F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2014-2015) – controversie di lavoro – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2014-2015) – labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 24 April 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Leonardo Gross (Italy), member Theo Van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Philippe Diallo (France), member Todd Durbin (USA), member on the claim presented by the player, A, country C, represented by Mr xxxxxx as Claimant against the club, B, country A as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I.

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2014-2015) - controversie di lavoro – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2014-2015) - labour disputes – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 24 April 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Leonardo Gross (Italy), member Theo Van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Philippe Diallo (France), member Todd Durbin (USA), member on the claim presented by the player, A, country C, represented by Mr xxxxxx as Claimant against the club, B, country A as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 30 August 2013, the player from C, A (hereinafter: the player or Claimant), and the club from A, B (hereinafter: the club or Respondent), signed an employment contract valid as from 30 August 2013 until 30 May 2014 (hereinafter: the contract). 2. In accordance with the contract, the player will receive the following remuneration: a. “€ 3,000 net (Euro three thousand) upon signature of this agreement”; b. “€ 5,000 (Euro two thousand) within 10 (ten) calendar days after the signature of this agreement”. c. a monthly EUR 1,500 no later than five calendar days after the beginning of the next month. d. EUR 125 for each official match in which he plays. 3. The contract establishes in its article 6 that “the parties agree that during the period from 1st of January to 28th February 2014 with the request from player this agreement will be terminated”. 4. The contract further provides that the player is also entitled to “EUR 10,000 net (Euros five thousand) should the club win the Albanian league” and “EUR 5,000 net (Euros five thousand) should the club win the qualification to UEFA Europa League”. 5. Article 23 stipulates that ”after termination of the agreement, the parties are obliged to meet all due obligations to each other. In the event of outstanding liabilities the parties undertake to pay the relevant interest as well”. 6. On 8 January 2014, the player allegedly sent an e-mail notifying the club of the unilateral termination of the contract in concordance with article 6 (cf. point I./3. above). 7. On 31 March 2014, the player lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the club asking that he be paid outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 16,250 relating to amounts allegedly owed to him under the terms of the employment contract as well as 5% p.a. interest from the date the breach occurred. 8. The player claims that he was not paid for the month of December 2013 and is therefore owed EUR 1,500 as outstanding remuneration. The player further claims EUR 3,000 in consideration of the allegation that the contract provided for a total of EUR 8,000 to be paid upon and ten days following the signing of the contract (cf. points I./2.a. and I./2.b. above), and he was only paid EUR 5,000. 9. In addition, the player claims that he played in 14 official matches, and is therefore owed 14 x USD 125 for a total of EUR 1,750. In this regard, he provides a list of the matches in which he allegedly played. 10. Furthermore, the player claims for the amount of “EUR 10,000 that was contracted” without providing any other argument, in addition to costs of the proceedings. 11. In its reply, the club asserts that the player agreed “total profit” of EUR 30,000, with EUR 20,000 to be paid in advance of payments and monthly salaries only; there are therefore no sign-on fees. In addition, the club claims that the value of the contract was to be subsidised by EUR 10,000 which was to be paid by a certain Mr X, who was “introduced at the club together with the player in quality of the mediator and facilitator”. The club alleges to have never been paid by X nor heard from him since the signature. 12. The club also alleges it never received the e-mail of unilateral termination of contract declaredly sent by the player dated 8 January 2014. It equally states that without prior notice, the player did not appear to training on 5 January 2014. 13. The club state that the player only executed half of the contract and has been paid half the amount, i.e. EUR 10,000. 14. Furthermore, the club alleges to have paid the player approximately EUR 600 in match bonuses and that they imposed fines in the total amount of EUR 950 on the player for non-compliance with the internal regulations of the club. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as the Chamber or the DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the Dispute Resolution Chamber took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 31 March 2014. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2012; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015), it is competent to decide on the present litigation, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player from C and a club from A. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015), and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 31 March 2014, the 2012 edition of said Regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the present matter 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. In this respect, the DRC acknowledged that the parties had signed an employment contract on 30 August 2013, in accordance with which the player was inter alia entitled to receive the amount of EUR 3,000 upon signature, a monthly EUR 1,500 and EUR 125 for each official match played. In addition, the DRC took note that the employment contract provides “€ 5,000 (Euro two thousand) within 10 (ten) calendar days after the signature of this agreement”. 6. In continuation, the members of the Chamber noted that the Claimant alleged that the Respondent had failed to pay remuneration established by the parties in the employment contract, pertaining to the salary of the month of December 2013 (i.e. EUR 1,500), as well as the amount of EUR 3,000 out of the total of EUR 8,000 allegedly owed at the latest 10 days after the signature of the contract, and EUR 1,750 corresponding to EUR 125 multiplied by the 14 matches allegedly played by the Claimant. Furthermore, the Claimant claims a further EUR 10,000 “that was contracted”. Consequently, the Claimant asked to be awarded the payment of the total amount of EUR 16,250, plus interest. In addition, the Claimant requested that the Respondent should bear the legal costs of the procedure. 7. Equally, the DRC took note of the reply of the Respondent, which asserted that it had already paid the Claimant what it deemed to be half of the total value owed to the player, i.e. EUR 10,000, as the player only performed his obligations for half of the prescribed duration of the contract. The members also noted that the Respondent asserts having never received the notice of unilateral termination allegedly sent by the player on 8 January 2014. Nonetheless, the Chamber took into account that it has remained undisputed that the employment contract was prematurely terminated with the consent of both parties. 8. With due consideration to the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant stated not having received the aforementioned amount, whereas the Respondent states that it has already paid the Claimant EUR 10,000. 9. In this respect, the members of the Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in 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. 10. According to this, the Dispute Resolution Chamber noted that the Respondent did not substantiate its defence, as it did not present any evidence in respect of the amount of EUR 10,000 or of any other payment it alleges having made. 11. In continuation, with respect to the match bonuses claimed by the Claimant, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant provided a list of the matches in which he allegedly played and noted that the Respondent has not contested the contents of this list. 12. In addition, with regard to the claim of the Claimant, the DRC noted that he had not provided the legal basis or any evidence to substantiate his request pertaining to the amount of EUR 10,000 “that was contracted” (cf. points I./10. and II./6. above). Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant’s request for the payment of this amount had not been sufficiently evidenced and therefore, the Chamber decided to reject this request. 13. In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent has not provided evidence of its defence and therefore it could be established that the Respondent had failed to pay to the Claimant amounts due as agreed upon between the parties in the employment contract dated 30 August 2013. 14. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent must fulfil its obligations as per the employment contract concluded with the Claimant and, therefore, is to be held liable to pay the total outstanding amount of EUR 6,250 to the Claimant. 15. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s pertinent request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the members of the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay interest of 5% p.a. to the Claimant on the amount of EUR 6,250 as from 31 March 2014 until the date of effective payment. 16. The Dispute Resolution 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 relevant longstanding jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. 17. Finally, 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent B has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 6,250 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 31 March 2014 until the date of effective payment. 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 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 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: Jérôme Valcke Player A, country C / Club B, country A 7/6 Secretary General Encl. CAS directives