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 May 2016, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Zola Percival Majavu (South Africa), member Wouter Lambrecht (Belgium), member on the claim presented by the player, I, country C represented by Mr xxxxxx as Claimant against the club, P, country I 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 26 May 2016, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Zola Percival Majavu (South Africa), member Wouter Lambrecht (Belgium), member on the claim presented by the player, I, country C represented by Mr xxxxxx as Claimant against the club, P, country I as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties I. Facts of the case 1. On 16 May 2014, the player from C, I (hereinafter: the player or Claimant) and the club from I, P (hereinafter: the club or Respondent) signed an employment contract, valid as from 26 May 2014 until 30 May 2015 (hereinafter: the first contract). 2. According to the first contract, the player was entitled to receive, inter alia, the total amount of EUR 140,000, as follows: EUR 56,000 (‘40% of 140.000€’), due ‘one week before starting the first game’; EUR 42,000 (‘30% of 140.000€’), due ‘in half season time’; EUR 14,000 (‘10% of 140.000€’), due ‘7 weeks after half season’; EUR 28,000 (‘20% of 140.000€’), due ‘before last game of season’. 3. Article 4-1-2 of the first contract stipulates: ‘The player will get all the amounts net and any taxes of the player will pay by the club’. 4. Further, on 1 July 2015, the player and the club signed a second employment contract, valid as from 1 July 2015 until 30 May 2016 (hereinafter: the second contract). 5. According to the second contract, the player was entitled to receive, inter alia, the total amount of EUR 150,000, as follows: EUR 45,000 (‘30% of 150.000€’), due ‘one week before starting the first game’; EUR 45,000 (‘30% of 150.000€’), due ‘in half season time’; EUR 30,000 (‘20% of 150.000€’), due ‘7 weeks after half season’; EUR 30,000 (‘20% of 150.000€’), due ‘before last game of season’. 6. The player states that in the 2014/2015 and the 2015/2016 seasons, the club failed to pay him several amounts. According to the player, he reminded the club ‘of their obligations and request for the payment by the Contract terms numerous times without any result the empty promises from the Club officials’. Furthermore, the player states that on 5 January 2016, he put the club in default. According to the player, he did not receive a reply, nor did the club pay him the outstanding amounts. 7. On 13 January 2016, the player unilaterally terminated the contract with immediate effect, due to the outstanding amounts. 8. On 14 January 2016, the player lodged a claim before FIFA against the club, claiming payment of outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract by the club, as follows: Outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR 99,186, specified as follows: EUR 9,186 as outstanding remuneration related to the first contract, plus interest as from 16 May 2015; EUR 45,000 as the first instalment mentioned in the second contract, plus interest as from 25 July 2015; EUR 45,000 as the second instalment mentioned in the second contract, plus interest as from 2 January 2016. Compensation for breach of contract in the total amount of EUR 60,000: EUR 60,000 as residual value of the second contract. The player further asks for EUR 5,000 to be paid by the club as contribution for his legal fees, ‘payable on the account of the legal representative’, as well as an unspecified amount ‘for payment of players tax office obligation’. 9. The player further explains that, with respect to the first contract, the club only paid him the amounts of EUR 117,000 and USD 15,000 (which amounts correspond - according to the player - to a total amount of EUR 130,814). Furthermore, in relation to the second contract, the player holds that as per 5 January 2016, the club failed to pay him the first and the second instalment, in the amount of EUR 45,000 each. 10. In addition, the player holds that the club did not fulfil its obligation to pay the taxes, ‘to whole sum already paid on the basis of Employement Contract from 26 May 2014’. 11. Despite having been invited to do so, the club did not present its position to the claim. 12. Finally, the player signed a new contract with the club Z valid as from 18 February 2016 until 30 June 2016, according to which the player was entitled to receive a monthly salary of EUR 2,000 net. For the period as from 18 February 2016 until 30 May 2016, this corresponds to a total amount of EUR 6,827.50 (3 x EUR 2,000 plus EUR 827.50 for 12 days in February 2016). In addition, the player informed FIFA that said contract is not valid, because no ‘proper permit (ITC)’ has been granted yet. 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 14 January 2016. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2015; 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 C and a club from I. 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 14 January 2016, the 2015 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 continuation, the members of the Chamber noted that the player lodged a claim against the club, maintaining that he had terminated the employment contract with just cause on 13 January 2016, after previously having put the club in default since the club failed to pay the player’s remuneration. In this respect, the player submits that the amount of EUR 9,186 related to the first contract, as well as two instalments of EUR 45,000 each related to the second contract, remained outstanding at the time he terminated the employment contract. Consequently, the player asks to be awarded his outstanding dues as well as the payment of compensation for breach of the employment contract. 6. The club, for its part, failed to present its response to the claim of the player, in spite of having been invited to do so. Consequently, the Chamber deemed that the club had renounced to its right of defence and, thus, had accepted the allegations of the player. 7. As a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the members of the Chamber concurred that, in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, a decision shall be taken upon the basis of the documents already on file, in other words, upon the statements and documents presented by the player. 8. In accordance with the first contract, the club was obliged to pay to the player the total amount of EUR 140,000, however – based on the documents and information submitted by the player - only paid him the amount of EUR 130,814. Therefore, the amount of EUR 9,186, related to the first contract, remained outstanding. With respect to the second contact, the members of the Chamber noted that at the time the second contract was terminated by the player, i.e. on 13 January 2016, the club failed to timely pay to the player the amount of EUR 45,000 due on ‘one week before starting the first game’ and the amount of EUR 45,000 due ‘in half season time’. 9. On account of the aforementioned circumstances, in particular in view of the considerations under point II./7. and II./8. above, the Chamber established that the club, without any valid reason, failed to remit to the player, until 13 January 2016, the date on which the player terminated the contract, the total amount of EUR 99,186. Consequently, and considering that the club had repeatedly, for a significant period of time and for a substantial amount been in breach of its contractual obligations towards the player, the Chamber decided that the player had just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment contract on 13 January 2016 after having put the club in default. As a result, the club is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contact with just cause by the player. 10. In continuation, having established that the club is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the player, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequences of such termination. In this regard, the members of the Chamber determined that the club was not only to pay the amount of EUR 99,186 as outstanding remuneration to the player, but also to pay compensation for breach of contract in conformity with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. 11. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of compensation payable to the player by the club 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, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period. 12. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained 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. 13. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the club to the player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said article provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable. 14. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the employment contract from the date of termination, i.e. 13 January 2016 until the original expiry date of the contract, i.e. 30 May 2016. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 60,000 (i.e. a payment of EUR 30,000 due ‘7 weeks after half season’ and the amount of EUR 30,000 due ‘before last game of season’) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. 15. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player 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. 16. Indeed, on 17 February 2016, the player found employment with the club, Z. In accordance with the pertinent employment contract, which has been made available by the player, valid as from 18 February 2016 until 30 June 2016, the player was entitled to receive a monthly salary of EUR 2,000. Consequently, the Chamber established that the value of the new employment contract concluded between the player and Z for the period as from 18 February 2016 until 30 May 2016 amounted to EUR 6,827.50. 17. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount of EUR 53,172.50 to the player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter. 18. In addition, the members of the Chamber held that the part of the player’s claim for unspecified amount of ‘players tax office obligation’ cannot be awarded to the player, due to the lack of specification. 19. Moreover, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided to reject the player’s claim pertaining to legal costs in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the Chamber’s respective longstanding jurisprudence in this regard. 20. In conclusion, for all the above reasons, the Chamber decided to partially accept the player?s claim and that the club must pay to the player the amounts of EUR 99,186 as outstanding remuneration and EUR 53,172.50 as compensation for breach of contract. 21. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the player is rejected. ***** III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, I, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, P, 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 99,186. 3. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 53,172.50. 4. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant in accordance with the abovementioned numbers 2. and 3. are not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limits, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the aforementioned time limits and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 5. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected. 6. 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 art. 58 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 Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives