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 26 November 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member John Bramhall (England), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member Philippe Diallo (France), member on the claim presented by the player, A, country S represented by xxxxxx as Claimant against the club, B, country R represented by Mr xxxxxx as Respondent 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 26 November 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member John Bramhall (England), member Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member Philippe Diallo (France), member on the claim presented by the player, A, country S represented by xxxxxx as Claimant against the club, B, country R represented by Mr xxxxxx as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 6 September 2012, the player from country S, A (hereinafter; the Claimant) and the club from country R, B (hereinafter; the Respondent) concluded an employment contract valid as of the date of its signature until 30 June 2016. 2. Also on 6 September 2012, a “Covenant” was concluded with the same period of validity of the employment contract and whereby the player was entitled to a monthly payment of USD 25,000. 3. On 10 April 2015, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA requesting the total amount of 4,334,400 currency country R (xxx). 4. On 18 June 2015, the Respondent and the Claimant concluded a settlement agreement whereby they mutually terminated the employment contract and which clause 4 established that the Respondent was obliged to pay to the Claimant the amount of xxx 2,096,491 “on/or before 10 July 2015”. 5. Moreover, clause 7 of the settlement agreement provided as follows: “In case of violation of the terms of payment established by point 4 of the present agreement, the club pay to the football player a penalty of USD 5,000 for each day of delay”. 6. On 30 July 2015, the Claimant reverted to FIFA explaining that the Respondent had failed to comply with its obligations as per the settlement agreement. Therefore, the Claimant requested the following amounts: a. xxx 2,096,491 in accordance with clause 4 of the settlement agreement; b. USD 100,000 in accordance with clause 7 of the settlement agreement. 7. In its reply to the Claimant’s claim, the Respondent firstly stressed that on 24 August 2015 it had paid the Claimant xxx 2,096,491. 8. As to the penalty clause, the Respondent asserted that the latter exceeds the main obligation in “2.5 times or almost 300%”. In this respect, the Respondent argued that “in the practice” of the DRC “it is considered that the interest rate must be proportionate and a penalty clause exceeding the amount of 18% p.a. has to be considered abusive”. 9. On account of the above, the Respondent alleged that the “claim of default interest” has to be reduced to 5% p.a. which corresponds to “xxx 12,636”. 10. In an unsolicited correspondence dated 7 September 2015, the Claimant informed FIFA that the Respondent had indeed paid him the principal amount, however he stressed that in view of the content of clause 7 of the settlement agreement, he is still entitled to USD 225,000. 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 10 April 2015. Consequently, the 2015 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 between a player from country S and a club from country R. 3. Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber 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 claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 10 April 2015, the 2015 edition of the aforementioned 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. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber acknowledged that on 6 September 2012, the parties entered into an employment contract valid until 30 June 2016 which was thereafter mutually terminated by means of the settlement agreement dated 18 June 2015. 6. In this respect, the Chamber took note that according to clause 4 of the settlement agreement, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant the amount of xxx 2,096,491 by 10 July 2015. Equally, the DRC noted the content of clause 7 of said document which reads: “In case of violation of the terms of payment established by point 4 of the present agreement, the club pay to the football player a penalty of USD 5,000 for each day of delay”. 7. Furthermore, the DRC acknowledged that it was undisputed that on 24 August 2015, the Respondent paid to the Claimant the principal amount, i.e. xxx 2,096,491. 8. Having said this, the members of the DRC focused their attention on the claim of the Claimant who argues that, in spite of the fact that the Respondent has paid him the principal amount, the latter still needs to comply with its obligations as per clause 7 of the settlement agreement. As the Respondent paid the amount with 45 days of delay, the Claimant considers that he is entitled to receive from the Respondent the amount of USD 225,000. 11. Conversely, the DRC noted that the Respondent is of the opinion that clause 7 of the settlement agreement is abusive and disproportionate. In this respect, the Chamber took note that, according to the Respondent, “a penalty clause exceeding the amount of 18% p.a. has to be considered abusive” and that thus the Claimant’s claim needs to be reduced to an interest rate of 5% p.a. which corresponds to “xxx 12,636”. 12. With the above-mentioned considerations in mind, the members of the Chamber firstly observed that clause 7 of the settlement agreement does not stipulate a fixed sum payable once in case of the non-payment of the principal amount, but rather an amount which was set to increase every day that the Respondent was in default of payment. Therefore, the DRC considered that clause 7 of the contract was not a penalty clause but rather a clause establishing an interest rate. 13. In this context, the DRC focused its attention on the relevant clause and noted that, taking into consideration that on the date of the conclusion of the settlement agreement, the principal amount would correspond to approximately USD 40,000, an interest rate of USD 5,000 per day of delay would correspond to a daily interest of 12.5% which in turn would correspond to an interest rate of 4,562.5% p.a. In this respect, the members of the Chamber were of the unanimous opinion that such an interest rate is excessive and disproportionate and therefore, decided to reduce it to 5% p.a., which is the standard interest rate in accordance with the Chamber’s longstanding jurisprudence. 14. On account of all the above, the members of the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant an interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of xxx 2,096,491 as of the date of default, i.e. 11 July 2015 until the date of the effective payment, i.e. 24 August 2015. 15. The Chamber concluded its deliberations by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, B, is ordered to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, interests of 5% p.a. on the amount of RUB 2,096,491 as of 11 July 2015 until 24 August 2015. 3. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant in accordance with the abovementioned number 2. 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 and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received. ***** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to article 67 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS, a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives). The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following: Court of Arbitration for Sport Avenue de Beaumont 2 1012 Lausanne Switzerland Tel: +41 21 613 50 00 Fax: +41 21 613 50 01 e-mail: info@tas-cas.org www.tas-cas.org For the Dispute Resolution Chamber: _____________________________ Markus Kattner Acting Secretary General Encl. CAS directives