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 11 June 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member Santiago Nebot (Spain), member Mohamed Al-Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member Zola Majavu (South-Africa), member on the claim presented by the player, A, country D, represented by xxxxxx as Claimant against the club, B, country T as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute 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 11 June 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member Santiago Nebot (Spain), member Mohamed Al-Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member Zola Majavu (South-Africa), member on the claim presented by the player, A, country D, represented by xxxxxx as Claimant against the club, B, country T as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 8 August 2012, the player from D, A (hereinafter: the player) and the club from T, B (hereinafter: the club) signed an employment contract valid as from 8 August 2012 until 31 May 2013. 2. The contract provided the club with an option to extend the contract until the end of the 2013/2014 season under the same terms and conditions as the previous season. This option was applied by the club on 1 April 2013. 3. In accordance with the employment contract, the player was inter alia entitled to the following remuneration for the 2012/2013 season: a. a sign-on fee to be paid in cash in the amount of EUR 40,000; b. a monthly EUR 8,750 for eight months from September 2012 until May 2013; c. EUR 10,000 for the month of February 2013. 4. In light of the extension of the contract, it follows that the player was inter alia entitled to receive the following remuneration for the 2013/2014 season: a. a sign-on fee to be paid in cash in the amount of EUR 40,000; b. a monthly EUR 8,750 for eight months from September 2013 until May 2014; c. EUR 10,000 for the month of February 2014. 5. On 19 November 2013, the player formally put the club in default of amounts allegedly owed to him in the amount of EUR 57,500 (i.e. sign-on fee due on 10 August 2013 of EUR 40,000, EUR 8,750 owed on 30 September 2013 and 31 October 2013). 6. On 26 November 2013, the club formally unilaterally terminated the contract on the basis that the player suffered from an injury for which the recovery lasted for more than six months, and in virtue of article 27 of the Professional Players’ Status and Transfers Regulations of the Football Federation of T as per a decision taken by the board of directors of the club the previous day. 7. On 28 January 2014, the player lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the club for breach of contract asking that he be paid EUR 57,500 in outstanding remuneration and a further EUR 120,000 in compensation for breach as well as the imposition of sporting sanctions on the club plus 5% interest p.a.. 8. The player explains that he suffered an injury for which he had to have an MRI scan on 15 July 2013, he then received treatment and allegedly played until 1 October 2013. On 13 November 2013, the player underwent another MRI scan which clarified that the player would need surgery. The club and the player agreed on 15 November 2013 that the player would receive treatment abroad and return to the club on 2 January 2014. 9. The player claims that he was not paid from 1 August 2013 and put the club in default on 19 November 2013. The player alleges that on 29 November 2013, the club announced that it had terminated the employment contract with the player on its website and he received notice of unilateral termination of the employment contract by and from the club on 1 December 2013. Despite having sent, on 2 December 2013, a letter of protest to the club, the player received no further communication or payment of any kind. 10. In spite of FIFA’s pertinent request, the club did not respond to the claim or make any statement during the course of the investigation. 11. The player informed FIFA that he had not signed any further employment contract until 1 July 2014. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First, 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 28 January 2014. Consequently, the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2012; 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 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 D and a club from T. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which edition of the 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 28 January 2014, the 2012 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. The Chamber started by acknowledging the aforementioned facts of the case as well as the documentation contained in the file. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the parties had signed an employment contract and its extension making it valid as from 8 August 2012 until 31 May 2014. 5. In continuation, the members of the Chamber noted that the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent maintaining that the Respondent had terminated the contract without just cause on 1 December 2013, and this, in spite of having previously formally put the Respondent in default on 19 November 2013 as a result of alleged failure in paying the Claimant’s remuneration. In this respect, the Claimant asserts having not received the sign-on fee and two monthly salary instalments. Consequently, the Claimant asks to be awarded the aforementioned outstanding sums as well as the payment of compensation for breach of the employment contract without just cause. 6. The Respondent, for its part, failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant, in spite of having been invited to do so. Consequently, the Chamber deemed that the Respondent had renounced to its right of defence and had therefore accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 7. As a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the members of the Chamber concurred that, in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, a decision shall be taken on the basis of the documents already on file, in other words, upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant. 8. The failure of the Respondent to present its response to the claim notwithstanding, the members of the Chamber noted that the Respondent had terminated the contract on 1 December 2013 on the basis that the player had suffered an injury for which the recovery lasted over six months. 9. In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged, in accordance with its well established jurisprudence, that an injury or health condition of a player cannot be a valid reason to cease the payment of a player’s remuneration and even less a basis for the termination of an employment contract. 10. In accordance with the employment contract, the Respondent, in addition to the signon fee of EUR 40,000, was obliged to pay the Claimant EUR 26,250 at the time the contract was terminated, i.e. on 1 December 2013, amounting to the salaries of September, October and November 2013. 11. On account of the aforementioned considerations, in particular those to be found in points II.7, II.8 and II.9 above, the Chamber established that the Respondent failed to remit to the Claimant the total amount of EUR 66,250 without a valid reason. Consequently, and considering that the Respondent had been in breach of its contractual obligations towards the Claimant and had based its termination of the contract on an injury, the members of the Chamber decided that the Respondent did not have just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment contract on 1 December 2013 and that as a result the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract without just cause. 12. In continuation, having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract without just cause, the Chamber focused its attention to the consequences of such a termination. In this regard, the members of the Chamber determined that the Respondent is not only to pay the amount of EUR 66,250 as outstanding remuneration to the Claimant, but also to pay compensation for breach of contract in conformity with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. 13. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of compensation payable to the Claimant by the Respondent in the matter at hand. In this regard, the members of the Chamber first 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 present dispute, with due consideration of 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 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. 14. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first had to clarify whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by means of which the parties had previously agreed on 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. 15. Consequently, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant 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 the criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable. 16. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of monies payable to the player under the terms of the employment contract until 31 May 2014. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 53,750 (i.e. remuneration from 1 December 2013 until 31 May 2014) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation owed for breach of contract. 17. In continuation, the Chamber verified whether the Claimant 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, remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation due for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages. The Chamber noted that according to the Claimant’s declaration, he had not been able to sign an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time. 18. Consequently, on account of all the aforementioned considerations and specificities of the case at hand, the members of the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay the amount of EUR 53,750 to the Claimant as compensation for breach of contract in the matter at hand. 19. In addition, taking into account that Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the outstanding remuneration and on the amount of compensation due as of the date the claim was lodged, i.e. 28 January 2014. 20. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claims lodged by the Claimant are 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, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 66,250 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 28 January 2014 until the date of effective payment. 3. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 53,750 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 28 January 2014 until the date of effective payment. 4. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant in accordance with the aforementioned numbers 2. and 3. plus interest are not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limits, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 6. 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