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 3 September 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member on the matter between the club, Club A, country B as Claimant and the player, Player C, country D as 1 st Respondent and the club, Club E, country F as 2 nd Respondent and the club, Club G, country H as 1 st Intervening Party and the club, Club I, country F as 2 nd Intervening Party regarding an employment-related dispute arisen 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 3 September 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Philippe Diallo (France), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member on the matter between the club, Club A, country B as Claimant and the player, Player C, country D as 1 st Respondent and the club, Club E, country F as 2 nd Respondent and the club, Club G, country H as 1 st Intervening Party and the club, Club I, country F as 2 nd Intervening Party regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 2 January 2012, at the age of 17, the player from country D, Player C, born on 24 September 1994 (hereinafter: the player), and the club from country B, Club A (hereinafter: Club A), entered into an employment contract valid as from 2 January 2012 until 30 December 2014. The employment contract indicates, inter alia, that “the parties” were represented “in conclusion/negotiation of the contract” by the player’s father. 2. In accordance with the employment contract, the club undertook to pay the player the amount of 2,500 per month (approx. USD 209). 3. On 18 April 2012, in accordance with art. 19 par. 2 lit. a) of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee rejected the approval of the player’s International Transfer Certificate (ITC) from country D to country B, stressing that it appeared that the player’s father had moved to country B for reasons linked to football. In particular, the Single Judge pointed out that the player and his father had been living in a hotel in country B as from November 2011 until December 2012, that the player’s mother had not moved with them and that the father had also been employed by Club A. 4. On 3 December 2012, the player allegedly asked the club for unpaid leave as from 3 December 2012 until 31 December 2012. In this respect, Club A provided a document dated 3 December 2012 allegedly signed by the player. 5. Also on 3 December 2012, the player’s request for unpaid leave was allegedly granted by Club A. Again, Club A provided a document dated 3 December 2012 allegedly signed by the player and signed and stamped by Club A. 6. In the beginning of January 2013, the player did not return to Club A, but instead started to train with the club from country H, Club G. 7. On 28 January 2013, Club A put in writing that: “Club A does not object the move of our Player C born in 1994 to the Football Club G and does not have any financial or other claim.” 8. However, Club A stressed that although having prepared the letter of 28 January 2013, it never signed such letter. 9. According to Club A, around this time, i.e. the end of January 2013, and since the negotiations between the player and Club G had been unsuccessful, the player and Club A reached an agreement for the return of the player to Club A. In this respect, according to Club A, the player and the club signed a new employment contract dated 30 June 2014 valid as from 30 December 2014 until 30 December 2017, in accordance with which the player would earn 4,250 per month. In this respect, Club A provided a copy of an employment contract dated 30 June 2014 allegedly signed by the player and Club A. 10. Nevertheless, according to Club A, the player again did not return to country B. 11. On 3 March 2013, the Football Association of country B requested the player’s International Transfer Certificate (ITC) from country D which was delivered by the Football Association of country D on 5 March 2013. From the information contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), it can be established that when the Football Association of country B requested the relevant ITC, only the employment contract dated 2 January 2012 had been uploaded. 12. Notwithstanding all of the above, according to a confirmation issued by the Football Association of country F, the player was registered with the club from country F, Club I, in the 2013/2014 season and with the club from country F, Club E (hereinafter: Club E), in the 2014/2015 season. The player’s transfer to country F is however not entered into TMS. 13. In this framework, Club A alleged that only in September 2014, it found out that the player was playing in country F. 14. On 29 September 2014, the Football Association of country B requested the Football Association of country F for a clarification regarding the player’s registration in country F as the player had a contract with Club A and no ITC had ever been requested by the Football Association of country F. 15. On 27 November 2014, Club A requested Club E whether the player was registered with Club E whilst indicating that it had a valid contract with the player. 16. On 28 November 2014, Club E informed Club A that it signed a contract with the player on 1 August 2014 and that his former club was Club I while enclosing the following two document allegedly issued by Club A: i) An agreement dated 30 November 2012, which inter alia stipulates that the contract dated 2 January 2012 signed between the player and Club A is dissolved. In this respect, Club E enclosed said agreement which is allegedly signed by the player and allegedly signed and stamped by Club A; ii) a signed, stamped and slightly different version of the letter dated 28 January 2013 (cf. par. I./7. above) which reads: “Club A does not object the move of our Player C born in 1994 to a professional football club from any of the FIFA associations, and does not have any financial or other claim regarding the education and training of the football player.” In this respect, Club E enclosed said document, which is allegedly signed and stamped by Club A. 17. On 24 December 2014, Club A lodged a claim against the player and Club E in front of FIFA stating that, as of January 2013, the player did not return to the club and therefore he had breached the two employment contracts signed with Club A. 18. In its claim, Club A explained that in the end of January 2013 it managed to contact the player who was in country H with Club G, “not informing Club A about that.” 19. Due to these circumstances, a representative of Club A travelled to country H to meet and negotiate with the player. Club A explained that it brought a draft of the agreement dated 30 November 2012 as well as a draft of the letter dated 28 January 2013 to country H (cf. par. I./16. above), however it never signed these documents and the signatures of Club A thereon are forged. 20. Club A further explained that the negotiations with the player and Club G were unsuccessful and subsequently, according to Club A, it agreed with the player that he would return to Club A and “a new contract was signed, i.e. after expiry of the validity of the labor contract from 02.01.2012 the player will continue to play for the club until 30 December 2017” (cf. par. I./9. above). 21. However, Club A stressed that the player never returned to country B and in September 2014 it found out that the player was playing for Club E. 22. As such, Club A holds that the player terminated the contract without just cause by not returning to the club on 2 January 2013. 23. As to the financial part of its claim, Club A held that it continued to pay the player “from the moment he did not come back, starting from January 2013 until October 2014 inclusive”, a total amount of 55,526 including insurances. In this respect, the club provided the following table of its “account department”: 24. Therefore, Club A requested that the player is ordered to pay: - 55,526 as “unjustifiably paid wages” from January 2013 until October 2014; - 14,705 as social and medical insurance paid from January 2013 until October 2014; - 60,000 as compensation for the contract of January 2012; - 153,000 as compensation for the contract of June 2014. 25. Also, the club requests sporting sanctions to be imposed on the player. 26. In reply to the claim, Club E, having been provided with a power of attorney signed by the player and thus representing the player, stated that the contract dated 2 January 2012 was in fact signed in 2010. In this respect, the player provided an extract of a website stipulating that he was playing with Club A as of the 2010/2011 season. 27. In addition, the player stated that he never signed the request for unpaid leave dated 3 December 2012. The player further explained that Club A had not paid him for more than 4 months, that the last match of the season was on 2 December 2012 and that he was told that his salaries would be paid soon. “As there was no news and the team went on holiday” the player travelled to country D on 5 December 2012 for holidays and before departing he told Club A that he would not come back “if the delay would continue”. 28. The player further explained that he then went on trial with Club G in January 2013 and called Club A requesting for a release paper. However, Club A’s letter dated 28 January 2013 sent “by email was not sufficient for Club G.” (i.e. the first letter dated 28 January 2013 mentioned in par. I./7. above). 9. After another call with Club A, a representative of Club A arrived in country H on 28 January 2013 and said representative requested the player to sign documents “before receipt of the modified release paper. It was mentioned in those documents, that the Player received all due salaries for that moment.” Afterwards, the player received a second release paper dated 28 January 2013 by e-mail via his agent (i.e. the second letter dated 28 January 2013 mentioned in par. I./16. ii) above). Also, the player and Club A signed the termination agreement dated 30 November 2012 which inter alia stipulates that the player and Club A have no claims to one other and “are not in any financial relationship”. 30. The player further held that the allegations that the negotiations between him and Club G were unsuccessful are untrue. (note: In this framework, from the documentation and information contained in TMS, it can be established that on 31 January 2013, Club G entered a transfer instruction into TMS to engage the player “permanently, out of contract”. After the instruction went into “awaiting confirmation of player”, Club G cancelled the transfer instruction on 2 February 2013. An employment contract signed between Club G and the player in the language of country H was uploaded into TMS when Club G entered the transfer instruction. Also, Club G uploaded the signed and stamped version of the agreement dated 30 November 2012). 31. According to the player, in June 2013, he left Club G and had a one-month trial with Club J following which he arrived in country F and signed a contract with Club I on 27 December 2013. He played with Club I up to May 2014, although he was allegedly not paid all this time. 32. After he terminated his contract with Club I, the player joined Club E in August 2014, signing a contract valid as from 1 August 2014 until 30 June 2017 where he is entitled to the amount of 200. 33. As to its own position, Club E stressed that the player was a free player and that it did not need to request the player’s ITC since he was already playing in country F. 34. Moreover, Club E points out that: - The documents dated 3 December 2012 (cf. par. I./4. and I./5. above) as well as the contract dated 30 June 2014 (cf. par. I./9.) are forged; - The documents that Club A deem to be forged also contain the stamp of Club A, which prove that they are genuine. - The first contract with Club A was signed in 2010, not in 2012. In this respect, Club E submitted a copy of the passport of the player’s father which indicates that apparently his last entry in country B was on 6 December 2010 and his last departure on 8 December 2010; 35. Having been invited to do so by FIFA, Club G provided its position stating that it is not a party to the present dispute. In this respect, it stressed that the player and Club G did not sign any employment contract and did not negotiate any transfer. 36. For its part, Club I did not reply to the claim, although having been asked to provide its position. 37. Having requested the player to provide a copy of the employment contracts signed with Club I and Club G, the player indicated that he was not in possession of his contract with Club G. The player did provide a copy of the contract signed with Club I, valid as from 28 December 2013 until 30 June 2016 receiving a salary of 249 per month. 38. In sum, the parties allege that the following documents are forged: Document Forgery invoked by Alleged original provided? If not, why not? Player’s request for unpaid leave dated 3 December 2012 (cf. par. I./4. above) Player and Club E No, Club A lost the document due to a change of “club’s responsible persons” and move of office Club A’s permission for unpaid leave dated 3 December 2012 (cf. par. I./5. above) Player and Club E No, Club A lost the document due to a change of “club’s responsible persons” and move of office The employment contract dated 30 June 2014 (cf. par. I./9. above) Player and Club E Yes The agreement dated 30 November 2012 (cf. par. I./.16. i) above) Club A No, Club E received the document by email via an intermediary from country H The signed and stamped version of Club A’s letter dated 28 January 2013 (cf. par. I./16. ii) above) Club A No, Club E received the document by email via an intermediary from country H II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as DRC or Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 24 December 2014. Consequently, the 2014 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is 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. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players 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 reiterating that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 24 December 2014, the 2014 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the 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, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file. 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. Having examined the claim submitted by Club A, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that, according to Club A, the player had breached the two employment contracts he allegedly signed with Club A, namely: i) The contract dated 2 January 2012, valid as from 2 January 2012 until 30 December 2014; and ii) The contract dated 30 June 2014 and reportedly signed in January 2013, valid as from 30 December 2014 until 30 December 2017. 6. In this context, the Chamber first of all observed that it was undisputed between the parties that the contract dated 2 January 2012 had been duly signed by both parties. The Chamber concurred that therefore, in principle, the player was contractually bound to Club A as from 2 January 2012 until 30 December 2014. 7. However, and contrary to Club A’s position, the Chamber observed that the player and Club E denied that the player ever signed the contract dated 30 June 2014 and that, thus, said contract is a forgery. 8. As a result of the above and considering the claim of Club A, the Chamber duly noted that it had to examine whether the player, at any moment, had terminated the contractual relationship with Club A and, in the affirmative, whether or not the player is liable to pay compensation to Club A for breach of contract. 9. With the above-mentioned considerations in mind, the members of the Chamber deemed it appropriate to analyse each of the two employment contracts separately. i) The employment contract dated 2 January 2012 10. As stated previously by the Chamber, it is undisputed between the parties that this particularly contract was signed by both parties and that therefore, in principle, the parties were bound to the terms of said contract. The Chamber further stressed that it was undisputed between the parties that the player had left the club in December 2012 and that he did not return to country B in January 2013, as clearly confirmed by the player himself. Thus, in the Chamber’s view, as of January 2013 the player had effectively stopped rendering his services to Club A and as such, he had de facto terminated the contract dated 2 January 2012. 11. As a result of the aforementioned conclusion, the Chamber underlined that it had to examine whether or not the decision of the player not to return to Club A in the beginning of January 2013 was, under the given circumstances, justified. In this regard, the Chamber noted that in his reply, the player argued that Club A had not paid him for more than 4 months and that he had warned the club that if the delay would continue, he would not return to Club A. 12. Having thoroughly examined all the documents on file, it is the Chamber’s opinion that the player’s allegation of the non-payment of his salaries for more than 4 months is corroborated by the table provided by the “account department” of Club A. Indeed, said document indicates that the player was only paid one salary in 2012, namely the amount of 2,500 in November 2012: 13. Considering that the employment contract was valid as from 2 January 2012 and recalling that only one monthly salary (i.e. November 2012) had been paid to the player by Club A, the Chamber concluded that it could established that the club had seriously neglected its contractual obligations towards the player in a continuous and constant manner, i.e. the club had repeatedly failed to remunerate the player for a substantial period of time. As a consequence, the Chamber was of the unanimous opinion that the player had a justified reason not to return to the club in January 2013 and that, therefore, he could not be held liable for the termination of the contract dated 2 January 2012, as claimed by Club A. ii) The employment contract dated 30 June 2014 14. In relation to the contract dated 30 June 2014, the Chamber took note that, according to Club A, said contract was signed in country H in the end of January 2013 after a representative of the club had travelled to country H in order to negotiate with the player. In this respect, the Chamber wishes to clarify that whereas it finds that the player had a justified reason not to return to country B in January 2013, if the player indeed signed a new employment contract with Club A in the end of January 2013, the player would obviously be bound to such employment contract. 15. However, the Chamber took note that the player and Club E asserted that the employment contract dated 30 June 2014 is forged. 16. In this respect, the Chamber wished to underline that, upon request, the club provided the alleged original version of the contract dated 30 June 2014. 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. 17. In this regard, the DRC recalled that all documentation remitted shall be considered with free discretion and, therefore, it focused its attention on the alleged original document, provided by the club in the present dispute. After a thorough analysis of the relevant documents, in particular, comparing the relevant signature and contract dated 30 June 2014 to the previous contract, the DRC concluded that for a layman the player’s signatures seem to be different. 18. Furthermore, the Chamber believes that there are various other elements surrounding the present dispute which lead the Chamber to conclude that the player did not sign the contract dated 30 June 2014, namely: i) The contract is dated 30 June 2014, whereas it was, according to Club A, signed in January 2013. In the Chamber’s opinion, Club A has failed to explain the difference between the date it allegedly signed the contract and the date stipulated in the contract. ii) The contract dated 30 June 2014 stipulates that it was signed in city K, country B, whereas it was, according to Club A, signed in country H. In the Chamber’s opinion, Club A has failed to explain the difference between the place it allegedly signed the contract and the place stipulated in the contract. iii) The translated version of the contract dated 30 June 2014 indicates that it was co-signed by the father of the player whereas the original version in the language of country B does not include the signature of the player’s father or even a designated space where the father was supposed to sign. In the Chamber’s opinion, this element casts doubts on the reliability of the contract as well as on the argumentation put forward by Club A in this context. iv) The contract dated 30 June 2014 was not uploaded into TMS when the Football Association of country B requested the Football Association of country D for the player’s ITC on 3 March 2013. The Chamber finds this odd since, according to Club A, the contract dated 30 June 2014 was allegedly signed prior to the relevant ITC request. v) As indicated by Club A, a representative of the club had travelled to country H in January 2013 with the intention of signing the release papers for the player, i.e. with the intention to put an end to the contractual relationship. Indeed, although Club A disputed having ever signed the relevant papers, Club A does acknowledge that someone of the club travelled to country H with the agreement dated 30 November 2012 and the letter dated 28 January 2013. The DRC finds it implausible that while being in country H, suddenly, Club A changed its mind and wanted to keep the player in its team rather than confirming that it did not have “any financial and other claims” in relation to the player. 19. In conclusion, the Chamber finds that there are a number of elements and indications that would lead the Chamber to believe that the situation described by Club A is implausible. As a result, and having duly considered all the documentation of file, the DRC concludes that it cannot be established that the player signed the contract dated 30 June 2014. 20. Bearing in mind the previous considerations, the Chamber comes to the conclusion that the contractual relationship between the player and Club A ended in the beginning of January 2013, when the player did not return to country B. 21. However, as mentioned previously, the Chamber determined that the player had a justified reason not to return to Club A. As a result, the Chamber finds that the player did not terminate the contractual relationship with Club A without just cause and that, therefore, he cannot be held liable for the termination of the contract. 22. As a result of all of the above, the Chamber decided to reject the claim of Club A. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, Club A, is rejected. ***** 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: Markus Kattner Acting Secretary General Encl. CAS directives