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 17 December 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), 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 17 December 2015, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), 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 26 July 2012, 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 (hereinafter: contract) valid from 26 July 2012 until 31 May 2013. 2. According to the contract, the club undertook to pay the player, inter alia, a monthly salary of EUR 11,000 payable on the 30th day of the respective month. 3. On 12 June 2013, the player lodged a claim with FIFA against the club relating to outstanding remuneration and requested to be awarded payment of EUR 55,000 corresponding to salaries as of January until May 2013, plus 5% interest as of the respective due dates. The player further requested payment of a “reasonable compensation for that he [the club] failed to fulfil contract terms on time” and that the club cover his legal fees. 4. In reply to the player’s claim dated 12 June 2013, the club requested that the claim be rejected denying that it owes said amount to the player. 5. Furthermore, the club held that the player left on 6 April 2013 without its permission. According to the club, it imposed fines in the total amount of 40,000 on the player for repeatedly failing to attend trainings and matches as well as for “Going out of the City without Permission”. The club further argued that these fines were imposed in accordance with the club’s internal disciplinary regulations, which were “agreed and acknowledged” by the player. 6. On 15 July 2013, prior to being informed of the club’s aforementioned response to his claim of 12 June 2013, the player’s new representative lodged an amended claim in front of FIFA against the club relating to outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 66,000 corresponding to salaries as of December 2012 until May 2013. In addition, the player requested that the club pay interest on the outstanding amount as of 1 June 2013 and that the club bear the costs of the proceedings. The player asserted that he fulfilled his contractual obligations and that the amount of EUR 66,000 remained unpaid. 7. After having been informed of and invited to submit comments on the club’s reply to his claim of 12 June 2013, the player held that there is “no reason to reply”. 8. Despite having been invited to do so, the club has not submitted its position on the player’s amended claim dated 15 July 2013. 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 12 June 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 and par. 2 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. 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 12 June 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. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the parties had signed an employment contract valid as from 26 July 2012 until 31 May 2013. 6. In continuation, the DRC acknowledged that, in accordance with the employment contract the Respondent was obliged to pay to the Claimant an amount of EUR 11,000 as monthly remuneration. 7. In this respect, the Chamber took into consideration that according to the Claimant, the Respondent had failed to pay his remuneration in the total amount of EUR 66,000 corresponding to 6 months’ salaries as from December 2012 until May 2013. Consequently, the Claimant requested to be awarded payment of the total amount of EUR 66,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 1 June 2013. 8. Subsequently, the DRC observed that the Respondent, for its part, denied that it has a debt towards the Claimant and stated that the player left the club on 6 April 2013, without its permission. Furthermore, the Respondent held that it imposed fines in the total amount of 40,000 on the Claimant. 9. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Respondent, in its defence, provided several documents regarding allegedly imposed fines in the language of country D only. 10. In this regard, the DRC recalled the basic principle of the burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Similarly, the Chamber referred to art. 9 par. 1 lit. e) of the Procedural Rules which stipulates that all documents of relevance to the dispute shall be submitted in the original version as well as translated into one of the official FIFA languages. 11. In this context, the DRC noted that the Respondent did not provide a translated version of the documents it submitted in language of country D only. In view of the foregoing and taking into consideration art. 9 of the Procedural Rules, the DRC decided that it could not take into account the documents which have not been made available in an official FIFA language. 12. Therefore, the Chamber decided that the documents in the language of country D presented by the Respondent could not be considered a legitimate basis, if at all, to justify any deductions from the amount claimed by the Claimant. 13. Furthermore, the DRC considered that the Respondent had not sufficiently substantiated its defence, as, in addition to the preceding consideration, it did not present any evidence in respect of payments made to the Claimant demonstrating that it had fulfilled its financial obligations towards the Claimant. 14. Having established the above, the DRC took into account that the Respondent’s allegation regarding the Claimant’s early departure from the club on 6 April 2013 without the Respondent’s permission remained uncontested by the Claimant. 15. In light of the above, the Chamber concluded that the contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent de facto ended on 6 April 2013, at which point in time, bearing in mind the considerations under points I./2., II./12., and II./13. above, the Claimant’s salaries of December 2012 until March 2013 totalling EUR 44,000 were outstanding. 16. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent must fulfil its obligations as per the contract concluded with the Claimant until 6 April 2013 and, therefore, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR 44,000. 17. Taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim related to interest as well as the Chamber’s constant jurisprudence in this regard, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amount of EUR 44,000 as of 1 June 2013 until the date of effective payment. 18. Furthermore, as regards the claimed procedural costs, the DRC referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as to the long-standing and well-established jurisprudence of the DRC, in accordance with which no procedural compensation shall be awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Consequently, the DRC decided to reject the Claimant’s request relating to procedural costs. Furthermore, in this context, the Chamber highlighted that according to art. 18 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules, DRC proceedings relating to employment-related disputes between a club and a player of an international dimension are free of charge. 19. The DRC concluded its deliberations in the present matter 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, 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 44,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2013 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, 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