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 (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 24 April 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 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 (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 24 April 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 arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 7 March 2014, 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 6 March 2014 until 31 May 2014. 2. According to art. 5 of the contract, the Respondent undertakes to provide the Claimant with, inter alia, the following monies: - USD 35,000 “as a net until 31st May 2014” broken down as follows: i. USD 10,000 as sign on fee; ii. USD 8,300 as monthly salary payable on 30 March 2014; iii. USD 8,300 as monthly salary payable on 30 April 2014; iv. USD 8,400 as monthly payable on 30 May 2014. - USD 500 as monthly accommodation allowance from March to May 2014. - Two roundtrip air tickets. 3. In addition, according to art. 2.1. b and 2.1.c of the contract, the Claimant has the right “to be insured by the Club C from damages and injures happened during the tours to abroad or within the country in connection with training for matches and trainings for a club as well as ensure the life at the expense of a club within the validity of the contract” and “to require the treatment in the case of damage in the account of the club, and if necessary the surgical operations”. 4. Moreover, art. 2.1.d of the contract further stipulates that “ in case of injury player has right to choose place and country for operation and the treatment at the expense of a club within the validity of the contract”. 5. On 26 May 2014, the Claimant sent a notice to the Respondent by means of which he reminded it of its arrears, consisting of 2 monthly salaries and medical expenses for his operation, and informed it that, in case he would not be paid within three days, he would refer the matter to FIFA. 6. On 17 June 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA for outstanding amounts, and requested, the payment of the total amount of USD 26,500 and EUR 12,217 net broken down as follows: i. USD 25,000 as salaries for March to May 2014; ii. USD 1,500 as accommodation expenses for the period of March to May 2014; iii. EUR 10,449, as reimbursement of the cost for his operation (cf. point I.9. below); iv. EUR 1,768 for flight tickets (cf. point I.9. below). 7. In his claim, the Claimant explains that, on 20 April 2014, he got injured during a championship match with the Respondent and that the day after he passed a medical check in the city E of country D, which detected a serious shoulder injury that required a surgery. The Claimant further holds having tried several times, personally as well as with the help of the Football Association of country B, to obtain the Respondent’s permission to travel for the operation but without success. By means of his letter dated 24 April 2014, addressed to the Respondent, the Claimant communicated the following: “inform you that the operation will take place in city F, country G, on 28 April 2014 (…) request permission to take recovery in country B in city H under the supervision of a doctor of the national team of country B (...) from 30.04.2014 until 05.10.2014. On return to the city E of country D, undertake to provide all necessary documents and receipts for operation“. The Claimant also provided a copy of a letter of the Respondent dated 28 April 2014, to the FA of country B stating that since the Claimant’s injury, they tried to contact him without success, do not know where he is and that the Claimant did not give any warning or asked for the Respondent’s permission to leave country D. To their letter, the FA of country B replied on 30 April 2014 that “on 28th of April he [the Claimant] had the shoulder operation in city F. According to his contract he had the right to choose the place for the operation and as the national team player, who should be ready for the forthcoming EURO qualification matches (…) he flew to country B on 25th April. (…) Before leaving the city E of country D, [he] contacted you several times but didn’t succeed”. 8. Finally, the Claimant holds that after his operation in city F, he returned to country B for a post-operative examination and flew back to the city E of country D on 6 May 2014. 9. In this context, the Claimant pointed out that according to the contract he was entitled to receive a total amount of USD 25,000 as salaries for March to May 2014. However, the Respondent allegedly failed to make the relevant payments and, in addition, the Claimant holds that the Respondent also failed to pay him his accommodation allowance for the same period of time, his operation costs and his flight tickets. In support to his claim, the Claimant provided FIFA with two invoices dated 29 April 2014 for his operation costs amounting respectively to EUR 9,600 and EUR 700 as well as a receipt dated 27 April 2014 for an amount of EUR 149 from a hotel in city F; In addition the Claimant also provided invoices for flight tickets in the amount of a) EUR 423 for city E-city H on 25 April 2014; b) EUR 347 for city H-city F on 27 April 2014; c) EUR 387 city F-city H on 30 April 2014; d) EUR 295 for city H-city E 6-7 May 2014; e) EUR 316 for city E-city H on 20 May 2014. 10. In its reply to the Claimant’s claim, the Respondent holds having fulfilled all its contractual obligations and after the Claimant’s injury, it could not contact him anymore and contacted the FA of country B in this regard (cf. point I.7. above). In addition, the Respondent states that the Claimant left the country ignoring the Respondent’s decision regarding the operation “where and when to operate”, and further holds that it did not give a permission to the Claimant to leave the country. In spite of the fact that the contract allows for medical treatment outside the country, this should be previously discussed and agreed with the Respondent. Finally the Respondent underlines that “when the player asked about the payment club offered him salaries until that time”. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the DRC judge took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 17 June 2014. Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that 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 par. 2 and par. 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. With regard to the competence of the DRC judge, art. 3 of the Procedural Rules states that the DRC judge shall examine his jurisdiction in the light of art. 22 to 24 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2012, 2014 and 2015). In accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 lit. i. in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the aforementioned Regulations, the DRC judge would be competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an player from country B and an club from country D, the litigious value of which does not exceed CHF 100,000. 3. Subsequently, the DRC judge 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, he 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 claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 17 June 2014, the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the 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. The DRC judge started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as well as the documentation contained in the 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. In this respect, the DRC judge acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded an employment contract valid as from 6 March 2014 until 31 May 2014. Further, the DRC judge observed that it is undisputed by the parties that the Claimant was entitled to the amounts detailed in point I.2. here above, as per the aforementioned contract. 6. In continuation, the DRC judge further observed that the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent seeking the payment of the amount of USD 26,500 and EUR 12,217, indicating that the Respondent failed to pay him his monies in accordance with the contract as well as medical costs incurred following an injury (cf. point I.6. above). 7. Equally, the DRC judge took note of the reply of the Respondent, which asserted that it had fulfilled all its contractual obligations. The Claimant, however, left the club without permission and ignoring its position regarding the Claimant’s operation (cf. point I.10. above). 8. In addition, the DRC judge observed that it remained undisputed that the Claimant sustained an injury in April 2014 during a championship match played with the Respondent. Furthermore, the DRC judge noted that on the one hand, the Respondent holds that the Claimant did not consult it before choosing the location and the moment of the operation and did not receive its approval to leave the country. On the other hand, the Claimant assures having tried several times to contact the Respondent before leaving country D for his operation and insists on his contractual right to freely choose his medical treatment and the place of its execution. 9. In this context, and with a view to analysing individually the pertinence of each claim of the Claimant, the DRC judge started by focusing on the Claimant’s claim related to the reimbursement of medical expenses. In this respect, the DRC judge recalled that the Claimant asks that the Respondent be ordered to reimburse the medical expenses he alleges having incurred in costs in the amount of EUR 12,217, for which he presented the relevant receipts and the payment of which is not contested by the Respondent. In this regard, the Chamber took into account that the employment contract, the terms of which were voluntarily agreed upon by both parties, in fact includes a specific clause, on the basis of which the Respondent is held liable for the payment of the Claimant’s medical costs incurred in case of injury in relation to his football activity. Moreover, the contract contains another clause specifying that in case of injury, the player has the right to choose the place or the country for an eventual operation and stating that the treatment is at the club’s expenses (cf. point I.3. and I.4. above). 10. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and bearing in mind the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the DRC judge decided to accept the Claimant’s claim pertaining to the reimbursement of the medical costs incurred because of his injury. Thus, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 12,217. 11. Having established the foregoing, the DRC judge proceeded to analyse the Claimant’s claim with regard to outstanding amounts related to salaries and accommodation expenses. In this context, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent, in its defence, assured having paid the Claimant’s monies until his injury, however, it did not dispute that the payments due to the player subsequent to the injury remain outstanding. 12. In view of all the above and, in particular, taking into account the legal principle of the burden of proof and the fact that the Respondent did not contest that the relevant amounts regarding salaries and rent expenses claimed by the Claimant had remained unpaid, the DRC judge 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 him the amount of USD 26,500, corresponding to the three instalments due on 30 March, 30 April and 30 May 2014 (cf. point I.2. I, ii, ii above) as well as USD 1,500 for the Claimant’s accommodation allowance. 13. In conclusion, taking into consideration all the above, the DRC judge concluded that the Respondent is to be held liable to pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 12,217 as well as USD 26,500, and consequently, the Claimant’s claim is accepted. ***** III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, Club C, is ordered to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of USD 26,500. 3. The Respondent is also ordered to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 12,217. 4. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant in accordance with the abovementioned numbers 2. and 3. are not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limits, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the aforementioned time limits and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 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 DRC judge of every payment received. ***** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 63 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