F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2016-2017) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision 15 July 2016
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 15 July 2016,
in the following composition:
Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman
Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member
Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member
Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member
Mohamed Al Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member
on the matter between the Claimant,
Player A, Country B
as Claimant
and the Respondent,
Club C, Country D
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute
arisen between the parties
I. Facts of the case
1. On 15 June 2014, the Player of Country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant), born on 15 March 1990, concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) with the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), valid as from 15 June 2014 until 1 June 2017.
2. According to article 7.1 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to a monthly salary in the amount of 150,000 in the Currency of Country D.
3. In addition, on 15 June 2014, the parties concluded an Annex 1 to the contract, which stipulated, inter alia, the following:
“1. The Employer pays to the Employee a financial compensation for payment of a lease (rent) of a residential facility (…) in the net amount of [Currency of Country D 25,000] (…)
From “15” of June 2014 the amount of the monthly obligatory bonus award of the Employee during the term of the [contract], taking into account the amount specified in the p.7.1 of the [contract] is net 15 000 (…) USD. The payment shall be made in the Currency of Country D at the exchange rate of the Central Bank of the Federation of Country D at the date of payment.”
4. Subsequently, on 30 September 2014, and according to the Respondent, the parties concluded an “Agreement on termination of [Annex 1]” (hereinafter: the waiver), which stipulated the following:
“2. The Parties confirm hereby that have no financial and other claim to each other regarding fulfilment of conditions of the abovementioned [Annex 1].”
5. Furthermore, on 1 November 2014, the parties concluded an Annex 2 to the contract, which stipulated the following:
“From “01” of November 2014 the amount of the monthly obligatory bonus award of the Employee during the term of the [contract], is net 15 000 (…) USD (…) The payment shall be made in the Currency of Country D at the exchange rate of the Central Bank of the Federation of Country D at the date of payment, but not more than 1$=50
6. On 16 February 2015, the Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA against the Respondent for breach of contract without just cause during the protected period, and requested the payment of a total amount of USD 420,000, corresponding to the residual value of the contract as from “January 2015” (i.e. 28*15,000).
7. In addition, the Claimant requested the imposition of sporting sanctions against the Respondent, consisting in a transfer ban for two registration periods, as well as the reimbursement of legal costs for the amount of USD 10,000.
8. According to the Claimant, on 28 December 2014, and following his return from vacation, he was not informed by the Respondent about any training schedule or subsequent team meetings, which led him to train on an individual basis.
9. Subsequently, the Claimant explained that, on 5 January 2015, he read an interview published on the Respondent’s website with its main coach, according to whom, his contract was terminated.
10. In reference to the alleged lack of information about his training schedule and in relation to the aforementioned interview, the Claimant declared that he tried to contact the Respondent by phone and mail, without receiving any reply.
11. Moreover, the Claimant stated that, on 20 January 2015, he received via email a letter from the Respondent, by means of which he was notified of his dismissal, due to alleged unjustified absences on 29 and 30 December 2014, as well as on 10 January 2015.
12. In this regard, the Claimant considered that the Respondent was only producing excuses to provoke his dismissal, since according to him, it was not counting on him. In particular, the Claimant underlined that the Respondent did not provide him any evidence about his alleged absences.
13. In its reply, the Respondent refused the Claimant’s allegations, and explained that the Claimant was granted with vacation from 24 November 2014 until 28 December 2014, but that he was absent on 29 and 30 December 2014 and was unreachable. In this regard, the Respondent sustained that the Claimant appeared at its premises only on 12 January 2015.
14. In view of this, the Respondent explained that it was entitled to impose a “disciplinary penalty in the form of dismissal”. Consequently, the Respondent acknowledged that, on 20 January 2015, its Director General signed the termination of the contract on the basis of “absenteeism”, allegedly in accordance with the labor laws of Country D.
15. Furthermore, the Respondent stated that the termination of the contract was also due to the Claimant’s alleged disrespect to “the Respondent management, the coaching staff and his partners at the team”.
16. In reference to the interview with the Respondent’s main coach (cf. point I.9 above), the Respondent stated that it was simply an incorrect conclusion made by the coach, based on the Claimant’s absence. In this regard, the Respondent explained that under any circumstance, it is not responsibility of the Respondent’s coach to manage the conclusion or termination of employment agreements with football players.
17. Subsequently, the Claimant sent an unsolicited correspondence, named “Statement on increase of the amount of claim”, by means of which he stated that, at the moment of his dismissal on 20 January 2015, the Respondent already had overdue payables towards him for the amount of 2,246,398.7.
18. In particular, the Claimant explained that, although the contract stipulated his salary in USD (i.e. USD 15,000 per month), he was paid in the Currency of Country D. In this regard, the Claimant explained that this was due to the devaluation of the Currency of Country D in comparison to the USD during the year 2014, which was allegedly made as follows:
15.07.2014
34.3135 for 1 USD
15.08.2014
36.0395 for 1 USD
15.09.2014
37.6545 for 1 USD
15.10.2014
40.5304 for 1 USD
15.11.2014
47.3920 for 1 USD
01.12.2014
49.3220 for 1 USD
15.12.2015
56.8919 for 1 USD
01.01.2015
56.2373 for 1 USD
15.01.2015
66.0983 for 1 USD
20.01.2015
64.9732 for 1 USD
19. In accordance with the aforementioned table, the Claimant provided the following information, where he differentiated the amounts he actually received from the amounts that, in his opinion, he should have received. In particular and in reference to his salary, the Claimant considered that the amount of 4,404,378.7 was still outstanding. In this regard, the Claimant calculated said amount as follows:
a) Amounts related to the Annex 1 to the contract:
Amounts actually paid
Amounts claimed following conversion rates
15.6.2014
2,082,505 (for the entire period)
-
15.07.2014
514,702.5
(USD 15,000*34.3135)
-
15.08.2014
540,592.5
(USD 15,000*36.0395)
-
15.09.2014
564,817.5
(USD 15,000*37.6545)
-
15.10.2014
607,956
(USD 15,000*40.5304)
-
15.11.2014
710,880
(USD 15,000*47.3920)
31.12.2014
15.12.2015
853,378.5
(USD 15,000*56.8919)
15.01.2015
991,474.5
(USD 15,000*66.0983)
20.01.2015
647,174
(“final settlement”)
20.01.2015
192,249.2
(USD 2,958.9*64.9732)
TOTAL
2,729,652
4,976,050.7
DIFFERENCE
(claimed minus paid)
4,976,050.7-2,729,652=2,246,398.7
b) Amounts related to the Annex 2 to the contract (NB: conversion limit of USD 1 = 50 is applied):
01.12.2014
739,830 (USD 15,000*49.3220)
01.01.2015
750,000 (USD 15,000*50)
20.01.2015
493,150 (USD 9,863*50)
TOTAL
1,982,980
c) Amounts related to housing:
Moreover, the Claimant requested the payment of the amount of 175,000, corresponding to accommodation allowance, as provided in the Annex 1 to the contract, for the period comprised between 15 June 2014 until 20 January 2015 (i.e. 7 months; 25,000*7).
20. As for the compensation due for the breach of the contract, the Claimant explained that, since he was dismissed on 20 January 2015 and the original expiration date of the contract was 1 June 2017, the residual value of the contract under the Annex 1 shall correspond to “28 months and 12 days”, whereas the average daily wage corresponds to USD 493.15 [i.e. (15,000*12)/365]. Consequently, the Claimant considered that, for the remaining twelve working days of January 2015, he should be paid the amount of USD 5,917.81 (i.e. 493.15*12), leaving the initial residual value of the contract under Annex 1 in the amount of USD 425,917.81 (i.e. 15,000*28 + 5,917.81).
21. In addition, the Claimant specified that, in accordance with the Appendix 2 to the contract, he shall receive the amount of USD 15,000 per month, therefore increasing the amount of compensation in USD 425,917.81 (i.e. 15,000*28 + 5,917.81 for the 12 days of January 2015).
22. In sum, the Claimant requested the total amount of USD 851,835.62 [i.e. USD 425,917.81 (Annex 1) + USD 425,917.81 (Annex 2)].
23. Subsequently, the Claimant provided his replica to the comments provided by the Respondent, and insisted that the latter committed a unilateral breach of contract without just cause.
24. Moreover, the Claimant explained that, during the procedure before FIFA, the Respondent lodged a claim against him for breach of contract without just cause before the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Football Union of Country D (hereinafter: NDRC of Country D), and that said decision-making body rendered a decision on 28 April 2015, by means of which the claim lodged by the Respondent was dismissed.
25. In this respect, the Claimant considered that the decision of the NDRC of Country D has a prejudicial importance before FIFA, since “the facts as established by the [NDRC of Country D] do not need to be re-proven”.
26. As final comments, the Respondent explained that the NDRC of Country D in fact established that the Claimant terminated the contract without just cause, but that it considered that the imposition of sanctions would be excessive.
27. Moreover, the Respondent explained that it lodged an appeal before the Football Union of Country D against the decision dated 28 April 2015, but that on 22 October 2015 said appeal was dismissed by the Players’ Status Committee of the Football Union of Country D.
28. In relation to the submission referred to as “Statement on increase of the amount of claim” (cf. point I.17 above), the Respondent considered that the Claimant is acting in bad faith, since he did not present “the full set of documents establishing and changing the sizes of salary”, and that it is surprising that he only presented an increase of the claimed amounts during the course of the investigation.
29. In this regard, the Respondent declared that, on 30 September 2014, the parties signed a waiver (cf. point I.4 above), by means of which they acknowledged that they have no financial claims against each other. In addition, the Respondent considered that the Annex 2 is not meant to establish additional compensatory payments, but to establish the maximum cumulative amount of earlier established payments (i.e. USD 15,000 per month). In this respect, the Respondent considered that “it is rather difficult to imagine a more ridiculous way of motivation (…) than to establish (…) another guaranteed bonus payment in the amount of 15 000$”.
30. In reference to the amounts claimed for accommodation, the Respondent stated that it provided and assumed the costs of an apartment for the Claimant in the City of Club C in Country D, and that it concluded in this regard an apartment lease agreement with a local landlord. In this regard, the Respondent submitted a copy of the apartment lease agreement signed on 10 July 2015 for the amount of 25,000 per month. In particular, clause 1.1 of the lease agreement stated that the Respondent is the tenant and that the apartment is for the use of the Claimant. In his claim, the Claimant provided a confirmation by means of which he evidenced that he left this apartment on 22 January 2015.
31. Subsequently, on 21 December 2015 and after being informed of the closure of the investigation-phase, the Claimant sent an unsolicited additional correspondence.
32. Finally, the Claimant informed FIFA that, on 1 September 2015, he started to play for the amateur club of Country D, Club F, for a monthly salary of 10,000.
33. Furthermore, the Claimant also informed FIFA that, on 25 March 2016, he concluded an employment contract with the amateur club of country G, Club H, valid as from the date of signature until 30 November 2016, for a monthly salary of 23,000,000 in the currency of country H.
34. Moreover, according to the information available in the Transfer Matching System (TMS), the Claimant concluded an employment contract with the club of Country D, Club J, valid as from 25 June 2016 until 31 May 2017, for a monthly salary of 40,000.
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, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 16 February 2015. Consequently, the 2014 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Claimants’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the 2014 and 2015 editions of the Procedural Rules).
2. Subsequently, the DRC referred to art. 3 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2016), the DRC 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. The competence of the DRC having been established, the DRC analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players 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 (editions 2014, 2015 and 2016), and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 16 February 2015, the 2014 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
4. Having established the foregoing, and entering into the substance of the matter, the DRC continued by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file in relation to the substance of the matter. However, the DRC emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered for the assessment of the matter at hand.
5. Equally, the Chamber recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, FIFA may use, within the scope of proceedings pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence generated or contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
6. In this respect, the DRC acknowledged that the parties to the dispute had signed an employment contract on 15 June 2014, valid as from the date of signature until 1 June 2017.
7. Subsequently, the DRC took note that, as acknowledged by the parties, on 20 January 2015, the Respondent terminated the contract with the Claimant on the basis of “absenteeism” and, in particular, in view of the Claimant’s alleged absences on 29 December 2014, 30 December 2014 and 10 January 2015.
8. Consequently, and regardless of the existence or not of said absences, the Chamber acknowledged that it first had to examine whether the reasons put forward by the Respondent could justify the termination of the contract in the present matter.
9. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that only a breach or misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract. In other words, only when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect a continuation of the employment relationship between the parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more lenient measures which can be taken in order for an employer to ensure the employee’s fulfilment of his contractual duties, such measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of an employment contract can only ever be an ultima ratio measure.
10. In view of the above, and regardless of the existence of the Claimant’s alleged absences on 29 December 2014, 30 December 2014 and 10 January 2015, the Chamber was of the firm opinion that, even if proven, the Respondent in any case did not have just cause to prematurely terminate the employment contract with the Claimant, since such alleged breach could not legitimately be considered as being severe enough to justify the termination of the contract, and that there would have been more lenient measures to be taken (e.g., among others, a previous warning, a suspension or a fine) in order to sanction the alleged absence of the Claimant for only three days.
11. On account of the above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent had no just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent terminated the employment contract without just cause on 20 January 2015 and that, consequently, the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contact without just cause.
12. Bearing in mind the previous considerations, the Chamber went on to deal with the consequences of the early termination of the employment contract without just cause by the Respondent on 20 January 2015.
13. In this regard, the members of the Chamber noted that, according to the Annex 1 of the contract, the Respondent committed to pay to the Claimant the total amount of USD 15,000 per month, payable in the Currency of Country D “at the exchange rate of the Central Bank Federation of the Country D at the date of payment” (cf. point I. 3 above) as from 15 June 2014.
14. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber noted that the Respondent argued that the parties concluded on 30 September 2014 a waiver in relation to said Annex 1.
15. Moreover, the members also observed that, on 1 November 2014, the parties concluded an Annex 2 to the contract, according to which, as from said date, the Claimant would be entitled to earn a monthly remuneration in the amount of USD 15,000, payable in the Currency of Country D “at the exchange rate of the Central Bank Federation of the Country D at the date of payment, but not more than 1$=50” (cf. point I. 5) above.
16. In view of the existence of two Annexes (i.e. Annex 1 and Annex 2) to the contract that stipulated the Claimant’s remuneration, the members of the Chamber deemed necessary to first establish which is the legal relationship between the two aforementioned documents.
17. After due consideration of the contents of the Annex 1 and the Annex 2 of the contract, the members of the Chamber observed that both documents established the same remuneration in favour of the Claimant (i.e. USD 15,000), but differed in their regulation of their conversion rate in the Currency of Country D, since the Annex 2 clearly established that the Claimant’s remuneration was payable in the Currency of Country D at a maximum exchange of USD 1 = 50.
18. In view of the above, and regardless of the Respondent’s allegation that the parties concluded a waiver in relation to the Annex 1, the members of the Chamber unanimously understood that the underlying reason behind the conclusion of the Annex 2 was to regulate the Claimant’s final remuneration in the Currency of Country D at the aforementioned exchange rate, and that consequently, the referred Annex 2 superseded Annex 1 in all its legal effects as from 1 November 2014.
19. With this consideration in mind, the DRC took note of the Claimant’s allegation, according to which, at the moment of the termination of the contract on 20 January 2015, the Respondent had failed to pay part of his remuneration since 15 June 2015, for the total amount of 2,246,398.7, as a result of the difference between the amount that the Respondent actually paid him (i.e. 2,729,652) and the amounts that, according him, he was entitled to earn (i.e. 4,976,050) [cf. point I.19 for detailed calculation]. In particular, the DRC took note that the Claimant based said request on the grounds that the Respondent paid him in the Currency of Country D at an exchange rate from USD that was lower than the exchange rate established by the Central Bank Federation of the Country D.
20. In this regard, the DRC also took note of the Respondent’s argument, according to which the Claimant did not present “the full set of documents establishing and changing the sizes of salary”.
21. Having observed the aforementioned opposing arguments, the members of the Chamber went on to examine the documentation submitted by the Claimant in order to support his request. In particular, the members of the Chamber observed that, indeed, the Claimant failed to present sufficient, reliable and conclusive documentation in order to support his arguments regarding the outstanding allegedly salary owed by the Respondent.
22. In this respect, the DRC recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as established 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.
23. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber unanimously agreed that the Claimant’s request for outstanding salaries had to be rejected.
24. Subsequently, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequences of the breach of contract in question and, in this respect, it decided that, taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent compensation for breach of contract on the basis of the relevant employment contract.
25. In continuation, the Chamber outlined that, in accordance with said provision, 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 Claimant 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.
26. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify whether the pertinent employment contract contained any clause, by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon a 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.
27. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant 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 provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable. Therefore, other objective criteria may be taken into account at the discretion of the deciding body.
28. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the employment contract until 1 June 2017 (i.e. the original date of termination of the contract). In this regard, the members of the Chamber observed, as detailed above, that under the Annex 2 to the contract, the Respondent agreed to pay to the Claimant a monthly remuneration of, nominally, USD 15,000.
29. However, the members of the Chamber also noted that, under the referred Annex 2, the Claimant accepted that said nominal payments in USD had to be effectively performed in the Currency of Country D at a maximum exchange rate of USD 1 = 50. Moreover, the members of the Chamber observed that the Claimant acknowledged that, during the execution of the contract, he was paid in the Currency of Country D and that he even made his request for outstanding salaries in the latter currency. Consequently, the members of the Chamber unanimously concluded that it is fully coherent with the common intentions of the parties, that the monies payable to the Claimant as compensation had to be established in the Currency of Country D at the stipulated maximum exchange rate (i.e. USD 1 = 50).
30. In this regard, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that, in accordance with its well-established jurisprudence in this respect, it cannot grant any outstanding amounts or compensation in USD, as the parties had agreed upon payment of the Claimant’s remuneration in Currency E at a mutually agreed exchange rate.
31. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of 21,000,000 (i.e. remuneration as from 1 February 2015 until 1 June 2017) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract. In this respect, the Chamber observed that the Claimant considered in his claim the salary for January 2015 as settled (i.e. “final settlement”)
32. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant 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 Claimant’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.
33. In this regard, the DRC remarked that, following the termination of the contract by the Respondent, the Claimant had concluded a new employment with the Club of Country D, Club F, which ran from 1 September 2015 until 25 March 2016, for a monthly salary in the amount of 10,000. Consequently, the members of the DRC established that, accordingly, the Claimant would have earned the amount of 70,000.
34. Moreover, the DRC noted that, subsequently, the Claimant had concluded a new employment contract with the Club of country G, Club H, which entered into force on 25 March 2016, for a monthly salary in the amount of 23,000,000 in the Currency of Country H. In this respect, the members of the Chamber noted that, according to the information contained in the TMS, said contract was terminated on 24 June 2016. Consequently, the members of the DRC established that, as a result, the Claimant would have earned the amount of 69,000,000, equivalent to approximately 235,300.
35. In addition, the DRC observed that, following the information contained in the TMS, the Claimant concluded a new employment contract with the club of Country D, Club J, valid as from 25 June 2016 until 31 May 2017, for a monthly salary in the amount of 40,000. In this respect, the members of the DRC established that, accordingly, the Claimant would be able to earn from said contract the amount of 440,000.
36. As a result of the difference between the above-mentioned amounts, the members of the Chamber highlighted that the amount due by the Respondent as compensation for breach of contract corresponds to 20,254,700.
37. In conclusion, for all the above reasons, the Chamber decided to partially accept the Claimant’s request and that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant the amount of 20,254,700 as compensation for breach of contract without just cause, which is considered by the Chamber to be a reasonable and justified amount as compensation.
38. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to the amounts related to housing requested by the Claimant. In this regard, the members of the Chamber unanimously agreed that the Respondent submitted sufficient evidence in order to prove that, as stipulated in the contract, it provided the Claimant with housing and assumed its related costs until the date of termination of the contract. Therefore, the members of the Chamber decided to reject the Claimant’s request for the reimbursement of the alleged housing costs.
39. In addition, as regards the claimed legal expenses, the Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as to its long-standing and well-established jurisprudence, in accordance with which no procedural compensation shall be awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject the Claimant’s request relating to legal expenses.
40. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected.
III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is partially accepted.
2. The Respondent, Football Respondent of Club C, 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 20,254,700 in the Currency of Country D.
3. In the event that the aforementioned sum is not paid 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 under point 2. 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 (CAS)
Avenue de Beaumont 2
CH-1012 Lausanne
Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00
Fax: +41 21 613 50 01
e-mail: info@tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Marco Villiger
Deputy Secretary General
Enclosed: CAS directives