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 12 March 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member Santiago Nebot (Spain), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member on the matter involving the player, Player A, country B, as Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the club, Club C, country D, as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club E, country F as Intervening party 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 12 March 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member Santiago Nebot (Spain), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member on the matter involving the player, Player A, country B, as Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the club, Club C, country D, as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club E, country F as Intervening party regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 13 August 2011, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant / Counter-Respondent) and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent / Counter-Claimant), signed an employment contract (hereinafter the contract) valid as of the date of signature until 30 June 2015. In addition, on the same date, the parties concluded an additional agreement relating to additional payments to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 2. According to article 4.1 of the contract, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is to receive a monthly salary of 5,000. 3. Pursuant to article 4.2 of the contract, “[the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] can receive bonuses and other rewards according to the results of his activities”. 4. Article 4.8 of the contract stipulates that “[the Respondent / Counter-Claimant] carries out the taxes deductions from [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent]’s salary as well as the allocations for obligatory social insurance and medical insurance according to the valid legislation of country D”. 5. As per article 6.6.2 of the contract, “the sanctions in the amount of the currency of country D equivalent of 5 000 000 (five million) Euros is applied to [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] for early termination of the Contract, also the claims are made for reimbursement to [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant] of the amounts paid by it to [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent], losses (Art. 22 of the Civil Code of country D), including those that were carried by [the Respondent / CounterClaimant] for acquisition and payment for services if other footballer, connected with non-fulfilment by [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] of his obligations according to the Contract in result of his termination”. 6. Article 1 of the additional agreement provides for “the establishing and monthly payment to [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] in course of [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent]’s individual Contract with [the Respondent / CounterClaimant] validity term and under condition of [the Claimant / CounterRespondent]’s play for main squad of Premier League team of country D Club C (hereafter – Club C) of the personal extras to the salary in the following amounts:  22,600 (twenty two thousand and six hundred) Euro net – in course of the period starting from the beginning of validity term of this Agreement and till June 30 2012;  24,600 (twenty four thousand and six hundred) Euro net – in course of the period from July 1 2012 till June 30 2013;  26,600 (twenty six thousand and six hundred) Euro net – in course of the period from July 1 2013 till June 30 2014;  29,600 (twenty nine thousand and six hundred) Euro net – in course of the period from July 1 2014 till June 30 2015”. 7. Article 1.1. b) of the additional agreement sets forth a sign-on fee of EUR 100,000 payable by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to the Claimant / CounterRespondent within 10 working days following the receipt of the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) by the Football Federation of country D. The said article also states that “in case of early termination of [the Claimant / CounterRespondent]’s contract with [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant] on [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent]’s initiative (except the cases when such initiative will be expressed by [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] in course of last 6 months of the term of validity of individual Contract), the amount paid according to this paragraph is due to be returned on pro rata basis according to the amount of time played out by [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent], and are withdrawn by [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant] from the payments due to [the Claimant / CounterRespondent]”. 8. On 11, 13 and 16 June 2012, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent put the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in default regarding outstanding payments and training-related infringements. 9. On 18 June 2012, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated the contract with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in writing. 10. On 9 July 2012, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent lodged a claim before FIFA against the Respondent / Counter-Claimant for breach of contract, requesting the following:  7,000 as balance of salary for April and May 2012;  EUR 83,585 as outstanding “personal extras to the salary” for part of February 2012 and for March, April and May 2012, plus 5% interest p.a.;  185,000, plus EUR 992,000 as compensation corresponding to the residual value of the contract as from June 2012 until June 2015, plus 5% interest p.a.;  Sporting sanctions to be imposed on the Respondent / Counter-Claimant;  Legal costs to be borne by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. 11. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent first of all alleges that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not comply with its contractual obligation of payment. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent states that by the time he terminated the contract, he should have received the following amounts:  50,000 as total salary from August 2011 until May 2012;  EUR 235,600 corresponding to EUR 100,000 as sign-on fee and EUR 135,600 as total “personal extras to the salary” from December 2011 until May 2012. 12. However, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent sustains having only received – “in cash, with recipes, copy of which [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant] always refused to provide” – the below listed amounts:  EUR 100,000 corresponding to the sign-on fee, i.e. EUR 24,000 paid in August 2011 and EUR 76,000 paid in December 2011;  35,000 as total salary from August 2011 until February 2012;  EUR 1,460 in September 2011;  EUR 1,428 in October 2011;  EUR 3,570 in November 2011;  EUR 23,000 in December 2011;  EUR 11,363 in January 2012;  EUR 11,194 in February 2012. 13. Moreover, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent alleges that, from June 2012, he was compelled to train on his own and was deprived of the minimum conditions in order to practice professional football. In particular, the Claimant / CounterRespondent states that on 13 June 2012, he had to train alone in the absence of the coach. 14. In its statement of defence, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant first of all points to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s insufficient physical condition to play with the first team. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant provided a medical report dated 19 January 2011 from its doctor and further documentation stressing the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s alleged overweight over the first 6 months. 15. Despite the alleged unsatisfactory physical condition of the Claimant / CounterRespondent, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant underlines that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was fielded with the first team for several matches, i.e. on 10 December 2011 against Club G, on 3 March 2012 against Club H, on 11 March 2012 against Club I, on 19 March 2012 against Club J, on 25 March 2012 against Club K and on 31 March 2012 against Club L. 16. However, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant states that, after the summer break, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was still not fit enough to follow the intensive training program and consequently, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant decided to prescribe the Claimant / Counter-Respondent with a specific training program, apart from his teammates. In this respect, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant submitted a correspondence dated 9 June 2012 from the coach to the Respondent / CounterClaimant’s director relating the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s unsatisfactory physical condition and the measures to be taken in this respect. 17. With regard to the outstanding payments, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant asserts having paid the Claimant / Counter-Respondent the amount of EUR 100,011.47 corresponding to the sign-on fee as well as the Claimant / CounterRespondent’s salary of 5,000 – after deducting taxes and social security as set forth in art. 4.8 of the contract – in cash since the Claimant / Counter-Respondent apparently had no Ukrainian bank account. 18. As for “the two months he was fielded with the first squad”, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant sustains having paid the amount of EUR 45,557 (i.e. EUR 22,600 x 2) corresponding to the “personal extras to his salary for the season 2011/2012” in accordance with art. 1 of the additional agreement combined with art. 4.2 of the contract. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant further holds that advance payments made in January and February 2012 “to encourage [the Claimant / CounterRespondent] to prepare for the last part of the season 2011/2012” were deducted from the “personal extras to the salary” for March 2012. 19. Furthermore, in reply to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s default notice dated 13 June 2012, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant refers to its correspondence dated 14 June 2012 by means of which it inter alia informed the Claimant / CounterRespondent of his salary for March, April and May 2012 to be collected at the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s pay office. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant also explained the Claimant / Counter-Respondent that the relevant “personal extras to the salary” are subject to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent taking part in matches for the first team. Given that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent played only in December 2011 and March 2012, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant deemed that he was only entitled to “personal extras to the salary” for these two months. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant also explained that the alleged absence of the coach on 13 June 2012 was a “misunderstanding” with regard to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s lack of knowledge of Ukrainian rules according to which on a day the Claimant / Counter-Respondent undergoes a medical examination, there is not training session for the latter. Finally, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant referred to article 6.6.2 of the contract in order to warn the Claimant / Counter-Respondent of the consequences in case of an early termination of the contractual relationship by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 20. In addition, according to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, on 15 June 2012, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent apparently collected his salary for March and April 2012 amounting to 8,094. On this occasion, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant apparently also informed the Claimant / Counter-Respondent of his salary for May 2012 being available the following day; however, the Respondent / CounterClaimant alleges that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent never came to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s pay office to collect his salary for the relevant month. 21. Pertaining to the aforementioned payment of the sign-on fee, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant provided receipts of payment listing the following amounts paid in this respect:  EUR 20,000 in cash on 13 August 2011;  40,000, corresponding to EUR 3,581.47 according to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, in cash on 1 November 2011;  A total amount of “28,365” as payment of “individual extras to salary for 2011”, i.e. 2,500 in September 2011 + 5,000 in October 2011 + 5,000 in November 2011 + 15,865 in December 2011;  EUR 41,300 by Swift transfer to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s German bank account on 22 December 2011;  EUR 37,130 by Swift transfer to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s German bank account on 20 January 2012; however, according to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, only the amount of EUR 25,830 was paid out of EUR 37,130.  A total amount of “31,320” as payment of “individual extra to salary for 2012”, i.e. 15,560 in January 2012 + 15,560 in February 2012 + 200 in March 2012; 22. With regard to the payment of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s salary, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant provided receipts of payment listing the following amounts paid in this regard:  2,207.46 as salary for September 2011;  4,047 for November 2011;  3,971.98 as “leave salaries” for December 2011;  3,976.81 as salary for January 2012;  3,468.85 as “deposits” for February 2012;  4,047 as salary for February 2012;  8,094 as “deposits” for March and April 2012. 23. In view of the foregoing, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant deems that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had no just cause to terminate the contract. Therefore, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is of the opinion that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim should be dismissed. 24. Subsequently, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant underlines the transfer of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to the club from country F, Club E (hereinafter: the Intervening party), on 20 July 2012, i.e. one month following the termination of the contract by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. In this regard, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant considers that the Intervening party induced the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to unilaterally terminate the contract with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant further explains that the transfer of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent back to the Intervening party indicates that they never stopped their contractual relationship and never intended to comply with the decision dated 27 September 2011 from the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee (hereinafter: the Single Judge), authorising the provisional registration of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. 25. As a result, on 24 August 2012, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant lodged a counterclaim before FIFA against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent for the termination of the contract without just cause, and against the Intervening party for inducement to the termination, thus requesting the following:  EUR 5,078,500 as compensation to be paid by both the Claimant / CounterRespondent and the Intervening party, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 18 June 2012, broken down as follows: - EUR 5,000,000 as per the compensation clause provided for in the contract which covers all the losses incurred by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in relation to the contractual relationship with the Claimant / CounterRespondent; - EUR 78,500 representing the sign-on fee on a pro-rata basis, i.e. 36.5 months, pursuant to art.1.1. b) of the additional agreement;  Sporting sanctions to be imposed on both the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Intervening party;  Legal costs to be borne by both the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Intervening party. 26. In his replica, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent rejects the Respondent / CounterClaimant’s submission and upholds his claim. In particular, the Claimant / CounterRespondent disagrees with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s allegation relating to unsatisfactory physical condition, referring to medical reports carried out in June 2011 and June 2012 evidencing his normal weight. Therefore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent affirms that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s decision not to call-up the Claimant / Counter-Respondent from October to December 2011 is not related to his physical condition. 27. In addition, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent disputes the Respondent / CounterClaimant’s interpretation regarding the nature of the “personal extras to the salary” provided for in art. 1 of the additional agreement. The Claimant / CounterRespondent holds that these additional payments are part of the monthly salary set forth in the contract and further explains that it is common practice in country D to conclude two different agreements pertaining to the players’ salary in order to minimise the clubs’’s tax burden. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent also underlines that art. 1 of the additional agreement suggests, in fact, that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent be called-up/registered rather than fielded with the first team. Therefore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent deems that the monthly salary set forth in the contract and the relevant “personal extras to the salary” provided for in the additional agreement are to be considered as the complete monthly salary payable to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. In light of the above, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is of the opinion that the Respondent / CounterClaimant’s refusal to pay the relevant “personal extras to the salary” as stated in the latter’s correspondence dated 14 June 2012 is sufficient to unilaterally terminate the contract. 28. Furthermore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent acknowledges having received the amount of EUR 98,430 corresponding to the sign-on fee, but exclusively through the following payments:  EUR 20,000, i.e. EUR 10,000 in January 2011 plus EUR 10,000 on 13 August 2011;  EUR 41,300 via bank transfer;  EUR 37,130. According to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the rest of the amounts listed as payments of the sign-on fee (cf. point I.21. above) are actually amounts corresponding to “personal extras to the salary” as stated in art. 1 of the additional agreement. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent also asserts that the aforementioned receipts of payment evidence that as from December 2011 – i.e. starting date of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent with the first team – the Respondent / Counter-Claimant started to pay the relevant “personal extras to the salary” for 2011 and 2012 in addition to the monthly salary. 29. With regard to the alleged advance payments made in January and February 2012 “to encourage [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] to prepare for the last part of the season 2011/2012”, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent sustains that such payments represent “personal extras to the salary” for 2012. 30. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent also denies having ever been informed by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant of an upcoming payment of his salary for May 2012 and rejects having received the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s correspondence dated 9 June 2012 relating the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s alleged unsatisfactory physical condition. 31. As regards the Intervening party’s position, it stresses that the Claimant / CounterRespondent terminated the contract with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant mainly due to the latter’s failure to pay his remuneration and thus, considers that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had just cause to terminate the contract. In particular, the Intervening party points to the monthly salary stated in the contract, i.e. 5,000 which corresponds to EUR 400 approximately, in order to doubt the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s will to sign a contract for such a gross monthly salary. 32. As to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s physical condition, the Intervening party asserts that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent did not have the said issue while he was a member of the Intervening party. 33. Finally, the Intervening party states that it did not contact the Claimant / CounterRespondent during the course of his contractual relation with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. It insists on having signed the Claimant / Counter-Respondent after the latter informed it of the unilateral termination of the contract with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. The Intervening party also points to the salary offered to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent which is lower than the one offered by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in order to evidence that there cannot be inducement from the Intervening party. 34. In view of the foregoing, the Intervening party rejects the counterclaim lodged by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and requests the reimbursement of its legal costs to be borne by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. 35. After the closure of the investigation-phase, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant provided its duplica in which it reiterated its interpretation pertaining to the “personal extras to the salary” as being payments which were not guaranteed and were only due if the condition of “the player playing for main squad” is met. According to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, these relevant payments should be distinct from the monthly salary provided for in the contract hence, the first ones are set forth in an additional agreement and the second one in the contract. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant further stresses that the Claimant / CounterRespondent only claimed such payments as from December 2011, i.e. the first month he was fielded with the team, and did not request the relevant payments prior thereto. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant deems that it is only as from June 2012 that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent contended that such payments should have been “automatic”. 36. Besides, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant insists on the Claimant / CounterRespondent not being fit to be fielded with the first team between August and December 2011. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant further holds that the individual and specific training program imposed on the Claimant / CounterRespondent was not for any other reason than to increase his performance. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant also alleges that at no time the Claimant / CounterRespondent complained about such training program despite the adverse financial consequence of not playing for such reason until December 2011. 37. Moreover, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant asserts that the Claimant / CounterRespondent did not respect a reasonable deadline before terminating the contractual relationship insofar as it was given 7 days between the first default notice and the actual termination. 38. As to the Intervening party’s liability, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant deems that in the event the Intervening party avoids sporting sanctions, it still should be jointly and severally liable with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent for the payment of compensation. 39. Upon FIFA’s request, the Intervening party and the Claimant / Counter-Respondent confirmed that they signed a contract on 20 July 2012, valid as of the date of signature until 30 June 2015. The contract states that the Claimant / CounterRespondent is entitled to the following fixed remuneration:  EUR 15,000 net as “first installation”;  EUR 16,800 as “3 monthly fees in advance”;  For the season 2012-2013: EUR 5,600 net as monthly salary until 31 December 2012 and EUR 7,000 net from 1 January until 30 June 2013;  For the season 2013-2014: EUR 90,000 as total salary;  For the season 2014-2015: EUR 90,000 as total salary. 40. Subsequently, on 12 July 2013, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent signed an employment contract with the club from country F, Club M, valid as of 1 July 2013 until 30 June 2016. According to the said contract, the Claimant / CounterRespondent is to receive a total salary of EUR 96,000 for the season 2013-2014, EUR 108,000 for the season 2014-2015 and EUR 120,000 for the season 2015-2016. 41. Thereafter, on 8 January 2014, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent signed a subsequent employment contract with the club from country O, Club N, valid ad of the date of signature until 30 June 2015. According to the contract, Club N will pay the Claimant / Counter-Respondent a total fixed remuneration of EUR 900,000 net. 42. Finally, on 2 February 2015, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent signed a new employment contract with Club M, valid as from 1 February 2015 until 30 June 2015. According to this contract, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent will receive a monthly salary of EUR 8,000. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as the Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 9 July 2012. Consequently, the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. article 21 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 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 an club from country D, with the involvement of a club from country F. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players 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 2015) and reiterating that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 9 July 2012, the 2010 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the 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, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file. 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. Having duly considered all the contracts presented by the parties in the present matter, the Chamber first of all came to the unanimous conclusion that it was obvious that the amounts stipulated in EUR in the additional agreement were to be considered the genuine salary of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, contrary to the amounts in stipulated in the contract. In this regard, the Chamber emphasised that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had not provided any plausible explanation why two different contracts had been signed with the Claimant / Counter-Claimant, i.e. one containing salary payments in and one containing salary payments in EUR. 6. In continuation, the Chamber emphasized that art. 1 of the additional agreement is unilateral and to the benefit of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant only; the decision to have the Claimant / Counter-Respondent playing for its “main squad” is left fully to the discretion of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, a decision on which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent has no influence whatsoever. In light of such potestative character of the pertinent contractual clause, the members of the Chamber agreed that art. 1 of the additional agreement cannot be accepted in player-club relationships. Indeed, if the Claimant / Counter-Respondent would not have been selected for the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s first team for the entire season or would have been injured during the full season, he would not have been entitled to his monthly salaries in EUR, which, as mentioned before, were clearly the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s genuine salary. Moreover, the Chamber referred to the receipts of payment submitted by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and underlined that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant proceeded to payments named “individual extras to salary” and that such payments occurred in December 2011, i.e. when the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was first fielded up with the team, but also in January and February 2012, i.e. when the Claimant / Counter-Respondent did not take part in any matches with the first team. 7. As a result, the Chamber rejected the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s argument in this respect and decided that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was entitled to his monthly salary in EUR as per the additional agreement, in addition to a monthly salary in as per the contract. 8. In due consideration of the above, and in particular in view of the ungrounded refusal of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to pay the monthly salaries in EUR to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the DRC acknowledged that, at the time the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated the contract, the Claimant / CounterClaimant had received part of his salary in for April 2012 and had not received his salary in for May 2012, as well as his salary in EUR for March, April and May 2012. 9. Consequently, the Chamber considered that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had seriously neglected its contractual obligations towards the Claimant / CounterRespondent in a continuous and repeated manner, reason for which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had a just cause to terminate the contract on 18 June 2012, having previously put the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in default of its financial obligations on three occasions. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contact with just cause by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 10. Bearing in mind the previous considerations, the Chamber went on to deal with the consequences of the early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 11. First of all, the Chamber, whilst reiterating that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was responsible for the termination of the contract with just cause by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, decided to reject the counter-claim lodged by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Intervening party. 12. In continuation, the members of the Chamber concurred that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must fulfill its obligations as per the employment contract in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is liable to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent the remuneration that was outstanding at the time of the termination, i.e. 7,000 in accordance with the contract, consisting of the balance of salary in for April 2012 and his full salary for May 2012, as well as the amount of EUR 135,600 as per the additional agreement, composed of his salary in EUR from December 2011 until May 2012. The Chamber further underlined that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent acknowledged having received the amount of EUR 52,015 as salary in EUR as per the additional agreement (cf. point I.12 above). The DRC also took note that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not provide sufficient evidence regarding any further payment. Therefore, the Chamber decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was liable for the payment of the amount of 7,000 as balance of salary in for April and full salary for May 2012, plus the amount of EUR 83,585 as balance of salary in EUR for March, April and May 2012. 13. Furthermore, considering the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim for interest as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Chamber ruled that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay 5% interest p.a. on the amount of EUR 83,585 as from the date on which the Claimant / CounterRespondent lodged his claim, i.e. 9 July 2012, until the date of effective payment. 14. In continuation, the Chamber decided that, taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is in principle entitled to receive from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant compensation for breach of contract in addition to the aforementioned outstanding remuneration on the basis of the relevant employment contract and additional agreement. 15. In this context, the Chamber outlined that in accordance with said provision, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including, in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and additional agreement and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period. 16. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract and additional agreement contained a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber focussed its attention on art. 6.6.2 of the contract which stipulates that “the sanctions in the amount of currency of country Ds equivalent of 5 000 000 (five million) Euros is applied to [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] for early termination of the Contract, also the claims are made for reimbursement to [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant] of the amounts paid by it to [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent], losses (Art. 22 of the Civil Code of country D), including those that were carried by [the Respondent / CounterClaimant] for acquisition and payment for services if other footballer, connected with non-fulfilment by [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] of his obligations according to the Contract in result of his termination”. 17. In this regard, the Chamber took into account that article 6.6.2 of the contract appears to be unilateral and to the benefit of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant only. In the light of such unilateral character of the pertinent contractual clause, the members of the Chamber concluded that it cannot be taken into consideration. 18. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had to be assessed in application of the parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the FIFA Regulations. In this regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber emphasised beforehand that each request for compensation for contractual breach has to be assessed by the Chamber on a case-by-case basis taking into account all specific circumstances of the respective matter. 19. In casu, and in accordance with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim, the Chamber highlighted that the residual value of the contract went from June 2012 through June 2015 and amounted to 185,000, equivalent to approximately EUR 18,224, and the residual value of the additional agreement amounted to EUR 992,000. Therefore, and considering the claim of the Claimant / CounterRespondent, the Chamber established that the amount of EUR 1,010,224 shall serve as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 20. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant / CounterRespondent had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages. 21. Indeed, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent found employment with the Intervening party, where, from 20 July 2012 to 30 June 2013, he received a total fixed-remuneration amounting to EUR 90,600. Subsequently, as per the employment contract signed with Club M, he received the total amount of EUR 48,000 from July 2013 to December 2013. Thereafter, the Claimant / CounterRespondent was entitled to EUR 650,000 with Club N for the period as from January 2014 until January 2015. Finally, on 2 February 2015, the Claimant / CounterRespondent signed a new employment contract with Club M, according to which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was to receive a total salary of EUR 40,000 from February 2015 to June 2015. 22. On account of the above, the DRC determined that the Respondent / CounterClaimant must pay the amount of EUR 181,624 as compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand. 23. In addition, taking into account the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Chamber decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 181,624 as of 9 July 2012 until the date of effective payment. 24. Moreover, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided to reject the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim pertaining to procedural costs in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the Chamber’s respective longstanding jurisprudence in this regard. 25. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is partially accepted. 2. The counter-claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected. 3. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of 7,000. 4. In the event that the amount set forth in point 3. is not paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the aforementioned time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 83,585 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 9 July 2012 until the date of effective payment. 6. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 181,624 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 9 July 2012 until the date of effective payment. 7. In the event that the amounts foreseen in points 5. and 6. plus interest are not paid within the stated time limit by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 8. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected. 9. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent / CounterClaimant immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances are 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: Marco Villiger Acting Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives