables be taken into consideration? ii) Which evidence of payments made to the Claimant was presented by the Respondent in its defence? 6. In this context, the Chamber 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. 7. Turning to the first question, the Chamber analysed the various fines imposed by the Respondent on the Claimant due to his alleged poor performance during a match and for allegedly breaching work discipline, as well as poor performance of the team in general. 8. In this context, the Chamber concurred that the fines imposed on the Claimant by the Respondent shall be disregarded, since a) a fine based on bad sporting performances cannot be considered valid, b) the Claimant does not appear to have had the possibility to defend his case and c) the fines imposed on the Claimant by the Respondent must be considered disproportionate. 9. As regards further deductions which the Respondent relies on in its defence, i.e., pension fund and health insurance contributions, the Chamber noted that the Respondent had not presented any documentation corroborating that it was entitled to make such deductions. Consequently, the members of the Chamber decided to also reject this argument of the Respondent. 10. Consequently, the Chamber concurred that the Respondent’s aforementioned arguments do not constitute a valid reason not to pay the Claimant’s salary in full. 11. Turning to the second question, and with due consideration to the above, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant stated not having received his contractual payables in full, whereas the Respondent considers that it fulfilled all its contractual obligations towards the Claimant. 12. After careful consideration of the payment receipts presented by the Respondent in its defence, the Chamber noted that the Respondent had provided evidence of salary payments totalling EUR 9,390. 13. In view of all of the above, the Chamber established that the Respondent had failed to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 8,610 out of the full amount of EUR 18,000 as agreed upon between the parties in the agreement dated 17 August 2010 and the annex belonging to this agreement. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent must fulfil its obligations as per employment agreement and the annex concluded with the Claimant and, consequently, is to be held liable to pay the outstanding amount of EUR 8,610 to the Claimant. 14. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request for interest as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 8,610 as from 1 June 2011 until the date of effective payment. 15. Finally, the Chamber concluded his deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player 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, the amount of EUR 8,610 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2011 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the stated time limit, 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 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: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives