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 (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 2 September 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 (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 (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 2 September 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 July 2014, the Player of Country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) with the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), valid as from the date of signature until 31 December 2016. 2. According to the contract, the Claimant was entitled to a monthly salary in the amount of 5,000. 3. On 19 December 2014, the Claimant and the Respondent agreed to mutually terminate the contract by concluding a “termination and payment agreement” (hereinafter: the termination agreement). 4. According to the third clause of the termination agreement, the Respondent agreed to pay to the Claimant the total amount of 110,000, as follows: - 25,000, on 27 December 2014; - 28,333, on 27 January 2015; - 28,333, on 27 February 2015; - 28,333, on 27 March 2015. 5. In addition, the fourth clause of the termination agreement stipulated the following: CUARTA (…) b) se pacta un interés moratorio del 1% mensual, desde la fecha en que el pago debió realizarse y hasta el efectivo pago de la suma adeudada; c) será de cargo de Club C el pago de la totalidad de los gastos, costes y honorarios que se le generen al JUGADOR por toda reclamación que deba hacer para el cobro de lo debido. FOURTH (…) b) [the parties have agreed upon] a default interest of 1% per month, as from the date on which the payment should have been made until the effective payment of the due amount c) [Respondent] will bear all expenses, costs and fees arisen from the player’s claims for the payment of the overdue amounts (free translation from Language E). 6. On 7 April 2015, the Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA against the Respondent, and requested the payment of a total amount of 129,838, plus 1% interest per month as of the due dates, detailed as follows: - 25,750, for the amount due on 27 December 2014 (incl. 1% interest per month until date of claim); - 28,899, for the amount due on 27 January 2015 (incl. 1% interest per month until date of claim); - 28,616, for the amount due on 27 February 2015 (incl. 1% interest per month until date of claim); - 28,333, for the amount due on 27 March 2015; - 1,500, corresponding to procedural costs; - 16,740, corresponding to attorney fees. 7. In addition, the Claimant requested the imposition of sporting sanctions on the Respondent. 8. According to the Claimant, he sent several default notices to the Respondent in relation to the overdue payments, respectively on 5 January 2015, 28 January 2015, 2 March 2015 and 27 March 2015, without receiving any reply from the Respondent. 9. On 31 August 2015, and after the parties were already notified of the closure of the investigation-phase, the Respondent replied to the claim. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First of all, the DRC judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 7 April 2015. Consequently, the 2015 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution DRC judge (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the 2015 edition of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, edition 2014, the DRC judge is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a Player of Country B and a Club of Country D. 3. The competence of the DRC judge having been established, 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 (edition 2014), and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 7 April 2015, the 2015 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. Having established the foregoing, and entering into the substance of the matter, the DRC judge continued by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file in relation to the substance of the matter. However, the DRC judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which he considered for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. Subsequently, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant before the closure of the investigationphase, in spite of having been invited to do so. By not presenting its position to the claim before the closure of the investigation-phase, the DRC judge was of the opinion that the Respondent renounced its right of defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 6. Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the DRC judge concurred that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, he shall take a decision upon the basis of the documentation already on file; in other words, upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant. 7. In this respect, the DRC judge acknowledged that the parties to the dispute had signed an employment contract on 7 July 2014, valid as from the date of signature until 31 December 2016. 8. Moreover, the DRC judge acknowledged that the parties to the dispute had signed a termination agreement on 19 December 2014, by means of which they agreed to terminate the employment agreement and the Respondent agreed to pay to the Claimant the total amount of “110,000”, as follows: - 25,000, on 27 December 2014; - 28,333, on 27 January 2015; - 28,333, on 27 February 2015; - 28,333, on 27 March 2015. 9. In relation to said amounts, the DRC judge noted that the sum of all of them corresponds to the amount of 109,999. Consequently, the DRC judge understood that, under any circumstance, the payments agreed upon by the parties shall correspond to the total amount of 109,999. 10. In this respect, the DRC judge took into consideration that according to the Claimant, the Respondent had failed to pay his remuneration in the total amount of 109,999, corresponding to the instalments of December 2014, January 2015, February 2015 and March 2015, in the amount of 25,000 for the instalment of December 2014 and in the amount of 28,333 for the remaining three instalments. 11. Consequently, the DRC judge took note of the Claimant’s request to be awarded with the payment of the amount of 129,838, corresponding to the aforementioned outstanding payments, and apparently increased by the rate of 1% interest per month as from the due dates. 12. Taking into account the documentation presented by the Claimant in support of his petition, the DRC judge concluded that the Claimant had substantiated his claim pertaining to outstanding remuneration with sufficient documentary evidence. 13. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC judge established that the Respondent failed to remit the Claimant’s payments in the total amount of 109,999 plus interest, corresponding to the agreed payments as from December 2014 until and including March 2015. 14. Consequently, the DRC judge unanimously agreed that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the total amount of 109,999, plus 1% interest per month as from the due dates, as agreed upon in the termination agreement. 15. Moreover, as regards the claimed legal expenses, the DRC judge referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as to the long-standing and wellestablished jurisprudence, in accordance with which no procedural compensation shall be awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber or the DRC judge. Consequently, the DRC judge decided to reject the Claimant’s request relating to legal expenses. 16. Finally, the DRC judge concluded his deliberations by rejecting any further claim lodged by the Claimant. III. Decision of the DRC judge 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 109,999 plus 1% interest per month until the date of effective payment, as follows: a. 1% per month as of 28 December 2014 on the amount of 25,000; b. 1% per month as of 28 January 2015 on the amount of 28,333; c. 1% per month as of 28 February 2015 on the amount of 28,333; d. 1% per month as of 28 March 2015 on the amount of 28,333. 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. 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. 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 (CAS) Avenue de Beaumont 2 CH-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: Marco Villiger Acting Deputy Secretary General Enclosed: CAS directives