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 24 April 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Philippe Diallo (France), member Todd Durbin (USA), 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 24 April 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Philippe Diallo (France), member Todd Durbin (USA), 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 9 January 2013, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the club from Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2013. 2. According to the contract, the Claimant was to be remunerated with EUR 100,000 to be paid as follows: - EUR 10,000 upon signature of the contract; - EUR 22,500 on 10 February 2013; - EUR 22,500 on 10 March 2013; - EUR 22,500 on 10 April 2013; - EUR 22,500 on 10 May 2013. 3. Additionally, the contract stipulated that “The [Claimant] will receive victory bonuses on the same level as his teammates”. 4. Furthermore, according to art. 4 of the contract, the Respondent had to “take care of the health of the [Claimant] as set out in the provisions of the articles related to illness and injury and to take all necessary measures during competitions, trainings, pre-season training camps, training camps and travels”. 5. On 27 June 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA claiming that the Respondent had failed to pay his salary for the months of February, March, April and May 2013. Furthermore, the Claimant held that he had undergone treatment for an injury and that the Respondent had failed to reimburse his expenses in this regard. 6. In this respect, the Claimant explained that he had received permission from the Respondent to undergo treatment in Country B. In this regard, the Claimant submitted a “permission document” according to which he had permission to go to Country B from 7 April 2013 until 31 May 2013 and which stipulates the following: “for medical reasons, without prejudice of [Claimant] right to receive salaries during permission time”. 7. Furthermore, the Claimant explained that he had requested the payment of the outstanding amounts from the Respondent via correspondence dated 3 July 2013 and 29 August 2013, but without result. The Claimant further explained that the Respondent had tried to reduce its debt by making several payments to him during the contractual period. However, according to the Claimant, these payments pertain to victory bonuses. 8. In view of the foregoing, the Claimant is claiming outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 90,000 plus interest as of 3 July 2013 as well as the reimbursement of medical expenses in the amount of EUR 3,360.31 plus interest as of 31 May 2013. 9. In its reply to the claim, the Respondent argued that it was not in a position to pay any bonuses to its players, due to financial difficulties. The Respondent argued that the payment receipts provided by the Claimant pertain to salary payments in the total amount of EUR 42,379.98. According to the Respondent, some of the payment receipts indicate that the payments were made for the “transfer” of the Claimant which, according to the club, “confirms that the payments were made pursuant to the allowances derived from the Employment Agreement”. 10. According to the Respondent, the Claimant’s legal representative had agreed with the outstanding amount of EUR 57,620.02 in an email exchange dated 5 December 2013 and 18 December 2013. 11. With regard to the medical expenses incurred by the Claimant, the Respondent stated that the “permission document” submitted by the Claimant only secured the contractual payments to be executed during the period of the injury. However, according to the Respondent, it was the Claimant who decided to undergo treatment from his own private doctor in Country B and, consequently, the Respondent cannot be held liable for reimbursement of such expenses. Finally, the Respondent argued that the Claimant did not submit any official invoice or document from which it can be established that he was treated in Country B and that the costs amounted to EUR 3,360.31. 12. In his replica, the Claimant referred to the email exchange between the legal representatives of the parties and argued that “the friendly negotiations remained unsuccessful”. Consequently, the Claimant repeated his claim for the “full value”, i.e. the amount of EUR 57,620.02, which was now recognized by the Respondent, “plus the differences”. 13. In its duplica, the Respondent reiterated its arguments. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as DRC or Chamber) 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 27 June 2014. Consequently, the 2012 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 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 2015), 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 (editions 2012, 2014 and 2015), and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 27 June 2014, the 2012 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the members of the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter, while emphasizing that, although having acknowledged all the abovementioned facts, 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. First of all, the DRC acknowledged that, on 9 January 2013, the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2013. 6. The DRC further observed that the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent indicating that the Respondent had failed to pay his salary for the months of February, March, April and May 2013 in the total amount of EUR 90,000 as well as that the Respondent had failed to reimburse medical expenses incurred by the Claimant. 7. Furthermore, the DRC noted that the Claimant acknowledged several payments made by the Respondent to him and submitted payment receipts for the total amount of EUR 39,000 which, according to the Claimant, pertain to victory bonuses and not to salary payments. 8. Equally, the DRC observed that the Respondent, for its part, asserted that it had already paid salary to the Claimant in the amount of EUR 42,379.98 which did not include any bonus payments. 9. After having carefully examined the parties’ positions, taking into consideration all the aforementioned arguments, the DRC observed that it is undisputed between the parties that the Respondent made several payments to the Claimant, but that the parties disagreed on the purpose of said payments as well as on the total amount paid. 10. In this respect, the members of the Chamber stressed that it does not become clear from the payment receipts submitted by the Claimant what the payments were made for. Equally, the DRC stressed that although the contract stipulates that the Claimant would receive victory bonuses, no amounts are actually specified. 11. In this context, the Chamber first referred to the basic principle of the 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. 12. With the abovementioned consideration in mind, the Chamber noted that the Claimant did not substantiate his claim, as he did not present any evidence that the payments pertained to victory bonuses. In particular, the Claimant failed to prove to which amounts he would be entitled per victory, failed to explain the difference in the amounts (allegedly) paid as victory bonuses, and failed to submit corroboratory documentation in relation to the matches allegedly won. 13. In view of the above, the members of the Chamber concluded that the Claimant has not provided evidence in support of his claim and that, therefore, it could not be established that the payments made by the Respondent pertained to victory bonuses. 14. In this respect, the members of the Chamber highlighted that, in accordance with the payment receipts submitted by the Claimant, the Respondent paid a total amount of EUR 39,000 to the Claimant. The Chamber recalled that the Respondent argued that it had paid EUR 42,379.98 to the Claimant. However, the Chamber observed that the Respondent did not substantiate its defence that the amount converted by the Claimant was incorrect and, therefore, concluded that the Respondent had only paid the amount of EUR 39,000 to the Claimant. 15. In view of all the above and, in particular, taking into account that the Respondent acknowledged that a part of the salaries had remained unpaid, the DRC decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent must fulfil its contractual obligations towards the Claimant and is to be held liable to pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 51,000. For the sake of good order, the DRC emphasised that although emails been exchanged between the parties, it was clear from the Claimant’s replica that not agreement had been made between the parties. 16. The Chamber then turned its attention to the Claimant’s claim for reimbursement of medical expenses in the alleged amount of EUR 3,360.31. In this context, the Chamber recalled once more the basic principle of the burden of proof and noted that the Claimant did again not substantiate his claim in this regard, as he did not present corroborative evidence regarding the alleged medical expenses, in particular no invoice was provided. 17. In view of all of the above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of EUR 51,000 to the Claimant as outstanding remuneration. 18. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amount of EUR 51,000 as of 3 July 2013 until the date of effective payment. 19. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its 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, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 51,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 3 July 2013 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 under point 2. above 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: Markus Kattner Acting Secretary General Encl. CAS directives