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 31 January 2013, 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 30 June 2013. 2. According to the clause 4 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled, inter alia, to the following remuneration: - EUR 655, corresponding to the Claimant’s monthly salary, payable at the end of each month; - EUR 5,000, corresponding to a “bonus of promotion”; - EUR 9,150, corresponding to four instalments in the amount of EUR 2,287.50, to be respectively paid on 28 February 2013, 30 March 2013, 30 April 2013 and 30 May 2013. - “Rent of a house and a car and a ticket from City in Country D to Country B”. 3. In addition, clause 10 of the contract stipulated the following: “All disputes between the parties are settled by the Appeals Committee for the Resolution of Financial Disputes of the Football Federation of Country D at first instance and the Court of Arbitration of the Football Federation of Country D at second instance.” 4. On 10 October 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA against the Respondent, and requested the payment of a total amount of EUR 6,936.42, “plus related interest”, detailed as follows: - EUR 1,000, corresponding to an outstanding payment for May 2013; - EUR 5,000, corresponding to the “bonus of promotion”; - EUR 936.42, corresponding to flight tickets. 5. In its reply, the Respondent argued that FIFA is not competent in this matter, since article 10 of the contract stated that any and all disputes arising from it shall be settled in first instance by the “Committee for the Resolution of Financial Disputes” of the Football Federation of Country D and by the Court of Arbitration of the Football Federation of Country D in second instance, which are, according to the Respondent, institutions that are compliant with the principle of equal representation of players and clubs. 6. After being required to provide more evidence on the alleged competence of the aforementioned bodies, the Respondent submitted a full copy of the Statutes of the Football Federation of Country D. 7. As to the substance of the case, the Respondent stated that the Claimant has been fully paid for the month of May 2013 by means of a payment in the amount of EUR 5,400, which included the Claimant’s remuneration for the months of April and May 2013. In reference to the flight tickets, the Respondent considered that the Claimant was entitled to only one ticket in the amount of EUR 468.21, which was already paid with the payment in the amount of EUR 5,400. Consequently, the Respondent considered that all outstanding payments were settled. 8. In his final comments, the Claimant considered that the Respondent did not prove that FIFA should not be competent in this case. 9. In addition, the Claimant explained that the payment of EUR 5,400 did not include his full remuneration for the month of May 2013, which consisted, according to the Claimant, in the amount of EUR 3,000. 10. As a result, the Claimant requested the payment of an amount of EUR 1,000, corresponding to outstanding remuneration for May 2013, as well as the payment of an amount of EUR 5,000, corresponding to the “bonus of promotion”. In this regard, the Claimant explained that the Respondent tried to reach him to find an amicable settlement, a fact that, according to him, is in contradiction with the Respondent’s argument stating that all outstanding payments have been settled. II. Considerations of the DRC judge 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge (hereinafter also referred to as 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 10 October 2013. 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 of the 2012, 2014 and 2015 editions 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 2012, 2014 and 2015 editions of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. 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, in principle, be 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. However, the DRC judge acknowledged that the Respondent, with reference to the second part of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations, claimed that not FIFA but the NDRC of Country D should be competent. In particular, the DRC judge took note that the Respondent argued that an equitably represented, independent, national arbitration tribunal such as that demanded by the FIFA Regulations (art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations) existed in Country D and that the parties had agreed in clause 10 of the contract that, if a dispute arose, they shall be “settled by the Appeals Committee for the Resolution of Financial Disputes of the Football Federation of Country D at first instance and the Court of Arbitration of the Football Federation of Country D at second instance.” 4. In this regard, the DRC judge observed that the Claimant argued that the Respondent did not prove that FIFA should not be competent in this case. 5. Taking into account the above, the DRC judge emphasised that it was necessary to ascertain who is competent to decide on the issue within the football-related dispute resolution system. In other words, the competence of a national deciding body on the one side and FIFA on the other must be determined. 6. In this regard, the DRC judge referred to art. 22 b) of the Regulations, according to which he is competent to deal with a matter such as the one at hand unless an independent arbitration tribunal, guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of players and clubs, has been established at national level within the framework of the Association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. With regard to the standards to be imposed on an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings, the DRC judge referred to FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20 December 2005. In this regard, the DRC judge further referred to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008. 7. Having said that, the DRC judge further took into account that, on 22 July 2013, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued an award, whereby it decided that the national arbitration bodies of the Football Federation of Country D fulfil the requirements of equal representation and of an independent chairman and guarantees fair proceedings. Furthermore, the CAS underlined in said award that FIFA’s deciding body is not an appeal body. 8. In this context, the DRC judge took note that the Deciding Body of Country D at the basis of the aforementioned CAS decision is the same deciding body as the one included in the exclusive jurisdiction clause of the contract signed by and between the Claimant and the Respondent. 9. In view of all the above, the DRC judge established that the Respondent’s objection to the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be accepted and that he is not competent, on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players, to consider the present matter as to the substance. III. Decision of the DRC judge 1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is inadmissible. ***** 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