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 3 September 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member on the matter between the player, Player A, country B, as Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the club, Club C, country D, as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club E, country B as intervening party 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 3 September 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member on the matter between the player, Player A, country B, as Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the club, Club C, country D, as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club E, country B as intervening party regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 27 August 2012, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant / Counter-Respondent or the player) and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent / Counter-Claimant or the club) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as of 1 September 2012 until “2019, i.e. until the start of the summer registration period of the year in which the contract expires”. 2. Pursuant to art. 4 par. 1 contract, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was entitled to receive a net monthly salary of 7,000. 3. Furthermore, art. 4 par. 4 of the contract provides that “the Player shall submit a monthly invoice to the Club for the services performed under this Contract and the Club is obliged to pay the aforementioned invoice within 15 days. All taxes, surtaxes and contributions based on the law and other regulations, which are payable on the sums referred to in Article 4 of this Contract, shall be paid by the Player and not by the Club, and the Player is obligated to pay them in due course”. 4. In addition, art. 14 par. 4 of the contract stipulates that “[t]he Contracting Parties recognize the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court of country D in case of any dispute. The Club and Player oblige themselves that no possible dispute arising out of or relating to this Contract shall be referred to ordinary courts”. Preliminary issue of competence of the DRC: 5. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant rejects the competence of FIFA to deal with the matter, asserting that in accordance with art. 14 par. 4 of the contract, the parties agreed to submit any potential dispute between them to the NDRC of country D. 6. In this respect, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent denies the competence of the NDRC of country D and refers to art. 5 of the 2013 edition of the Regulations of the Arbitral tribunal of the Football Federation of country D (hereinafter: 2013 edition of the NDRC Regulations), entered into force on 1 January 2014, which reads as follows: “ 1) The Arbitral Tribunal consists of a chairman, a deputy chairman and arbitrators who have a four-year term which may be renewed. 2) The chairman and the deputy chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal are appointed by the Executive board of the Football Federation of country D (…) 3) Arbitrators are determined by the Executive board of the Football Federation of country D: a) three to five arbitrators at the proposal of players association recognized by FIFPro or, if such association does not exist, at the proposal of senior team captains of the first league of country D, b) three to five arbitrators at the proposal of Association of professional clubs of the first league of country D, 4) the Executive board of the Football Federation of country D, along with the chairman and deputy chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal, shall appoint up to three arbitrators”. In continuation, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent outlines that art. 7 of the 2013 edition of NDRC Regulations states that “[t]he Council is composed of one arbitrator designated by each party and the president of the council, chosen by the arbitrators appointed by the parties. The chairman or the deputy chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal may be appointed for the president of the Council as well as one of the arbitrators appointed by the Executive Board of the Football Federation of country D”. In view of the above, the player concludes that the NDRC of country D does not comply with the principle of equal representation since the chairman and the deputy chairman are appointed by the Executive board of the Football Federation of country D, body mostly made of clubs’ representatives, without any influence of the players’ representatives. Equally, the player underlines that the president of the Council can only be chosen from the predetermined list of the Executive board on which the players’ representatives have no influence whatsoever. 7. Furthermore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent highlights that art. 48 of the 2013 edition of the NDRC Regulations which provides that “[t]he arbitration award is final and appeals against it cannot be made”, is not in accordance with art. 34 of the National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations and is contrary to the principle of fair proceedings. 8. In addition, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent points out that when he put the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in default, the 2013 edition of the NDRC Regulations had not entered into force. On the other hand, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent outlines that art. 53 of the 2013 NDRC Regulations states that “until the appointment of arbitrators referred to in Article 5 of this Regulation, the arbitrators appointed before this Regulation enters into force will continue to perform their duties”. In this regard, the player makes reference to art. 3 of the 2002 edition of the Rules of Procedure of the Arbitral Tribunal of the Football Federation of country D according to which “[t]he Arbitral Tribunal of the Football Federation of country D has 6 members (…). The Chairman and members of the Arbitral Tribunal of the Football Federation of country D are appointed by the Executive board of the Football Federation of country D at the proposal of the president of the Football Federation of country D”. In view of the foregoing, and emphasising that when he terminated the contract, i.e. on 8 January 2014, the arbitrators referred to in art. 5 of the 2013 edition of the NDRC Regulations had still not been appointed and therefore the former members were still on duty, the player concludes that the NDRC of country D did not comply with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations at that time. 9. In response to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s argumentation, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant first refers to art. 68 par. 3 of the FIFA Statutes as well as art. 62 of the Statutes of the Football Federation of country D (Football Federation of country D) which reads as follows: “ 1) The Court of Arbitration is an independent and permanent first instance court having jurisdiction in deciding matters referring to statuses of coaches and players and properly disputes arising in that respect among individual entities of the Federation (club – club, player – club, coach – club, club – individual county football association). 2) The President and arbitrators of the Court of Arbitration are appointed by the Executive Board of the Federation and only a person with a Bachelor of Laws (Master of Laws) degree can be appointed President. 3) The election, composition, rules and detailed authorities of the Court of Arbitration are governed by the Regulations governing the operation of the Court of Arbitration adopted by the Executive Board”. 10. In continuation, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant alleges that since the contract was terminated on 8 January 2014, the 2013 edition of the NDRC Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand. 11. In this regard, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant stresses on the content of art. 4 par. 1 of the 2013 edition of the NDRC Regulations which states that “[i]n the exercise of its jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration of Football Federation of country D shall apply the Statute and Regulations of the Football Federation of country D, especially those that have been adopted on the basis of statutes and regulations of FIFA. In cases where the Football Federation of country D is not regulate relations in this area, analogously are applicable the Statute and Regulations of FIFA”. 12. In reply to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s comments, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent explains that the Executive Board of the Football Federation of country D is made of 17 members. Out of these 17 members, the player outlines that at least three are currently clubs’ representatives whereas none of them are players’ representatives. Substance of the matter: 13. On 19 December 2013, the player put the club in default of paying, within 15 days, his outstanding remuneration corresponding to his gross salaries, i.e. 12,200, for January 2013, September 2013, October 2013 and November 2013 as well as 9,940 for May 2013 and 8,200 for August 2013. 14. On 23 December 2013, the club proceeded to a payment of 12,200 gross. 15. On 8 January 2014, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated the contract in writing. 16. On 27 January 2014, the club paid a gross amount of 8,078.71 to the player. 17. On 5 March 2014, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent / Counter-Claimant for breach of contract requesting: • 36,276.96 net as outstanding remuneration plus interests as follows: - 6,592.64 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 15 June 2013; - 5,611.28 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 15 September 2013; - 7,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 15 October 2013; - 7,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 15 November 2013; - 7,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 15 December 2013; - 3,073.04 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 15 January 2014; • 420,000 net , plus 5% interest as of the due date, as compensation; • sporting sanctions to be imposed on the club; • the procedural costs to be borne by the club. 18. In his claim, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent stresses that the net salary stipulated in the contract is equivalent to 12,200 gross. In this regard, the player submitted a bank statement evidencing that several payments of 12,200 were made to him. 19. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent considers that the Respondent / CounterClaimant breached the contract by not paying all the amounts requested in his claim. 20. In response to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant asserts that it complied with all its contractual obligations towards the player. In support of its assertions, the club submitted a document drafted its own administration in which it is referred to fines imposed on the player. 21. In his replica, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent stresses on the lack of reliability of the document submitted by the club in support of its assertion. 22. In its duplica, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant reiterates that it complied with its financial obligations and therefore concludes that the player terminated the contract without just cause. In view of the above, the Respondent / CounterClaimant lodged a counterclaim against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent requesting to be awarded with the amount of EUR 100,000 as compensation. 23. In his final comments, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent asserts that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant failed to carry the burden of proof regarding the compliance with its contractual obligations and insists that he has not received the claimed outstanding amounts. Finally, the player emphasises that he was registered as a self-employed person in country D during the months he did not receive his salaries from the club and, as such, he was obliged to pay his social and health contribution in spite of not receiving his salaries. 24. Having been requested to provide its comments, Club E alleges that the player approached it for first time on 13 January 2014, disclosing documents, i.e. the default notice dated 19 December 2013 and the termination order dated 8 January 2014, evidencing that he had terminated the contract with just cause. 25. In addition, Club E outlines that since the Respondent / Counter-Claimant does not lodge its counterclaim against it, it cannot be deemed as a respondent in the present matter. 26. Finally, Club E asserts that the player re-acquired the status of amateur and that therefore in accordance with art. 3 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of the Players, no compensation is due. 27. The player signed a new employment contract, as an amateur, with Club E, valid as from 1 July 2014 until 30 June 2015, according to which the aforementioned club would only pay the player’s expenses. On 18 June 2015, the player signed a second contract with Club E, again as an amateur, valid until 17 June 2016. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter referred to as the DRC or the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 5 March 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) 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 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015), the Dispute Resolution Chamber would be, in principle, competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player from country B, a club from country D and a club from country B. 3. However, the DRC acknowledged that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant contested the competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of art. 14 par. 4 of the contract. According to said article, “[t]he Contracting Parties recognize the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court of country D in case of any dispute. The Club and Player oblige themselves that no possible dispute arising out of or relating to this Contract shall be referred to ordinary courts”. 4. The DRC equally noted that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent rejected such position and insisted that FIFA had jurisdiction to deal with the present matter. 5. Taking into account the above, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 22 lit. b) of the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players it 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 referred to FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20 December 2005. In this regard, the DRC further referred to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008. 6. In this respect, the members of the Chamber noted that the version of the Regulations of the Arbitral tribunal of the Football Federation of country D, provided by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, came into force on 1 January 2014. In consequence, considering that the employment contract at the basis of the dispute was signed on 27 August 2012 and that the version of the national regulations provided by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant came in force on 1 January 2014 only, the Chamber determined that such version of the pertinent national regulations did not correspond in time with the event giving rise to the dispute, and therefore they could not be applicable, in any case, to the matter at stake. 7. In addition, the Chamber wished to stress that the Respondent / CounterRespondent was unable to prove that, in fact, the NDRC of country D meets the minimum procedural standards for independent arbitration tribunals as laid down in art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, in FIFA Circular no. 1010 as well as in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations. 8. In this respect, the DRC referred to the principle of equal representation of players and clubs and underlined that this principle was one of the very fundamental elements to be fulfilled, in order for a national dispute resolution chamber to be recognised as such. Indeed, this prerequisite is mentioned in the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, in the Circular no. 1010 as well as in art. 3 par. 1 of the NDRC Regulations, which illustrates the aforementioned principle as follows: “The NDRC shall be composed of the following members, who shall serve a four-year renewable mandate: a) a chairman and a deputy chairman chosen by consensus by the player and club representatives (…); b) between three and ten player representatives who are elected or appointed either on proposal of the players’ associations affiliated to FIFPro, or, where no such associations exist, on the basis of a selection process agreed by FIFA and FIFPro; c) between three and ten club representatives (…).” In this respect, the FIFA Circular no. 1010 states the following: “The parties must have equal influence over the appointment of arbitrators. This means for example that every party shall have the right to appoint an arbitrator and the two appointed arbitrators appoint the chairman of the arbitration tribunal (…). Where arbitrators are to be selected from a predetermined list, every interest group that is represented must be able to exercise equal influence over the compilation of the arbitrator list.” 9. In conformity with its jurisprudence, the Chamber decided that the 2013 Regulations of the Arbitral tribunal of the Football Federation of country D, in accordance with which, inter alia, the chairman, the vice-chairman as well as three of the members are appointed by the Executive Board of the Football Federation of country D, do not meet the aforementioned principles. 10. Finally, the members of the Chamber emphasised that the above-mentioned NDRC of country D Regulations do not provide for a possibility to appeal the decisions. 11. In view of all the above, the DRC established that, in line with its constant jurisprudence, the Respondent’s objection to the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected and that the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent, on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, to consider the present matter as to the substance. 12. Subsequently, the DRC analysed which edition of the Regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations (edition 2015) and considering that the claim in front of FIFA was lodged on 5 March 2014, the 2012 edition of said Regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the present matter as to the substance. 13. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, it started by acknowledging the abovementioned facts of the case as well as the documentation contained in the file. 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. 14. In this respect, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had signed an employment contract on 27 August 2012, valid as of 1 September 2012 until “2019, i.e. until the start of the summer registration period of the year in which the contract expires” and according to which the player was entitled to receive a monthly net salary of 7,000. Furthermore, the Chamber took note that on 8 January 2014, and after having put the Respondent / CounterRespondent in default, the player terminated in writing the contractual relationship with the club. 15. In continuation, the Chamber noted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant considers that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had terminated the employment contract without just cause. On the other hand, the DRC observed that the player claims that he had just cause to do so since the club failed to pay him an amount equivalent to approximately five monthly salaries between June 2013 and January 2014. 16. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the counterclaim of the Respondent / CounterClaimant, was to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by the player, and which party was responsible for the early termination of the contractual relationship in question. 17. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant asserts that it complied with all its financial obligations and in particular, points out several fines that would have been imposed on the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. In this respect, the DRC, referring to 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, held that the club did not submit any evidence proving that the player had actually behaved unprofessionally and that such fines were imposed in accordance with a fair procedure. 18. On account of the aforementioned, and, in particular, considering its failure to satisfactorily carry the burden of proof, the Chamber established that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, without any valid reason, failed to remit to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, an amount equivalent to approximately five monthly salaries between June 2013 and January 2014. Consequently, and taking into account that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had repeatedly and for a significant period of time been in breach of its contractual obligations towards the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the Chamber decided that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment contract on 8 January 2014 and that, as a result, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contact with just cause by the player. 19. In light of the foregoing, the Chamber decided to accept the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim with regards to the Respondent / CounterClaimant’s breach of contract without just cause and, thus, rejected the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim. 20. Having established that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequences of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is entitled to receive from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant an amount of money as compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding salaries on the basis of the relevant employment contract. 21. First, the Chamber reverted to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim for outstanding salaries and emphasised the fact that it would only consider the amounts that have already fallen due at the date of termination, i.e. 8 January 2014. 22. At this stage, the DRC recalled the content of art. 4 par. 4 of the contract which provides, inter alia, that “the Player shall submit a monthly invoice to the Club for the services performed under this Contract and the Club is obliged to pay the aforementioned invoice within 15 days”. In view of the above, and considering that any diligent person would submit the invoice on the first day of the month, the Chamber held that the salary fell due on the 15th day of the month. Therefore, and taking into account that the contract was terminated on 8 January 2014, the Chamber concluded that on the day of termination, the salary for January 2014 had not fallen due yet and therefore held that only part of the salaries for June and September 2013 as well as the salaries for October, November and December 2013, corresponding to a total amount of 33,203.92, had to be deemed outstanding. 23. Consequently, in accordance with the principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is liable to pay the Claimant / Counter-Respondent the amount of 33,203.92 as outstanding remuneration. 24. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim, the Chamber decided to award him interest at the rate of 5% p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows: a. 5% p.a. as of 16 June 2013 on the amount of 6,592.64; b. 5% p.a. as of 16 September 2013 on the amount of 5,611.28; c. 5% p.a. as of 16 October 2013 on the amount of 7,000; d. 5% p.a. as of 16 November 2013 on the amount of 7,000; e. 5% p.a. as of 16 December 2013 on the amount of 7,000. 25. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including, in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant / CounterRespondent under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period. 26. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contains a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake. 27. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable. Therefore, other objective criteria may be taken into account at the discretion of the deciding body. 28. At this stage, the Chamber recalled that the contract was initially signed for a period of seven years. In this regard, the DRC emphasised the content of art. 18 par. 2 of the Regulations which states that “the maximum length of a contract shall be five years (…) [c]ontracts of any other length shall only be permitted if consistent with national laws”. Consequently, and considering that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent did not submit any documentation evidencing that law of country D provides for fixed-term contract longer than five years, the Chamber decided to reduce the contract duration to five years and to calculate the compensation payable on this basis. 29. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant / CounterRespondent, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent under the terms of the contract until 31 August 2017, taking into account that the Claimant / CounterRespondent’s remuneration which had fallen due up until 8 January 2014 is included in the calculation of the outstanding remuneration. Therefore, the Chamber held that the remuneration due as of January 2014 until 31 August 2017 should be taken into consideration to figure out the amount due as a compensation for breach of contract. In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that the amount of 308,000 shall serve as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 30. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant / CounterRespondent had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been able to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the player only signed amateur contracts, which did not provide for any remuneration, in the relevant period of time. 31. In view of all of the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent / CounterClaimant must pay the amount of 308,000 to the Claimant / Counter- Respondent, which is considered by the DRC to be a reasonable and justified amount as compensation for breach of contract. 32. In addition, and taking into account the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s request, the Chamber decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of compensation as of the date on which the claim was lodged, i.e. 5 March 2014, until the date of effective payment. 33. Moreover, the Chamber rejected any claim for legal expenses and procedural compensation in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the Chamber’s respective longstanding jurisprudence in this regard. 34. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Player A, is admissible. 2. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is partially accepted. 3. The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club C, is rejected. 4. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of 33,203.92 plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows: a. 5% p.a. as of 16 June 2013 on the amount of 6,592.64; b. 5% p.a. as of 16 September 2013 on the amount of 5,611.28; c. 5% p.a. as of 16 October 2013 on the amount of 7,000; d. 5% p.a. as of 16 November 2013 on the amount of 7,000; e. 5% p.a. as of 16 December 2013 on the amount of 7,000. 5. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract amounting to 308,000 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 5 March 2014 until the date of effective payment. 6. In the event that the amounts plus interest due to the Claimant / CounterRespondent in accordance with the above-mentioned points 2. and 3. are not paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant within the stated time limits, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 7. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected. 8. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent / Counter-Claimant 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 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