F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 23 July 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member John Bramhall (England), 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 (2015-2016) - controversie di lavoro – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 23 July 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member John Bramhall (England), 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. Player A from country B (hereinafter: the Claimant) claims to have concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the first contract) with Club C from country D (hereinafter: the Respondent), on 25 August 2008, valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2010. According to the Claimant, he terminated such contract on 31 December 2009, “since the receivables of the footballer were left unpaid”. The Claimant states that “following the termination, the parties came together and reached a new agreement, and concluded the contract, with the commencement date of 1 January 2010” (cf. point I.2. below). 2. On 31 December 2009, the parties signed an “Additional contract” (hereinafter: the first additional contract), valid as from 1 January 2010 until 30 July 2011 according to which, inter alia, “a net sum of 200,000 USD is payable to the player, in order for him to extend his contract for a period of 1 year, in a manner to cover the period between August 1, 2010 and July 30, 2011. The payment is made as follows: an advance money of 35,000 USD is payable on August 1, 2010 and the balance is payable throughout 12 months (13,750. – USD per month x 12 months). Per-game and championship bonuses are payable in the manner determined by the team, as applied to each player”. 3. On 8 January 2010, the parties signed a second contract (hereinafter: the second contract), valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2011, which does not contain any financial stipulations. 4. On 15 February 2011, the parties signed another “additional contract” (hereinafter: the second additional contract), according to which they agreed that “ If Club C gets a right to play in Super League in the season 2011 – 2012 the footballer Player A will get 100.000 premium”. 5. On 3 May 2011, the Respondent and the Claimant signed an “account settlement”, by means of which the Respondent recognised a debt in favour of the Claimant amounting to 120,060.77. 6. On 27 May 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA requesting the following outstanding amounts: i. 120,060.77 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 July 2011, corresponding to the outstanding remuneration recognised by the Respondent on 3 May 2011 (cf. point I.5. above); ii. USD 27,500 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 30 July 2011, corresponding to his salaries of June and July 2011 (cf. point I.2. above); iii. 100,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 June 2011, corresponding to the bonus for the promotion to the Super League (cf. point I.4. above); iv. Legal Costs. 7. In his claim, the Claimant explains that, despite having contacted the Respondent to pay the outstanding amounts due to him for the 2010/2011 season, he received no payment from the Respondent. Furthermore, the Claimant holds that his salary was irregularly paid, thus, to clarify the situation, the parties met on 3 May 2011 in order to identify the outstanding amounts due to him by the Respondent (cf. point I.5. above). 8. The Claimant further holds that his salaries of June and July 2011 were not paid by the Respondent. In addition, the Claimant states that, as per the second additional contract (cf. point I.4. above), he is entitled to an additional amount of 100,000, as the Respondent was indeed promoted to the Super League. According to the Claimant, after the last play-off game on 29 May 2011, the Respondent was officially registered in the Super League by the Football Association of country D on 6 June 2011. 9. In its response to the Claimant’s claim, the Respondent stated that it has “doubt about the documents the opponent has been submitted” and asks for the original to be provided. The Respondent acknowledges that the salaries of June and July 2011 are still due to the Claimant, but rejects his claims regarding any other amounts. The Respondent holds that according to the “Club C Association 2010- 2011 Season Premium and Match Appearance Application Regulation”, the Claimant is not entitled to the entire bonus for the promotion to the Super League, but only to 71.32% of it. 10. In his replica, the Claimant maintains his position, emphasises that the Respondent has not submitted any proof of payment and failed to provide any valid reason for not paying his dues. In addition, he underlines that the contracts and the supplementary agreements signed by the parties are clear enough and do not leave any space for a different interpretation. 11. Despite having been invited by FIFA to provide its final comments on the present matter, the Respondent did not reply. 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 27 May 2013. Consequently, the 2012 edition of the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are 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 b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2012, 2014 and 2015) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a player from country B and a club from country D. 3. Before entering the analysis of the substance of the matter, the DRC, considering its obligation to examine ex officio any preliminary issue which might have an impact on the admissibility of the claim, deemed it appropriate to examine if the present claim, or any part of it, could be possibly time-barred. 4. In this respect, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations, which, in completion to the general procedural terms outlined in the Procedural Rules, clearly establishes that the decision-making bodies of FIFA shall not hear any dispute if more than two years have elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute arose and that the application of this time limit shall be examined ex officio in each individual case. 5. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the DRC referred to the claim of the Claimant, according to which the latter requested inter alia the payment of 120,060.77, which was an amount recognised as outstanding by the club on 3 May 2011 (cf. point I.5. above), and which referred to financial obligations of the club towards the player prior to that date. 6. As a consequence, recalling that the present claim was submitted to FIFA on 27 May 2013, the DRC concluded that the time limit of two years had elapsed for claiming the amount of 120,060.77 which fell due prior to 3 May 2011. Therefore, such specific request of the Claimant was to be considered as time-barred and, consequently, inadmissible. The Chamber concluded its reasoning by stating that the Claimant’s other requests were made within the 2 years time limit and, therefore will be further analysed as to their substance. 7. Having established the foregoing, 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 claim was lodged on 27 May 2013, the 2012 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 8. 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. 9. First of all, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that, on 25 August 2008, they had concluded an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2010. In addition, the parties also do not dispute that this contract was terminated on 31 December 2009 and the parties signed another contract on the same date, valid from 1 January 2010 until 30 July 2011. Furthermore, the parties do not contest that a second additional contract was signed on 15 February 2011. 10. The DRC further observed that the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA on 27 May 2013 against the Respondent seeking payment of the amount of USD 27,500 corresponding to his salaries of June and July 2011 as per the additional contract of 31 December 2009 and the amount of 100,000 corresponding to a bonus for the promotion of the club to the Super League as per the additional contract of 15 February 2011 (cf. point I.6. above). 11. The Chamber took into account that the Respondent, for its part, admits that the Claimant’s salaries for the months of June and July 2011 were outstanding, thus, the Respondent confirms that it has not made such payment to the Claimant. It was further noted that the Respondent partially rejects the Claimant’s claim relating to the amount of 100,000, since, according to the Respondent, in view of the its internal regulations, the Claimant is only entitled to 71.32% of the amount (cf. point I.9 above). 12. At this point already, and in relation to the documentation provided by the Respondent, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to refer the parties to the content of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which “any party claiming a right on the basis on an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof”. In this particular case, the Chamber pointed out that the Respondent bore the burden of proving that the Claimant’s is not entitled to the entire promotion bonus in accordance with its internal rules. Similarly, the DRC referred to art. 9 par. 1 lit. e) of the Procedural Rules which stipulates that all documents of relevance to the dispute shall be submitted in the original version as well as translated into one of the official FIFA languages. 13. In this context, the members of the Chamber noted that, the Respondent provided FIFA with a document in the language of country D which appears to be its regulations regarding to the bonuses for the season 2011-2012, however it did not provide a translated version of it in any official FIFA language. In view of the foregoing and taking into consideration art. 9 of the Procedural Rules, the DRC decided that it could not take into account the relevant document which was not translated into an official FIFA language. 14. In view of all the above and, in particular, taking into account that the Respondent did not contest that the relevant salaries had remained unpaid or that the club had actually been promoted to the Super League, 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 USD 27,500, corresponding to two monthly salaries amounting to USD 13,750 each, as well as 100,000 corresponding to the promotion bonus. 15. In continuation and with regard to the Claimant's request for interest, the DRC decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 27,500 as from 1 August 2011 until the date of effective payment, and an interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of 100,000 as from 6 June 2011 until the date of effective payment. 16. The members of the Chamber further decided that the Claimant’s claim for legal costs is rejected, in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the respective longstanding jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. 17. 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 of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is partially accepted, insofar as it is admissible. 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 100,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 June 2011 until the date of effective payment. 3. The Respondent, is ordered to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision the amount of USD 27,500 plus 5% p.a. as from 1 August 2011 until the date of effective payment. 4. In the event that the aforementioned amounts plus interest are 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. 5. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent 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 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber: Markus Kattner Acting Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives