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 25 September 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member Guillermo Saltos (Ecuador), 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.

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 25 September 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member Guillermo Saltos (Ecuador), 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 an unknown date, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: player or Claimant), and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: club or Respondent), signed an employment contract valid from 29 August 2012 until 31 May 2013. 2. On 11 January 2013, the parties signed a termination agreement in accordance with which the club undertook to pay the following amounts to the player: - EUR 10,000 on 15 April 2013; - EUR 10,000 on 15 June 2013. Additionally, the parties agreed upon a penalty fee in the amount of EUR 5,000 for each “default”. 3. According to art. 3.1 of the termination agreement, the player discharged the club from payments based on the employment contract. 4. On 7 May 2013, the player sent a reminder to the club putting it in default of and asking to proceed with the payment of the first instalment of EUR 10,000. 5. On 15 July 2013, the player lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the club maintaining that the club failed to comply with the termination agreement and he therefore requests that the club be ordered to pay the amount of EUR 30,000 plus interest on the amount of EUR 15,000 as of 15 April 2013 and on the amount of EUR 15,000 as of 15 June 2013. 6. The player maintained that he did not receive the amounts agreed upon in the termination agreement and that he, therefore, is entitled to receive these instalments plus the penalty fee in the amount of EUR 5,000 for each instalment. 7. In reply to the claim, the club rejected the player’s claim and held that the parties terminated the employment contract and that the player signed a declaration (hereinafter: declaration), by means of which he “waived from all contract related receivables and rights and he acquitted the club in a broad sense”. 8. The original version of said declaration, dated 11 January 2013, was drafted in the language of country D and bears the signature of both parties. The translation presented by the club reads as follows: “We the undersigned, hereby declare that we agreed on reciprocal contract termination and that from this date on we have terminated the Football Federation of country D Professional Footballer Transfer Agreement beginning on 29.08.2012 and ending on 31.05.2013, and that there are no any outstanding rights and receivables arisen or to be arisen till the present date from compensation claims and rights of litigation and we further agree, declare and undertake in advance that by signing this document, we have reciprocally, irrevocably acquitted each other in the widest sense.” 9. Moreover, the club argued that said declaration was “verbally pronounced to the Claimant through a sworn Translator”. In consequence thereof, the club requested that the claim be rejected. 10. After the closure of the investigation phase of the present matter, the player submitted unsolicited correspondence. 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 July 2013. 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 country B and 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 July 2013, 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 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 deemed it fit to highlight that the unsolicited position received from the Claimant (cf. point I./10. above) could not be taken into account, since it was received after the closure of the investigation-phase in the present matter. 6. First and foremost, the Chamber acknowledged that the parties had terminated their employment relation by mutual consent by signing the termination agreement on 11 January 2013. In accordance with the termination agreement, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 20,000 in two instalments of EUR 10,000 each, falling due on 15 April 2013 and 15 June 2013, respectively. 7. The members further took into account that in accordance with the termination agreement, the parties had agreed upon a penalty payment amounting to EUR 5,000 for “each default”. 8. In continuation, the DRC noted that according to the Claimant, the Respondent failed to remit the first instalment of EUR 10,000, which fell due on 15 April 2013 as well as the second instalment of EUR 10,000, which fell due on 15 June 2013. Consequently, the Claimant asks to be awarded the total amount of EUR 30,000 comprising the instalments totalling EUR 20,000 plus EUR 5,000 for each “default”. 9. In continuation, the DRC took into account that the Respondent rejected the claim arguing that the Claimant waived his rights and receivables and acquitted the Respondent in a broad sense by signing a declaration on 11 January 2013, which declaration it presented along with its reply to the claim. 10. Subsequently, the Chamber focussed its attention on the declaration dated 11 January 2013. 11. After due deliberation, the members of the Chamber concluded that the declaration dated 11 January 2013, presented by the Respondent, appears to be related to rights and obligations arising from the employment contract only and not to the instalments payable by the Respondent to the Claimant in April and June 2013 on the basis of the termination agreement, which was signed by and between the parties on the same day. 12. On account of the above, the DRC decided to reject the arguments put forward by the Respondent in its defence. 13. Consequently, the Chamber decided that in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the outstanding instalments in the total amount of EUR 20,000. 14. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as of the day following the day on which each of the instalments of EUR 10,000 fell due. 15. In addition, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the additional amount of EUR 10,000 as a penalty for having defaulted twice on the payment of the instalments in accordance with the termination agreement. 16. The Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by rejecting any further claim filed by 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 20,000 plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows: a. 5% p.a. as of 16 April 2013 on the amount of EUR 10,000; b. 5% p.a. as of 16 June 2013 on the amount of EUR 10,000. 3. The Respondent, has to pay to the Claimant the additional amount of EUR 10,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 4. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant in accordance with the abovementioned number 3. is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the aforementioned time limit. 5. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant 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. 6. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 7. 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: Marco Villiger Acting Deputy Secretary General Encl: CAS directives