F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) – debiti scaduti – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) – overdue payables – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed by way of circulars on 17 June 2016, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member on the claim presented by the player, A, country B, represented by Mr xxxxxx as Claimant against the club, B, country A as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties in connection with overdue payables I.

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2015-2016) – debiti scaduti – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2015-2016) – overdue payables – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed by way of circulars on 17 June 2016, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member on the claim presented by the player, A, country B, represented by Mr xxxxxx as Claimant against the club, B, country A as Respondent regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties in connection with overdue payables I. Facts of the case 1. On 1 July 2015, the player from B, A (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the club from A, B (hereinafter: the Respondent) signed an employment contract valid from the date of the signature until 30 May 2016. 2. On 23 December 2015, the Claimant and the Respondent signed a termination agreement, the terms of which provide that the Respondent undertook to inter alia pay the Claimant EUR 5,000 by no later than 25 February 2016. In case the payment was not made “the club shall pay to the player, in addition to the amount (…), default interest at the rate of 15% per annum”. 3. On 28 March 2016, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of the payment of EUR 5,000 and its relevant interest of 15% p.a., setting a time limit expiring on 7 April 2016 to perform the payment. 4. On 8 April 2016, the Claimant lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA requesting that the Respondent be ordered to pay him overdue payables in the amount of EUR 5,000 corresponding to amounts agreed upon in the termination agreement as well as 15% interest p.a.. 5. In spite of having been invited to do so, the Respondent has not replied to the claim of the Claimant. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the 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 8 April 2016. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2015; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, 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 conjunction with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015), it is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player from B and a club from A. 3. Furthermore, the DRC 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 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged 8 April 2016, the 2016 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC started by acknowledging all the aforementioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file. The Chamber however 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 said this, the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent signed an employment contract valid from 1 July 2015 until 30 May 2016. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that on 23 December 2016 the parties had signed a termination agreement in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent, inter alia, EUR 5,000 by no later than 25 February 2016. The Chamber noted that in case the payment was not made “the club shall pay to the player, in addition to the amount (…) default interest at the rate of 15% per annum”. 6. The Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, maintaining that the Respondent has overdue payables towards him in relation to the termination agreement in the amount of EUR 5,000. He further claimed the relevant interest of 15% p.a. from 26 February 2016. 7. In this context, the DRC took particular note of the fact that, on 28 March 2016, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the aforementioned amounts, setting a time limit expiring on 7 April 2016 in order to cure the default. 8. Consequently, the DRC concluded that the Claimant had duly proceeded in accordance with art. 12bis par. 3 of the Regulations, which stipulates that the creditor (player or club) must have put the debtor club in default in writing and have granted a deadline of at least ten days for the debtor club to comply with its financial obligation(s). 9. Subsequently, the DRC took into account that the Respondent for its part failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant, in spite of having been invited to do so. Consequently, the DRC considered that the Respondent renounced its right to defence and thus accepted the allegations of the Claimant. 10. Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the Chamber concurred that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules it shall take a decision upon the basis of the documents already on file, in other words, upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant. 11. Taking into account the documentation presented by the Claimant in support of his petition, the DRC concluded that the Claimant had substantiated his claim pertaining to overdue payables with sufficient documentary evidence. 12. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC established that the Respondent failed to remit the Claimant’s due payables in the total amount of EUR 5,000 in relation to the termination agreement signed on 23 December 2015. 13. In addition, the Chamber established that the Respondent had delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without prima facie contractual basis. 14. Consequently, the DRC decided that in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant overdue payables in the total amount of EUR 5,000 in addition to interest of 15% p.a. from 26 February 2016 until the date of effective payment. 15. In continuation, taking into account the consideration under point II.14. above, the DRC referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations which stipulates that any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis may be sanctioned in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations. 16. The DRC established that in virtue of the aforementioned article it has competence to impose sanctions on the Respondent. In this context, the Chamber highlighted that on 8 February 2016 the Respondent had already been found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis and without the Respondent having responded to the relevant claim, as a result of which a fine was imposed on the Respondent by the DRC. Consequently, the Chamber established that, for the second time, the Respondent has delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis. 17. Moreover, the members of the Chamber wished to underline and took into account that the Respondent has been found by the DRC responsible for not complying with its financial obligations towards players on various occasions in the recent past. 18. Accordingly, the DRC referred to art. 12bis par. 6 of the Regulations, which establishes that a repeated offence will be considered as an aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty. 19. Therefore, bearing in mind the considerations under points II.17. and II.18. above, the DRC decided that in the event that the Respondent does not pay the amount due to the Claimant within the 30 days following the notification of the present decision, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the entirety of the registration period following the notification of the present decision shall become effective on the Respondent in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. d) of the Regulations. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, A, is accepted. 2. The Respondent, B, has to pay to the Claimant overdue payables in the amount of EUR 5,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision plus 15% interest p.a. as of 26 February 2016 until the date of effective payment. 3. In the event that the amount due plus interest is not paid within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted upon request to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. 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 DRC of every payment received. 5. In the event that the amount due to the Claimant is not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limit, the Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the entirety of the next registration period following the notification of the present decision. ***** 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: Marco Villiger Deputy Secretary General Encl. CAS directives