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 28 January 2016, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), 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 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 28 January 2016, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), 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 between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 23 July 2013, the Player A from country B (hereinafter: player or Claimant), and the Club C from country D (hereinafter: club or Respondent), signed an employment contract valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2015 (hereinafter: contract). 2. According to the contract, the club undertook to pay to the player the amount of EUR 380,000 for two seasons as follows: 2013-14 season – total of EUR 180,000: a. EUR 20,000 on 23 July 2013; b. EUR 20,000 on 31 August 2013; c. EUR 20,000 on 30 September 2013; d. EUR 120,000 in instalments of EUR 12,000 each between 5 September 2013 and 5 June 2014. 2014-15 season – total of EUR 200,000 (if club plays in 1st league): e. 3 instalments of EUR 20,000 each as from 31 July 2014 until 30 September 2014; f. EUR 140,000 in instalments of EUR 14,000 each as from 5 September 2014 until 5 June 2015. 3. Art. 3 of the contract contains the indication “minimum wage” without any further specification. 4. On 15 June 2015, with a subsequent amendment on 6 July 2015, the player lodged a claim against the club before FIFA maintaining that the club still owes him the amounts of EUR 177,000 and 17,600 relating to both seasons, out of the EUR 380,000 that were contractually due to him. 5. These amounts were specified as follows: EUR 11,500 due on 5 February 2014; 4 x EUR 12,000 due on 5 March, on 5 April, on 5 May, and on 5 June, respectively; EUR 5,500 due on 5 October 2014; 8 x EUR 14,000 due as from 5 November 2014 until 5 June 2015; 17,600 allegedly due by 1 June 2015. 6. Therefore, the player asked that the club be ordered to pay the amounts of EUR 177,000 and 17,600 plus 5% interest p.a. as of the due dates of each of the respective instalments. The player further asked that sporting sanctions be imposed on the club and that the club cover his legal fees. 7. According to the player, the minimum wage was of 800 per month. 8. In reply to the claim, the club stated that it had fulfilled all of its financial obligations towards the player and that its “debt towards the player is not as huge as he claimed in the statement of the claim …”. 9. The club acknowledged that the player was entitled to receive the amount of EUR 380,000 for the contractual duration and it submitted documents related to payments totalling the amount of EUR 351,134 it maintains having made to the player. 10. In his replica, the player held that the payments made by the club in the currency of country D, in particular those in the amount of 82,500, are related to match premiums and not to his monthly receivables and that, therefore, these should not be taken into consideration when determining his outstanding receivables. 11. The player further alleged that the receipt in the amount of EUR 96,809, dated 13 March 2015, is a forgery in that the signature thereon is not his. 12. In addition, according to the player, the receipt dated 23 July 2013 in the amount of EUR 20,000 is related to an “extra-contractual” fee, which was agreed upon between the parties and should not be taken into account. 13. Furthermore, the player recalled that he also claims payment of the minimum wage. 14. In its duplica, the club pointed out that in accordance with the employment contract, the player was not entitled to receive match bonuses. 15. As regards the EUR 20,000 payment made on 23 July 2013, the club referred to the employment contract, in accordance with which such payment was contractually due to the player. 16. In addition, the club highlighted that the player never put it in default of payment. 17. The club therefore insisted that the player’s arguments and claim be rejected and that he shall bear the procedural costs and legal fees. 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 15 June 2015. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2015; 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 and par. 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player from country B and a club from country D. 3. Furthermore, 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 (edition 2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 15 June 2015, the 2015 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. 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. 5. The members of the Chamber started by acknowledging that according to the employment contract signed by and between the Claimant and the Respondent on 23 July 2013, the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent, inter alia, the amount of EUR 180,000 for the 2013-14 season and EUR 200,000 for the 2014-15 season if during the last season the club would play in the 1st league. The Chamber further noted that art. 3 of the contract refers to the minimum wage in country D. 6. In continuation, the Chamber reviewed the claim of the Claimant, who alleges that, out of the amount of EUR 380,000 for both seasons, the Respondent failed to pay the amount of EUR 177,000. The Claimant further holds that the Respondent omitted to pay the amount of 17,600 in connection with the minimum wage in country D, which according to the Claimant equals 800 per month. Consequently, according to the Claimant, the Respondent must be held liable for payment of said amounts plus 5% interest p.a. as of the respective due dates of the relevant payments. 7. The members of the Chamber then turned their attention to the Respondent, who with its statement that its “debt towards the player is not as huge as he claimed …” appears to acknowledge that it has a debt towards the Claimant, but contested the amount included in the latter’s statement of claim. In this regard, bearing in mind the contractual condition relating to the club playing in the 1st league during the 2014-15 season, the DRC took into account that the Respondent acknowledged that the Claimant was entitled to receive EUR 380,000 for the entire contractual duration. 8. In continuation, the Chamber noted that in support of its position the Respondent presented multiple payment documents. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber took into account that the Respondent has not contested the Claimant’s allegation that, in addition to the amounts in Euros, he was also owed a monthly 800 as minimum wage. 9. Having established the above, the Chamber proceeded with a detailed analysis of the documentation presented by the Respondent in connection with payments it sustains having made to the Claimant. The members of the Chamber noted that no translation of the relevant documents was presented and that therefore no purpose of payment could be distinguished from the documents presented, that all documents indicate the names of both the Claimant and the Respondent, and that some documents consist of vouchers bearing the Claimant’s signature. In total, the documents presented by the Respondent correspond to the amounts of EUR 316,809 and 97,500, which amount, according to the Respondent, corresponds to EUR 34,325. 10. The members of the Chamber then focused their attention on the position of the Claimant with regard to the various payment documents presented by the Respondent. The Chamber noted that, according to the Claimant, payments made by the Respondent in amounting to 82,500 allegedly are related to match bonuses and not to his monthly remuneration. 11. In this regard, the Chamber took into account that the contract does not include an entitlement of the Claimant to match bonuses in the event of the club playing in the first league, which in fact is the league at the basis of the present matter. Therefore, the Chamber decided to reject the respective argument of the Claimant. However, bearing in mind that the relevant payment documents submitted do not allow to distinguish the purpose of payment, from the Claimant’s statement the Chamber deducted and agreed that the Claimant has received the amount of 82,500 in connection with his employment with the Respondent. 12. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that according to the Claimant, the receipt dated 23 July 2013 in the amount of EUR 20,000 should not be linked to his outstanding receivables, since this payment allegedly consists of an “extra-contractual” fee. In this regard, the members of the Chamber agreed with the Respondent that, contrary to the Claimant’s assertion, according to the contract the Respondent was obliged to pay the amount of EUR 20,000 to the Claimant on 23 July 2013 (cf. point I./2.a. above). 13. In continuation, the members of the Chamber noted that the Claimant has contested the signature on the receipt amounting to EUR 96,809, dated 13 March 2015, maintaining that it is not his signature. 14. At this stage, the DRC considered it appropriate to remark that, as a general rule, FIFA’s deciding bodies are not competent to decide upon matters of criminal law, such as the ones of alleged falsified signatures or documents, and that such affairs fall into the jurisdiction of the competent national criminal authority. 15. In continuation the DRC recalled that all documentation remitted shall be considered with free discretion and, therefore, focused its attention on the aforementioned receipt as well as on other documents containing the Claimant’s signature, provided by the parties in the context of the present dispute. In this regard, the Chamber pointed out that the original version of the contested receipt dated 13 March 2015 was provided by the Respondent. 16. After a thorough analysis of the aforementioned documents, in particular, comparing the relevant signatures of the Claimant in the various documents provided in the present affair, the DRC had no other option but to conclude that, for a layman, the signatures on such documents appear to be the same. 17. In addition to the above, the Chamber took into account that the Claimant has not commented on further payment documents presented by the Respondent in its defence, nor has he contested the EUR/conversion rate applied by the Respondent in respect of payments made in the currency of country D. 18. On account of all of the above, the members of the Chamber established that the Respondent has paid to the Claimant the amount of EUR 316,809, the entire minimum wage of 17,600 (22 months x 800), and the remaining amount of 64,900, bearing in mind that the Claimant acknowledged having received the amount of 82,500 from the Respondent in connection with his employment. The Chamber further established that said amount of 64,900 equals EUR 22,715 following the Respondent’s uncontested rate of conversion. 19. Consequently, the Chamber established that the Respondent failed to pay the amount of EUR 40,476 to the Claimant, i.e. EUR 380,000 due to the Claimant minus EUR 339,525 received by the Claimant. 20. Taking into account all of the above, the Chamber decided 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 amount of EUR 40,476. 21. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as the documentation on file, the Chamber decided to partially accept the Claimant’s claim and award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 40,476 as of the date of expiry of the contract. 22. 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. 23. The Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by rejecting any further claim of the Claimant. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 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, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 40,476 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 May 2015 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA 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 is 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