F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – overdue payables / debiti scaduti – (2017-2018) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 7 May 2018

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge

passed on 7 May 2018,

by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge,

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 in connection with overdue payables

I. Facts of the case

1. On 23 January 2017, the player of Country B, Player A (hereinafter: Claimant), and the club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: Respondent) signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 20 January 2017 until 31 May 2018.

2. On 26 July 2017, the Claimant and the Respondent signed a termination agreement by means of which the parties mutually agreed to terminate the contract.

3. In accordance with the termination agreement, the Respondent undertook to pay to the Claimant inter alia EUR 3,800 “within September 2017”.

4. By correspondence dated 26 January 2018, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of EUR 3,800 setting a 10 days’ time limit to remedy the default.

5. On 12 February 2018, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA asking that the Respondent be ordered to pay to him overdue payables in the amount of EUR 3,800 corresponding to the amount established in the termination agreement.

6. The Claimant further asked to be awarded interest of 5% p.a. as of 1 October 2017.

7. In reply to the claim, the Respondent sent an illegible document titled “transfer order form” as alleged proof of payment without providing further comments. In this regard, despite FIFA’s request to the Respondent to provide a legible version of the document, the Respondent did not send a legible version of it, and instead provided another illegible copy.

8. In his replica, the Claimant held that the alleged proof of payment sent by the Respondent was illegible and that no beneficiary nor amounts were indicated. The Claimant, furthermore, denies having received the requested amount.

II. Considerations of the DRC judge

1. First of all, the DRC judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the matter at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 12 February 2018. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2018; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules).

2. Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and par. 3 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 2018) he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player of Country B and a club of Country D.

3. Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2018), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 12 February 2018, the 2018 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

4. The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC judge started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file. However, the DRC judge emphasised that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.

5. Having said this, the DRC judge acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent signed an employment contract valid as from 20 January 2017 until 31 May 2018. Moreover, the DRC judge further acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent signed a termination agreement on 26 July 2017 by means of which the parties mutually agreed to terminate the contract. In accordance with said termination agreement, the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent, inter alia, EUR 3,800, amount that was payable “within September 2017”.

6. The Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, maintaining that the Respondent has overdue payables towards him in the total amount of EUR 3,800 corresponding to the amount established in the termination agreement.

7. In this context, the DRC judge took particular note of the fact that, on 26 January 2018, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the aforementioned amount, setting a 10 days’ time limit in order to remedy the default.

8. Consequently, the DRC judge 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 judge took into account that the Respondent, for its part, sent an illegible document as reply to the claim without any further comments.

10. Furthermore, the DRC judge observed that although being invited by FIFA administration to provide a legible copy of said document, the Respondent submitted, once again, an illegible one.

11. The Claimant, on his part, denied receiving the claimed amounts and further sustained that the document presented by the Respondent does not contain the beneficiary nor the amounts allegedly paid.

12. The DRC judge found that since the document presented by the Respondent cannot be considered as conclusive and satisfactory proof of payment and as the Claimant denied receiving the requested amount, the document brought forward by the Respondent in its defence does not exempt the Respondent from its obligation to fulfil its contractual obligations towards the Claimant.

13. Consequently, the DRC judge decided to reject the argumentation put forward by the Respondent in its defence.

14. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC judge established that the Respondent failed to remit the Claimant’s remuneration in the total amount of EUR 3,800 corresponding to the amount established in the termination agreement, that was supposed to be paid “within September 2017”. Taking that into account, the DRC judge considered that the payment was supposed to be made at the end of September 2017 at the latest.

15. In addition, the DRC judge established that the Respondent had delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis.

16. Consequently, the DRC judge 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 3,800.

17. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the DRC judge decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 3,800 as from 1 October 2017 until the date of effective payment.

18. In continuation, taking into account the consideration under number II./15. above, the DRC judge 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.

19. The DRC judge established that in virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations he has competence to impose sanctions on the Respondent. In this context, the DRC judge highlighted that, on 23 November 2017 and 15 December 2017, 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 claims, as a result of which two fines had been imposed on the Respondent by the DRC Judge.

20. Moreover, the DRC judge 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.

21. Bearing in mind that the Respondent has replied to the claim of the Claimant as well as the considerations under numbers II./19. and II./20. above, the DRC judge decided to impose a more severe fine on the Respondent in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. c) of the Regulations. Furthermore, taking into consideration the amount due of EUR 3,800, as well as the aggravating circumstance of a repeated offence, the DRC judge regarded a fine amounting to 2,000 as appropriate and hence decided to impose said fine on the Respondent.

III. Decision of the DRC judge

1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is accepted.

2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant overdue payables in the amount of EUR 3,800 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as from 1 October 2017 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. 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 judge of every payment received.

5. The Respondent is ordered to pay a fine in the amount of CHF 2,000. The fine is to be paid within 30 days of notification of the present decision to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr. XXX:

UBS Zurich

Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)

Clearing number 230

IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U

SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A

*****

Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):

According to article 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

For the DRC judge:

Omar Ongaro

Football Regulatory Director

Encl: CAS directives