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 2 July 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member on the claim presented by the club, Club A, country B, as Claimant against the player, Player C, country D, as Respondent and the club, Club E, country D as Intervening Party regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I.

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 2 July 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member on the claim presented by the club, Club A, country B, as Claimant against the player, Player C, country D, as Respondent and the club, Club E, country D as Intervening Party regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 28 June 2013, the club from country B, Club A (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the player from country D, Player C (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded an employment contract, (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2014 i.e., “on the date of the last League or Cup match of the Club’s first team, whichever is the later”. 2. According to art. 28 of the contract, the Respondent was entitled to receive inter alia the total amount of EUR 35,000 divided “in ten equal monthly instalments with 45 days period of grace, starting from 31 August 2013”. In addition art. 32 of the contract stipulates that “the Club is obligated to find for the Player accommodation (1 bedroom flat) up to 300 EURO and a car” and according to art. 33, the Respondent is also entitled to” […] one returning air ticket to his country for him, his wife and his child”. 3. Art. 29 of the contract stipulates that “the Club has the right to serve notice upon the Player terminating this Agreement. In that event the Club has the obligation to pay the Player the 1% of his net basis year salary as compensation”. 4. Furthermore art. 18 and 19 of the contract further stipulates that “If the Player shall be guilty of serious and/or persistent misconduct and/or breach of the Internal Regulations of the Football Team and/or Rules of the Club and/or Rules of the Football Association of country B and/or conditions of this Agreement and/or the Internal Regulations […], the Club has the right to terminate this Agreement without any obligation for compensation and/or with or without prejudice to its right to a transfer fee […] the Club may impose a fine. The Club shall inform the Player in writing of the action taken and the reasons”. 5. Equally, according to art. 20 of the contract “This Agreement may be terminated at any time by mutual consent of both the Club and the Player”. 6. On 21 February 2014, after having allegedly sent two reminders to the Respondent (cf. point I.9. below), the Claimant terminated the contract with the Respondent in writing with immediate effect underlining that the Respondent is absent since 18 January 2014 and “still away from employment without any permission and without any justification” and making reference to the reminders. 7. On 31 March 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA for breach of contract without just cause requesting the payment of the following amounts: i. EUR 10,500 as reimbursement of salaries paid in excess; ii. EUR 6,003.74 as reimbursement of costs borne by the Claimant on behalf of the Respondent, regarding flight tickets, electricity, internet and telephone bills (cf. point I.10. below); iii. “Damages for the rest of the Contract of Employment”; iv. Sporting sanctions on the Respondent; v. Legal Costs. 8. In its claim, the Claimant explains that the Respondent requested its permission to travel to country D for the Christmas holidays. Therefore, it allowed him to travel and provided him with flight tickets city F – city G – city H dated 11 January 2014, and a return flight ticket dated 17 of January 2014 city H-city G-city F. According to the Claimant, the Respondent was supposed to return on 18 January 2014, but he did not. The Claimant further explains that the Respondent contacted it, informing it that he had a problem with his visa to travel through city G. Therefore, the Claimant allegedly sent two letters to the embassy of country I in country D on 23 and 27 January 2014 requesting the embassy to issue a visa for the Respondent to allow him to come back to country B. 9. The Claimant further holds that the Respondent failed to return to the Claimant “even after the settlement of the visa issue” and ignored the two letters dated 8 and 14 February 2014 allegedly sent by the Claimant inviting him to immediately return to country B and informing him, in the last letter, that his contract will be terminated if he is not back before 17 February 2014. 10. Regarding the amounts claimed by the Claimant from the Respondent (cf. point I.7.ii. above), the Claimant holds having paid on behalf of the Respondent the total amount of EUR 6,003.74 broken down as follows: a) EUR 1,679.88: for the electricity bill for the Respondent’s apartment; b) EUR 123.86: for the Respondent’s internet and telephone bill; c) EUR 4,200: for the Respondent’s flight tickets. 11. Furthermore, the Claimant claims that due to the Respondent’s departure, it incurred other damages because of the fact that the Claimant could not replace the Respondent and had to play without a valuable player. In view of the abovementioned facts, the Claimant deems that the Respondent breached the contract without just cause. 12. In spite of having been invited to reply to the claim, the Respondent only sent a reply after the closure of the investigation. The deadline was 2 September 2014, the investigation was closed on 17 November 2014 and the reply of the Respondent was received on 23 December 2014. 13. In his position on the Claimant’s claim, the Respondent confirmed having had an issue regarding his visa to return to country B but holds that he did everything that he could to obtain it, without success. For this reason, taking into account that he is already 33 years old and soon at the end of his carrier, he decided to play with his former club, Club E, while waiting to find a solution. In addition, the Respondent also pointed out that while playing for Club A, the payment of his salary was regularly delayed and paid in several incomplete instalments. 14. Despite having been invited to do so, the intervening party, Club E, did not provide FIFA with its comments on the present affair. 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 case at hand. In this respect, it 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: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. article 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 2012, 2014 and 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 club from country B and a player 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 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2012, 2014, and 2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 31 March 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 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 the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. However, the DRC 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 members of the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent were bound by an employment contract, which was signed on 28 June 2013 and valid as from the date of signature until 31 May 2014 (cf. point I.1. above). 6. The members of the Chamber noted that the Claimant maintains that it had terminated the employment contract on 21 February 2014 with just cause as a result of the allegedly unjustified absence of the Respondent at the club as from 18 January 2014. 7. In continuation, the DRC observed that the Respondent, for its part, in spite of having been invited to do so, failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant within the relevant time-limit. In fact, the reply of the Respondent was only received after the investigation-phase of the matter had already been concluded. As a result, the Chamber decided not to take into account the reply of the Respondent and established that, in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, it shall take a decision upon the basis of those documents on file that were provided prior to the closure of the investigation-phase, in casu, upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant. 8. In continuation, the Chamber paid due consideration to the fact that the Claimant submits that the Respondent first left with its authorisation for the Christmas holidays and was supposed to return on 18 January 2014 (cf. point I.8. above). However, the Claimant holds that the Respondent failed to come back because he had incurred problems to obtain a visa to travel through country I to come back to country B. 9. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute, considering the claim of the Claimant, was to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by the Claimant. 10. Subsequently, the DRC proceeded to the analysis of the arguments and the corresponding documentation provided by the Claimant. At this point and for the sake of good order, 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 from an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. 11. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber deemed it appropriate to emphasise that as soon as an employment contract is signed between a club and a player, rights and responsibilities ensue on both sides without being subject to any particular condition. In this respect, the Chamber referred to the well-established jurisprudence of the DRC and emphasised that, as a general rule, it is the club?s duty and responsibility to act accordingly in order to obtain, if necessary, a work permit or a visa for its players prior to the signing of an employment contract or during its period of validity, in order for players to be able to legally enter a particular country and be in a position to render their services to the club. 12. Having said that, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant holds that the Respondent failed to return to the club even after the issue with the Claimant’s visa was solved. 13. Bearing in mind the considerations made in points II. 10. and II. 11. above, the DRC was eager to point out that, in the present case, the club bore the burden of proving that it in fact complied with its obligation of ensuring that the player obtains an entry visa and that he was in fact provided one in order to be able to return to country B. More specifically, the DRC observed that the Claimant did not provide any evidence that the issue with the Respondent’s visa was in fact settled, as mentioned in point I. 9. and that he failed to resume his contract, in spite of being in possession of all the documentation allowing him to do so. 14. Hence, the members of the Chamber came to the conclusion that the Claimant had failed to carry out the necessary arrangements in order for the Respondent to come back to the club or at least to prove that it had made everything that one could reasonably expect to solve this issue. 15. In view of all the foregoing considerations, the DRC was satisfied in its conclusion that neither the Claimant could prove that it was genuinely interested in keeping the Respondent’s services nor was the Respondent interested in continuing to render his services to the Claimant. Thus, the members of the Chamber were lead to conclude that none of the parties was in fact interested in maintaining their contractual relationship and that the termination of the contract should rather be considered as the result of a tacit, mutual consent of the parties. 16. In view of all of the above, and based on the documentation currently at their disposal, the members of the Chamber concluded their deliberations by establishing that the claim of the Claimant is entirely rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is rejected. ***** 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: Marco Villiger Acting Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS Directives