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 15 October 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Taku Nomiya (Japan), member on the matter between the player, Player A, country B, as Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 and the club, Club C, country D as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club E, country F as Counter-Respondent 2 and the club, Club G, country B as Counter-Respondent 3 and the club, Club H, country I as 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 15 October 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Taku Nomiya (Japan), member on the matter between the player, Player A, country B, as Claimant / Counter-Respondent 1 and the club, Club C, country D as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club E, country F as Counter-Respondent 2 and the club, Club G, country B as Counter-Respondent 3 and the club, Club H, country I as Intervening Party regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 31 August 2009, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: player or Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1) and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: Club C or Respondent/Counter-Claimant) signed an employment contract (hereinafter: contract) valid for the seasons 2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12, i.e. “from 1 June 2009 until 31 May 2012”, as well as an appendix to the contract (hereinafter: appendix), which established the remuneration to be paid to the player. 2. According to the appendix, the player was entitled to receive the following remuneration: Season 2009/10: 886,835, divided in 12 monthly salaries. Season 2010/11: 939,036, divided in 12 monthly salaries. Season 2011/12: 1,011,516, divided in 12 monthly salaries of 84,293. 3. During the period between January 2010 and January 2011, according to Club C and the player, the player was transferred on a loan basis to the clubs from country B, Club J and Club K. 4. In January 2011, Club C signed a loan agreement (hereinafter: loan agreement) with the club from country F, Club E (hereinafter: Club E or Counter-Respondent 2), valid from the date of signature until 31 December 2011. 5. The loan agreement established, inter alia, the following: - Art. 2.3 – “Club C will instruct “Club K” to transfer the Player’s international transfer certificate (“ITC”) to Club E.” - Art. 2.7 – “Club E is obliged and undertakes to transfer the Player’s ITC back to Club C or to other football club that will be indicated by Club C, in the end of the period and not later than 31.12.2011.” - Art. 3.1. – “Club C loans the Player to Club E for the period, free of charge without charging any consideration from Club E for that period only.” - Art. 3.2 - “It is hereby clarified that during the Period Club E shall bear all payments with regard to the Player, including but not limited to the Player’s salary, insurance, social conditions, etc.” - Art. 4 – “Club E undertakes to insure the Player at its expense, by an insurance policy in a minimum sum of US 1,000,000, in which Club C shall be the beneficiary”. - Art. 7 – “No party may pledge, assign, delegate or otherwise transfer any of its rights or obligations under this agreement, without prior written consent of the other party”. - Art. 8 – “No behaviour on the part of any of the parties may be deemed a waiver of any of his rights under this agreement or by any law, or a waiver or consent on his part for any breach or non-compliance with any term, unless the waiver, consent, delay, change, cancellation or addition have been expressly made in writing.” - Art. 9 – “No change or modification of this agreement shall be valid and binding unless in writing and signed by both parties”. 6. On 9 January 2011, the player and Club E concluded an employment contract, valid as from 11 January 2011 for one year. 7. According to clause 2 of the employment contract with Club E, the player was entitled to a monthly remuneration and other benefits as established in the Annex. According to the Annex, the player was entitled to a monthly salary, which amount was not specified, as all well as to the following remuneration: - USD 70,000 as “signing-on, loan and commission fee”, payable in January 2011; - USD 7,500 monthly, as image rights; - Apartment; - 2 flight tickets Country B – Country F – Country B. 8. According to clause 3 of the employment contract with Club E, it can be prematurely terminated in conformity with its clause 13 or by mutual agreement. 9. Clause 13 of the employment contract with Club E established that, in case the player commits a violation of the Regulations, Statute or any rule of the football from country F, or disobeys the coaching staff or the management of the club, Club E may terminate the contract without paying any amount to the player. Moreover, after the period of 180 days after the signature of the employment contract, based on a report of the coaching staff, the club may terminate the employment contract without any consequence. 10. On 7 July 2011, Club E terminated the employment contract with the player based on a report made by its coach and allegedly in accordance with the employment contract. 11. On 22 July 2011, the player and Club E signed a termination agreement, by means of which both parties agreed to prematurely terminate the employment contract concluded on 9 January 2011. The termination agreement also established that once the contractual relationship had been terminated, the player shall be reintegrated in Club C. 12. On the same date, 22 July 2011, the player notified Club C that the employment contract with Club E was terminated and requested to be informed of the place and date he should join Club C, since the contract with Club C was valid until 31 May 2012. On 24 July 2011, the player requested a flight ticket to join Club C. 13. On 25 July 2011, Club C notified Club E to continue fulfilling the loan agreement until its expiry. On 26 July 2011, Club C informed the player to wait for further instructions until the situation was clarified with Club E. 14. On 9 August 2011, the player notified Club C in writing, asking Club C to proceed with the following: - payment of the salary for the month of July; - request of the ITC to register the player with the Football Association of country D; - admission to training; - provision of a house and car; - reimbursement of travel expenses. By means of this letter, the player stated having decided to travel to country D on 5 August 2011 to resume his duties with Club C, since Club C did not reply to any of his previous communications. In this letter, the player further stated that the obligations of Club C towards him were only suspended during the loan period and thus, after the termination of the loan, irrespective of the reason, Club C must reassume its obligations as established in the contract. 15. On 10 August 2011, Club C answered in writing stating that a loan agreement was concluded with Club E valid until 31 December 2011, according to which Club E assumed to pay the player’s salary. Moreover, Club C referred to arts. 8 and 9 of the loan agreement and held that any modification, including cancellation, must be made in writing and signed by both parties. In this respect, Club C affirmed not having received any confirmation from Club E, reason why the loan agreement remained valid and all obligations towards the player until 31 December 2011 remained under the responsibility of Club E. 16. On 29 August 2011, the player notified Club C that, considering that Club C refused to fulfil the contract before the original expiry of the loan, i.e. 31 December 2011, he had to find a way to mitigate his damages and play and therefore, he concluded an employment contract with the club from country B, Club G (hereinafter: Club G or Counter-Respondent 3) for six months. The player submitted a copy of the pertinent employment contract valid from 11 August 2011 until 30 June 2012, with a monthly salary of 4,100. In this respect, the player held that this is the minimum validity for an employment contract to be registered by the Football Association of country B, but that the parties would mutually terminate the contract on 31 December 2011, in order for him to return to Club C. 17. On 31 August 2011, Club C contacted the player, Club E and Club G stating that it considered the loan agreement still valid since it never got a reply from Club E and, thus, that any transfer without its consent would be a breach of contract. 18. In September 2011, and in reaction to a letter from FIFA regarding the issuance of the International Transfer Certificate (ITC), Club C explained the situation and emphasised that the loan agreement was still in force. 19. On 29 September 2011, FIFA informed the Football Association of country B that it was not in a position to intervene with respect to its ITC request made to the Football Federation of country F, since according to art. 10 par. 3 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the club that has accepted a player on a loan basis is not entitled to transfer him to a third club without authorization of the club that released the player on loan. 20. On 23 and 29 November 2011, the player contacted Club C, asking for the flight tickets to join Club C on 1 January 2012 and for Club C to confirm if it wanted the player to come back or to end the contract unilaterally. In particular, in his letter dated 29 November 2011, the player established a deadline until 1 December 2011 for Club C to reply. 21. On 16 December 2011, the player lodged a claim in front of FIFA against Club C for breach of contract, requesting payment of the amount of USD 264,089.62, corresponding to the remaining value of the contract, as well as six months of salary corresponding to alleged sporting loss. The player further requested 5% interest as from the date of the breach of contract and procedural costs. 22. According to the player, the amount of USD 264,089.62 corresponds to 26 days (26 x USD 732.40) for the period between 5 August 2011 and 31 August 2011 and 11 months (11 x USD 22,277.02) for the period between 1 September 2011 and 31 May 2012. In particular, the player indicated that the monthly salary of 84,293 was equivalent to USD 22,277.02. 23. The player stated that he only played for Club C during six months, being loaned to Club J and, subsequently, to Club K. Moreover, in January 2011, he was loaned for a year to Club E. In particular, the player stated that all the loan agreements were negotiated with his agent and thus, he had no direct contact with Club C. In this regard, the player alleged that he had not signed any agreement exempting Club C from paying his salaries and therefore, Club C’s obligation to pay his remuneration remained valid. 24. In addition, the player held having been forced to agree to the termination of his employment contract with Club E. 25. The player affirmed that, since the contract with Club C was never officially suspended and the fact that he was obliged “under duress” to sign the termination of the employment contract with Club E, the contract with Club C re-entered into force. 26. Moreover, the player held having immediately informed Club C of the situation. In particular, he asked Club C to rejoin the team, but he was informed that he could only join the team after the original expiry of the loan agreement with Club E, i.e. 31 December 2011. 27. The player further held that he bought a flight ticket and presented himself at Club C on 5 August 2011 and on 9 August 2011, but he was not allowed to train. 28. Considering that Club C insisted that the loan agreement with Club E was valid until 31 December 2011 and did not allow him to train or play for it, the player returned to country B to look for a club. The player signed a contract with Club G and requested Club C to be authorized to play for Club G until January 2012, but Club C did not authorize the issuance of the ITC. 29. The player insisted on the fact that he did not sign the loan agreement with Club E. Moreover, he referred to the CAS jurisprudence which allegedly establishes that the loan agreement and the employment contract are autonomous and independent and held that the terms of the loan agreement cannot be applied against the player. Consequently, the player deems that Club C had to accept him back once the employment contract with Club E was terminated. 30. Therefore, according to the player, he did everything possible to fulfil his contractual obligations while Club C breached the contract by: a) not sending the flight tickets; b) not allowing him to train with the squad; c) rejecting the player, d) not paying his salaries and e) not requesting the issuance of ITC for the player to be registered again with the Football Association of country D. 31. Moreover, Club C did not allow him to play for any other club on loan and deprived him of exercising his right to work as a professional player. 32. On 26 March 2012, Club C lodged a claim against the player, Club E and Club G, claiming the amount of USD 1,000,000 as compensation for breach of contract as well as the imposition of sporting sanctions. 33. According to Club C, Club E assumed the obligation to pay the remuneration to the player during the loan period and, in July 2011, the player contacted Club C informing it about the termination of the employment contract with Club E. Club C held having never received any communication from Club E in this respect. 34. In this regard, Club C alleged that it prepared the budget and training camp for the season 2011/12 before receiving the player’s notification. In any case, according to Club C, it contacted Club E to inquire about the player’s situation and informed the player to wait in country F until the situation was clarified with Club E. Consequently, Club C held that it could neither accept the player nor transfer him to another club until it was determined that the loan agreement was terminated. 35. The player presented himself anyway, but Club C could not allow him to play or it would be violating the terms of the loan agreement as well as the applicable regulations. 36. In this context, and considering the player’s requests, Club C contacted the player in writing on 10 August 2011 explaining that, considering the silence of Club E, the loan agreement remained valid and any claims from the player should be addressed to Club E. 37. Subsequently, Club C held having been surprised by the contents of the player’s letter dated 29 August 2011, by means of which the player for the first time raised the argument that the loan agreement was signed without his consent, that Club C never answered his letters as well as that he wanted to be transferred to an club from country B. 38. In this context, Club C contacted the player, Club E and Club G, informing them that if the player was transferred from Club E to Club G without its authorization, the player would be in breach of the contract with Club C and they would be jointly liable to compensate Club C. Club C therefore rejected the ITC request made by the Football Association of country B, considering that the club where the player was on loan, i.e. Club E, could not transfer the player. 39. On account of all the above, Club C started to negotiate an amicable solution with all the parties, whereby Club C would agree to terminate the contract with the player and the player would pay USD 150,000 to Club C. 40. The termination agreement was never signed and the player never paid Club C the amount agreed. In this regard, Club C enclosed a copy of an email from the player’s former lawyer confirming that although the parties reached an agreement, the player decided to use another strategy. 41. On account of the above, Club C considered that a) the player breached the contract by signing an employment contract with another club and not returning to Club C on 1 January 2012; b) breached the termination agreement with Club C by not paying the amount agreed; and c) breached the FIFA Regulations by playing for Club G without the required formalities to do so. 42. In addition, according to Club C, as established in the loan agreement, the value of the player is USD 1,000,000. 43. Moreover, Club C affirmed that Club E and Club G should be jointly liable for the breach of the contract and payment of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 44. In particular, regarding Club E, Club C held that it had breached the loan agreement, in particular arts. 2.7, 3.2, 7 and 9, and violated art. 10.3 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfers of Players, by trying to transfer the player while on loan. 45. As regards Club G, Club C held that the latter was aware of the existence of the loan agreement and still allowed the player to train with its team. 46. Furthermore, Club C explained that the player was loaned to several clubs in Region L because he did not meet its expectations. In this respect, Club C emphasised that lthough the player did not sign the loan agreement with Club E, he clearly accepted the loan, signing an employment contract with Club E. 47. In this context, Club C held that, in any case, the player is not entitled to receive remuneration during the period from August 2011 until December 2011, since he was officially on loan at Club E, which was responsible to pay the remuneration. If the player has decided to terminate his contract with Club E without consulting with Club C, Club C cannot be held liable for such payments. 48. Moreover, according to Club C, the player is not entitled to receive the salaries for January until May 2012 either, since he never returned after the expiry of the loan period and practically disappeared, breaching the contract. In this respect, Club C referred to art. 3.2 of the appendix which establishes that “should the player decide by himself not to play and/or not to train, and/or not to take part in the team activity, he shall be denied all right to receive any payment whatsoever from the consideration specified above in paragraph 2, without prejudice to the club’s right to bring a disciplinary charge against him”. 49. The player replied to Club C’s claim, insisting that he was not a party to the loan agreement and thus, cannot be responsible for any potential breach. 50. Furthermore, the player held that the contract with Club C, on the other hand, remained valid during the loan period and its execution was merely suspended while the player rendered his services to Club E. Consequently, according to the player, from the moment the employment contract with Club E was terminated, the loan agreement had no longer an object and the contract with Club C restarted. 51. Club E submitted its position, arguing on a preliminary basis that the claim of Club C would be time-barred. 52. Moreover, Club E deems that the Dispute Resolution Chamber does not have competence to deal with the part of the claim against Club E and Club G, since the Players’ Status Committee would be the competent deciding-body for disputes between clubs. 53. Moreover, Club E alleged having complied with its duties, since: - it did not authorize the transfer of the player to Club G, which was later authorized by the ordinary courts of country B; - the player remained registered in the Football Federation of country F until 5 September 2012; - the player and Club E agreed to mutually terminate the contract and thus, the loan agreement ceased to have effects de facto and de jure, considering that the main object of the loan agreement was that the player would play for Club E. 54. Moreover, Club E pointed out that Club C was fully aware of the termination, since Club C itself enclosed a copy of the termination agreement signed by the player and Club E to its position and the player informed Club C several times about the termination. In addition, Club E held having fully complied with the loan agreement and also stated not being responsible for the player’s actions after the termination. 55. Finally, Club E contested the amount claimed as compensation by Club C for the following reasons: - Club C declares that the player was transferred because they were not satisfied with his performance; - the negotiations between Club C and the player to amicably settle the matter ranged from USD 150,000 to USD 200,000; - the transfer compensation paid to Club M by Club C was USD 627,500. 56. Club G submitted its position also rejecting the claim of Club C. Club G emphasised that the player played for Club C only for a few months. After the termination of the employment contract with Club E, although the player tried to join Club C, the latter refused the player excusing itself from any responsibility in this regard, clearly denying the player his right to perform his activity. 57. Therefore, in such situation, the player had no other choice and signed the employment contract with Club G. In the light of the refusal by the Football Association of country D to issue the ITC, Club G obtained authorization for the player to be registered with it from the ordinary court in country B. 58. Moreover, at the end of the loan period, Club C did not request the return of the ITC so that the player could join Club C, thereby demonstrating that it was not interested in the services of the player. 59. According to the information contained in the TMS, the player was registered with the club from country I, Club H, on 5 September 2012, being transferred from country F to country I. 60. The club from country I, Club H, provided its comments to Club C’s claim, stating that the player was transferred from country F on 5 September 2012 as a player free of contract and was then transferred to the club from country O, Club N. Moreover, Club H, affirmed not being aware of any dispute between the player and Club C. 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 16 December 2011. Consequently, the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008; 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 a club from country D as well as a club from country F and a club from country B. 3. However, the Chamber noted that the Counter-Respondent 2 deems that the Dispute Resolution Chamber has no competence to deal with the Respondent/CounterClaimant’s claim against the Counter-Respondent 2 and the Counter-Respondent 3, alleging that the FIFA Players’ Status Committee is the competent body to decide on disputes between clubs. 4. In this respect, the Chamber highlighted that the basis of the Respondent/CounterClaimant’s claim against the Counter-Respondent 2 and Counter-Respondent 3 is the employment contract concluded between the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 as well as the alleged breach of said employment contract by the latter and potential consequences deriving thereof. 5. On account of the above as well as art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Chamber rejected the argument put forward by the CounterRespondent 2 as regards the competence of the Chamber to deal with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s claim against the Counter-Respondent 2 and CounterRespondent 3. 6. The Chamber then reverted to the argument of the Counter-Respondent 2, according to whom the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim is barred by the statute of limitations. In this regard, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015), according to which, inter alia, the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall not hear any case subject to the said Regulations if more than two years have elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim having been lodged in front of the DRC on 26 March 2012 and the event giving rise to the dispute having occurred in 2011, the members of the Chamber had to reject the respective argument of the Counter-Respondent 2 and confirmed that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s petition was lodged in front of the DRC within said two years’ period of time. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s claim is, thus, not barred by the statute of limitations in accordance with art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. 7. Having established the above, 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 Claimant/Counter Respondent 1’s claim was lodged on 16 December 2011, the 2010 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 8. 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. 9. Considering the density of the facts of the present matter, the DRC deemed appropriate to recall the most relevant facts. 10. The DRC first and foremost acknowledged that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had concluded an employment contract on 31 August 2009 which was valid until 31 May 2012. 11. In continuation, the Chamber took note that, after six months of the signature of the contract with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 was loaned to different clubs from country B and subsequently, in January 2011, to the Counter-Respondent 2 for a period of one year, with which club the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 signed an employment contract valid for the same period of time. 12. Moreover, the DRC acknowledged that during the agreed loan period at the CounterRespondent 2, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 and the Counter-Respondent 2 mutually agreed to prematurely terminate the employment contract on 22 July 2011 and that, on the same date, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 notified the Respondent/Counter-Claimant of such termination and asked to be informed where to join the team, requesting a flight ticket. 13. In continuation, the members of the DRC took note that, on 5 August 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 travelled to country D and, on 9 August 2011, asked the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to pay the salary for July, to be registered with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and to be admitted to training. On the other hand, the DRC acknowledged that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant replied to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 stating that the loan agreement with the CounterRespondent 2 could not be modified without its consent and that the CounterRespondent 2 remained responsible towards the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 until 31 December 2011. 14. The members of the Chamber noted that, subsequently, on 29 August 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 informed the Respondent/Counter-Claimant that he had signed a contract with the Counter-Respondent 3 to be able to cover his expenses, to which the Respondent/Counter-Claimant replied that it considered the loan agreement with the Counter-Respondent 2 still valid. 15. In addition, the members of the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant/CounterRespondent 1 contacted the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in writing on two occasions in November 2011, requesting a flight ticket to join the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on 1 January 2012 as well as asking whether the Respondent/Counter-Claimant wished to continue the employment relationship, establishing a deadline until 1 December 2011 to reply. 16. In continuation, the DRC pointed out that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 lodged a claim against the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for breach of contract on 16 December 2011 and that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant lodged a claim against the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1, the Counter-Respondent 2 and Counter-Respondent 3 for breach of contract on 26 March 2012. 17. In this respect, the DRC took into account that, according to the Claimant/CounterRespondent 1, he did everything possible to fulfil his contractual obligations, while the Respondent/Counter-Claimant breached the contract. The Claimant/CounterRespondent 1 held that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to comply with its obligations by inter alia not sending the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 the requested flight tickets; not allowing him to train; not accepting him back after the termination of the employment contract with the Counter-Respondent 2; not paying his salaries; and not requesting the return of his ITC from country F to country D. 18. Moreover, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 stated that he did not sign the loan agreement concluded between the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the CounterRespondent 2, reason why once the employment contract with the CounterRespondent 2 was terminated, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had to accept him back immediately. 19. On the other hand, the DRC took note that, according to the Respondent/CounterClaimant, it never received a confirmation from the Counter-Respondent 2 of the termination of the employment contract with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 and thus, it could neither accept the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 back nor transfer him to another club. Moreover, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant alleged that the Counter-Respondent 2 was responsible to pay for the salaries during the loan period as well as that, in any case, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 is not entitled to any remuneration between January and May 2012, since he did not return to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. 20. In addition, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant stated that, even though the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 did not sign the loan agreement between the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the Counter-Respondent 2, he clearly accepted the loan by signing the employment contract with the Counter-Respondent 2. 21. Finally, the DRC took note that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant indicated that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 was loaned to several clubs during the contractual period because he did not meet the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s expectations. 22. In respect of the registration of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 with the CounterRespondent 2 on a loan basis, the Chamber emphasized that the Claimant/CounterRespondent 1 merely holds that he has not signed the loan agreement, whereas from the facts of the case it can be concluded that he was aware of and agreed to being employed by the Counter-Respondent 2 on a loan basis. 23. In continuation, the Chamber turned its attention to the Counter-Respondent 2’s position to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s claim. The Chamber took note that the Counter-Respondent 2 rejected the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s claim and held having never authorized the transfer of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 to the Counter-Respondent 3, which was in fact later authorized by the ordinary court in country B. Moreover, the DRC took note that, according to the Counter-Respondent 2, since the Counter-Respondent 2 and the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 mutually terminated the employment contract between them, the loan agreement ceased to have effects after losing its main object, i.e. the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 playing for the Counter-Respondent 2. 24. Finally, the Counter-Respondent 2 highlighted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was aware of the termination of the employment contract and, in any case, it held not being responsible for the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1’s actions after the mutual termination of the employment contract with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1. 25. Subsequently, the DRC acknowledged that the Counter-Respondent 3 also rejected the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s claim, emphasizing that the Claimant/CounterRespondent 1 only played for the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for a few months and, after the termination of the employment contract with the Counter-Respondent 2, it refused to accept the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 back and, at the same time, did not authorize the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 to play for another team. The Counter-Respondent 3 also stated that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was no longer interested in the services of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 and never asked for the return of the ITC to register the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 after the end of the loan period with the Counter-Respondent 2. 26. Considering all the above, the DRC concluded that, from the facts and documentation on file, it can be noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant never asked the return of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1’s ITC for his registration after the end of the loan period agreed with the Counter-Respondent 2. Moreover, it can be noted that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 only played six months for the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and that during the rest of the contractual period with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant he was loaned to different clubs due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 not meeting the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s expectations. 27. Furthermore, it can also be noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was ready to settle the matter but finally the agreement was not signed. In addition, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant lodged its claim against the Claimant/CounterRespondent 1 on 26 March 2012 only. 28. In addition to all the aforementioned circumstances, the members of the DRC highlighted the fact that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 contacted the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on 23 and 29 November 2011 asking for the flight ticket to join the team on 1 January 2012, in particular, he contacted the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on 29 November 2011 specifically asking for the latter’s confirmation as to whether the Respondent/Counter-Claimant wished to continue the employment relationship. In this regard, the Chamber took note that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not react to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1’s correspondence offering his services. 29. The Chamber deemed that all the above circumstances are clear indications that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was not any longer interested in the services of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1, in particular, in having the Claimant/CounterRespondent 1 return to the club so as to avail of his services after the end of the original loan period agreed upon with the Counter-Respondent 2. 30. On account of all the above circumstances, in particular, by not requesting the relevant ITC for the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 although this being the responsibility of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and by not replying to the notifications made by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 in November 2011, the Chamber established that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had no longer been interested in the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1’s services. Accordingly, the Chamber decided that de facto the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 could rightly assume that he was no longer contractually bound to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant as of 1 December 2011, deadline that he had indicated when offering his services in November 2011 and that, consequently, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the contract. 31. Consequently, the Chamber rejected the claims lodged by the Respondent/CounterClaimant against the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1, the Counter-Respondent 2, and the Counter-Respondent 3. 32. Having established that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the contract, the Chamber focussed its attention on the consequences of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 is entitled to receive from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant an amount of money as compensation for breach of contract. 33. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of the Chamber firstly 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 dispute, with due consideration for 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 player under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years. 34. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contains a provision by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon 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. 35. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 under the terms of the employment contract. 36. At this point, and considering the opposing position of the Claimant/CounterRespondent 1 and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the Chamber deemed necessary to first point out that, although the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 and the CounterRespondent 2 decided to mutually terminate the employment contract between them on 22 July 2011, the pertinent loan agreement was still valid until 31 December 2011. 37. In this respect, the DRC was eager to emphasise that the termination of the employment contract between the Counter-Respondent 2 and the Claimant/CounterRespondent 1 did not affect the validity of the loan agreement. 38. Therefore, and considering that according to the loan agreement the CounterRespondent 2 was responsible to pay the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1’s remuneration during the loan period, the remaining value of the contract for the purposes of calculating the compensation in the matter at hand is the remuneration due from 1 January 2012 until 31 May 2012. The DRC concluded that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 would have received a total remuneration of 421,465 had the contract between the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant been executed until its ordinary date of expiry. 39. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant/CounterRespondent 1 had signed an employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages. 40. Indeed, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 found employment with the CounterRespondent 3 until 30 June 2012. In accordance with the pertinent employment contract, which has been made available by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1, he was entitled to receive a monthly salary of 4,100. Consequently, the Chamber established that the value of the new employment contract concluded between the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 and the new club for the relevant period, i.e. as from 1 January 2012 until 31 May 2012, amounted to 20,500, which is equivalent to approximately 17,500. 41. However, the Chamber took into account that, in August 2011, the Claimant/CounterRespondent 1 signed a new employment contract, with the Counter-Respondent 3, for a period of time exceeding the original loan period. 42. Consequently, on account of all the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided to partially accept the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1?s claim and that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant must pay the amount of 200,000 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1, which was to be considered reasonable and proportionate as compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand. 43. In addition and with regard to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1's request for interest, in line with its constant jurisprudence, the Chamber decided that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 is entitled to 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of the date on which the claim was lodged until the date of effective payment. 44. Moreover, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided to reject the Claimant/CounterRespondent 1's claim pertaining to procedural costs in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the Chamber’s respective longstanding jurisprudence in this regard. 45. The members of the Chamber concluded their deliberations by rejecting any further claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1, Player A, is partially accepted. 2. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club C, is rejected. 3. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of 200,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 16 December 2011 until the date of effective payment. 4. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 is not paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. Any further request filed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 is rejected. 6. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent 1 is directed to inform the Respondent/CounterClaimant 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: Marco Villiger Acting Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives