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 18 May 2017

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 18 May 2017,

in the following composition:

Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman

John Bramhall (England), member

Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member

Mohamed Al Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), member

Wouter Lambrecht (Belgium), member

on the claim presented by the player,

Player A, Country B,

as Claimant/Counter-Respondent

against the club,

Club C, Country D,

as Respondent/Counter-Claimant

regarding an employment-related dispute

between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 22 September 2013, the Player of Country B, Player A (hereinafter: Claimant/Counter-Respondent) and the Club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: Respondent/Counter-Claimant), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: contract), valid from the date of signature until 30 June 2015.

2. According to article IV.1 of the contract, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was entitled to receive from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant inter alia a monthly salary as follows:

- EUR 6,000 for the period between 22 September 2013 and 30 June 2014;

- EUR 7,000 for the period between 1 July 2014 until 30 June 2015.

- Accommodation and a car.

3. Article IV.2. of the contract established that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant undertook to “create at his own expense favourable conditions for training, the realization of the daily regime of the Player, his eating, regeneration and rehabilitation, to ensure quality medical and therapeutic services, to create a cultural environment for training and for rest”.

4. Article II.12. of the contract established as obligation of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent “To make out invoices for the provisions of his services for financial fulfilments provided to the [Respondent/Counter-Claimant] for the appropriate calendar year; invoices for services provided in the calendar year must be made out monthly”.

5. Article VI.3.d) of the contract determined that “The [Claimant/Counter-Respondent] may withdraw from the contract if the [Respondent/Counter-Claimant] does not fulfil its undertaking given in Article IV point 1, or any other undertaking to pay remuneration, a bonus or any other payment due to the [Claimant/Counter-Respondent] according to this contract, and does not do so even in the replacement deadline of 30 days, which begins to run on the day of the delivery of the appeal from the [Claimant/Counter-Respondent] addressed to the [Respondent/Counter-Claimant] for payment of the due liabilities according to this contract. The period of notice for this case is 60 calendar days and begins to run on the day following delivery of the written appeal to the [Respondent/Counter-Claimant]; the [Claimant/Counter-Respondent] is entitled to give notice to the [Respondent/Counter-Claimant] at earliest on the first day following the replacement deadline agreed between him and the [Respondent/Counter-Claimant]”.

6. On the same date, i.e. 22 September 2013, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant signed the document “Supplement No. 1” (hereinafter: Supplement 1), according to which the monthly salary established in the contract was raised to EUR 7,060 and, for the period between 1 July 2014 until 30 June 2015, to EUR 8,235. Moreover, the Supplement 1 established that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was entitled to a monthly house allowance in the amount of EUR 1,176.

7. On 14 July 2014, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the Club of Country D, Club E, concluded a loan agreement, by means of which the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was transferred on a loan basis to Club E, from the date of signature until 30 June 2015.

8. The loan agreement established inter alia that “II.1. By signing this Agreement, [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] will loan the [Claimant/Counter-Respondent] to Club E without financial compensation. 2. The Contracting Parties agreed that for the term of the loan Club E will pay [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] a proportional part of the basic monthly salary of the [Claimant/Counter-Respondent] of XXX 40,000 plus VAT monthly, payable on the 15th day of the calendar month following the month, for which the salary is due to the [Claimant/Counter-Respondent] upon the presentation of the invoice by [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] at the latest. 3. The [Claimant/Counter-Respondent] agrees with the loan hereunder.”

9. On 14 July 2014, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant signed the document “Supplement No. 2” (hereinafter: Supplement 2), by means of which the contract was amended. In particular, by means of art. II.2.1. of the Supplement 2, the letter e) was added to article IV.1. of the contract, which reads: “e) the monthly remuneration from 1.7.2014 to 30.6.2015 amounting 8,235, - EUR is due on 15th day of the following calendar month, after the presentation of the valid invoice by the [Claimant/Counter-Respondent]. Shall the [Respondent/Counter-Claimant] be in delay with the payment of the monthly remuneration with 15 days after the presentation of the valid invoice, the [Claimant/Counter-Respondent] is entitled to unilaterally terminate this contract without prior notice and the [Respondent/Counter-Claimant] is obliged to pay the [Claimant/Counter-Respondent] the sum of monthly remunerations for the remaining duration of this contract according to the FIFA regulations within 30 days”.

10. Moreover, article II.2.2 of the Supplement 2 established that “Based on the loan agreement signed between the clubs [Respondent/Counter-Claimant] and Club E, the [Respondent/Counter-Claimant] is responsible to pay the [Claimant/Counter-Respondent] from 1.7.2014 to 30.6.2015 monthly remuneration amounting of 8,235, - EUR and the club, Club E, is responsible to pay [the Respondent/Counter-Claimant] from 1.7.2014 to 30.6.2015 monthly remuneration 40,000, - XXX”.

11. In addition, article II.2.3. of the Supplement 2 established that “The [Respondent/Counter-Claimant] is in this period still committed to provide a car for the [Claimant/Counter-Respondent] and a housing benefit of 1,176 – EUR but for all other bonuses as a starting fee for every point acquired in the League is from 1.7.2014 responsible Club E according to the agreement between the [Claimant/Counter-Respondent] and the club, Club E”.

12. Finally, according to article II.2.4. of the Supplement 2, “All other terms and conditions of the Professional Contract that are not hereby amended are to remain in full force and effect”.

13. On 12 January 2015, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent put the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in default of payment and requested the payment of outstanding remuneration regarding November 2014, due on 15 December 2014, as well as a timely payment of the remuneration regarding December 2014 on 15 January 2015, indicating that otherwise he will terminate the contract in accordance with article II.2.1. of the Supplement 2.

14. On 15 January 2015, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated the contract in writing due to non-payment of the due remuneration by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant as well as for not creating “favourable conditions for trainings, realization of the daily regime, eating, regeneration and rehabilitation” as per art. IV.2. of the contract.

15. On 17 January 2015, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for breach of contract, requesting the following:

- EUR 18,822 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest, composed of the monthly salaries and house allowances for November and December 2014 [2 x EUR 9,411 (EUR 8,235 + EUR 1,176)];

- EUR 56,466 as compensation plus 5% interest, composed of the monthly salaries and house allowances as from 1 January 2015 until 30 June 2015 (6 x EUR 9,411);

- Reimbursement of “costs of team trainings”;

- Reimbursement of “the payments corresponding to the pension for professional football Claimant/Counter-Respondents in Country F”;

- Legal expenses.

16. According to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, in summer 2014, he was informed by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant that they were no longer interested in his services and he accepted the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s offer to be transferred on a loan basis to the Club of Country D, Club E as from 14 July 2014 until the end of the winter part of the 2014/2015 season, preventing the termination of the contract. In particular, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent highlighted that he was not a party to the loan agreement concluded between the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and

Club E, but that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant agreed to continue paying his remuneration established in the contract in accordance with the Supplement 2.

17. Furthermore, notwithstanding the agreement between the parties, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant allegedly failed to pay the remuneration for the months of November and December 2014, due respectively on 15 December 2014 and 15 January 2015.

18. According to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, after putting the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in default on 12 January 2015, he terminated the contract on 15 January 2015, since the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to fulfil its contractual obligations.

19. Moreover, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent pointed out that the breach of the contract occurred not only because the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to pay the remuneration as contractually agreed, but also because the Respondent/Counter-Claimant violated art. IV.2. of the contract, since it did not allow him to train and participate in matches after Club E did not want his services anymore. In this respect, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent held that, although he was never informed directly by Club E, he became aware through the media that Club E was no longer interested in his services. For this reason, he had to participate in the Football Association of Country D’s training camp from 5 January until 15 January 2015.

20. Finally, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent held that professional players are not considered employees in the Country D, but are self-employed, reason why he was not entitled to any payments in connection with pension funds as in countries where professional players are employees under the protection of labour law. Therefore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent requested that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant reimburse the payments corresponding to the pension for professional football players in Country F, country of his permanent residency.

21. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant rejected the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim, in particular, the reasons invoked for the termination of the contract, which it considered invalid.

22. According to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, on 6 January 2015, it received an invoice issued by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent dated 30 December 2014 labeled “monthly remuneration for 11/2014” with the due date set to 7 January 2015, however, actually sent by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent on 2 January 2015. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant held that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent did that on purpose to make sure that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant only had one day to make the relevant payment.

23. In this respect, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant stated that, according to applicable national law, the due term of invoices is 30 days, unless agreed differently by the parties. Moreover, it highlighted that, according to the contract, the due date of any invoices is the 15th day of the following month after the presentation of a valid invoice by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. In this regard, according to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the invoice submitted by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent dated 30 December 2014 regarding November 2014, received by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on 6 January 2015, would become due on 15 February 2015 only. Consequently, the due date of 7 January 2015 established by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was null and void.

24. Regarding the default notice, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant stressed that it had not received an invoice regarding the remuneration for December 2014, which was allegedly mandatory according to the contract. In this respect, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant recognized having received the default notice on 12 January 2015 from the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s representative. However, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant alleged that during a meeting held with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent on 14 January 2015, he announced his wish to prematurely terminate the employment relation to the surprise of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant.

25. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant held that it made a counter-proposal, to which the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s representative did not give a feedback as agreed upon, but instead the Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated the contract on the following day.

26. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant stated that at the moment the Claimant terminated the contract, all sums of remuneration due were already paid to his bank account.

27. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant further held that it received the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s notice of termination, dated 15 January 2015, on 20 January 2015 after it already had made the relevant payment.

28. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant also indicated that, even if it was in default of payments, it was not for a long enough period of time to justify the termination of the contract by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. In particular, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant emphasised that the remuneration of December 2014 was not yet due, therefore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was not in default of its payment. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant made reference to article IV.3.d) of the contract and held that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent did not respect the deadlines and requirements of such provision.

29. Therefore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant held that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated the contract without just cause and that thus, he is not entitled to receive compensation.

30. Considering all the above, on the same occasion, i.e. on 23 March 2015, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant lodged a counterclaim against the Claimant/Counter-Respondent for breach of contract, which was amended on 3 February 2016, requesting the following:

- EUR 110,364 as compensation, in accordance with art. 17 of the Regulations;

- XXX 600,000 relating to financial disciplinary sanctions imposed on the Claimant/Counter-Respondent by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant;

- XXX 186,669 corresponding to “damages by unjust use of the [Respondent/Counter-Claimant]’s car” for the period between 1 January and 23 July 2015;

- XXX 240,000 corresponding to damages caused by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s failure to enter the preparation for season 2014/2015 with Club E, composed of XXX 40,000 for each month from 1 January 2015 until 30 June 2015;

- Damages “in full amount as quantified by Club E, in the event that Club E demands compensation for damages resulting from breach of player loan contract concerning the [Claimant/Counter-Respondent] dated 14.7.2014, from the [Respondent/Counter-Claimant]”;

- XXX 14,886.19 as reimbursement of repair of the company’s car;

- CHF 13,000 as legal expenses.

31. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant presented the following detailed calculation of the amount of compensation it claims:

i) Value of the contract:

- EUR 130,040 for the 2013/2014 season, considering an average remuneration of EUR 13,040 composed of :

a) EUR 7,060 as monthly salary

b) EUR 1,176 as housing costs, and

c) EUR 1,000 approximately, as “non-monetary satisfaction” regarding the use of a company car;

d) EUR 1,540.80 as average monthly bonuses;

e) and value added tax of 21% from the total value of the monthly remuneration.

- EUR 151,164 for the 2014/2015 season, specifically for the period between 1 July 2014 until 30 June 2015, considering an average remuneration of EUR 12,597 composed of :

f) EUR 8,235 as monthly salary

g) EUR 1,176 as housing costs, and

h) EUR 1,000 approximately, as “non-monetary satisfaction” regarding the use of a company car;

i) and value added tax of 21% from the total value of the monthly remuneration.

Therefore, a total contractual value of EUR 281,204, which multiplied by a coefficient 1.5 equals EUR 421,806.

ii) Lost profit:

- EUR 150,000, considering that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant intended to transfer the Claimant/Counter-Respondent before the end of the season, the total amount must be increased by the alleged lost profit. EUR 150,000 corresponds to half the amount of costs allegedly related to the engagement of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, which allegedly also is the current market value of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent.

Therefore, the value equals EUR 571,806 (EUR 421,806 + EUR 150,000) for the whole contractual period, i.e. 22 months, which results in an average monthly value of EUR 25,991, which multiplied by the remaining months of the contractual period, i.e. 6 months, results in the amount of EUR 155,946. The latter amount shall be lowered by “salary savings” of EUR 75,582 for the period of six remaining months (from January until June 2015), amounting to EUR 80,364.

Finally, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant added EUR 30,000 as additional compensation for specificity of sport, considering that the termination transpired after the registration period, making it impossible for the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to sign another player.

32. Therefore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant deems that it is entitled to receive the total amount of EUR 110,364 (EUR 80,364 + EUR 30,000) as compensation.

33. According to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent did not fulfil his obligations with Club E, abandoning Club E in spite of several reminders of Club E to join the club for preparation in 2015. In this respect, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant submitted a copy of a letter of Club E addressed to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, dated 12 January 2015, by means of which Club E informs the Respondent/Counter-Claimant that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent “has not commenced hosting in our club in breach of Player Loan Agreement” as well as states that it will suspend the payment of “proportional part of basic monthly remuneration of the [Claimant/Counter-Respondent] amounting to XXX 40,000”, until the Claimant/Counter-Respondent commences performance. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant further submitted a letter of Club E addressed to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, dated 30 January 2015, by means of which Club E withdrew from the loan agreement, in light of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s breach of the loan agreement.

34. As a consequence, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant asked that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent compensates its alleged damages in the amount XXX 240,000, because Club E has failed to reimburse this amount to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for the period between 1 January 2015 and 30 June 2015.

35. In continuation, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant held that, because the Claimant/Counter-Respondent failed to render his services to Club E as from 1 January 2015, he was sanctioned with a fine of XXX 600,000, which shall be paid by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. In this regard, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant presented a copy of a letter issued by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant addressed to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, dated 19 March 2015, by means of which the Respondent/Counter-Claimant informs the Claimant/Counter-Respondent that “upon decision of the Disciplinary Committee” of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant dated 16 March 2015, in line with the Disciplinary regulations of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, an extraordinary disciplinary fine of XXX 600,000 was imposed on the Claimant/Counter-Respondent due to the ongoing breach committed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent consisting in his failure to “commence performance in hosting in Club E”.

36. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant further alleged that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent continued using the car, which was provided by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, after the termination of the contract, without any legal justification, until July 2015, causing monetary damages to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, i.e. XXX 26,667 per month. In this respect, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant submitted a copy of a handover certificate issued by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant dated 23 July 2015, which “took place in the presence of Mgr. G, acting on behalf of” the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s representative. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant further submitted a partially translated document describing the amount of XXX 26,667 as “Non-monetary benefits Player A” issued by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in this respect.

37. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant also requested the reimbursement of the costs of the repair of damages caused to the car. In this respect, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant submitted two letters addressed to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, one dated 9 April 2015, requesting the return of the car as well as payment for the unjustified usage of the car, and one dated 28 August 2015, requesting the payment of the costs of the repair of damages caused by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to the car, which were listed in the handover certificate.

38. In reply to the counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent stating on a preliminary basis that the DRC is not competent to deal with the dispute regarding the loan of the car and the alleged damages, since it is not an employment related dispute.

39. Moreover, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent stated that the invoice dated 30 December 2014 is irrelevant, since an employee must be paid automatically, irrespective of the issuance of an invoice. In addition, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent affirmed that the arguments and documents submitted by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant are irrelevant and intentionally distracting.

40. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent maintained his claim and highlighted that, since June 2014, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had been in delay of payments and that, since July 2014, although he was on loan with Club E, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant has still been responsible to pay the remuneration as per the contract. On 12 January 2015, he put the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in default asking for immediate payment or the contract would be terminated. Considering that on 15 January 2015 the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had not paid the amounts for November and December 2014, he terminated the contract.

41. Finally, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent stated that, even if the general rule for termination with just cause is 3 months of non-payment, the long-term late payments are also accepted as just cause by the Dispute Resolution Chamber.

42. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant submitted unsolicited correspondence after the closure of the investigation-phase.

43. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent informed FIFA that he had remained unemployed since the termination of the contract until this date.

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 17 January 2015. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2014; 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 2016) 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 of 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 2016), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 17 January 2015, the 2014 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 DRC took note that, on 22 September 2013, the parties signed the contract valid until 30 June 2015 as well as the Supplement 1, by means of which the monthly salary established in the contract was raised and the value of the accommodation was specified.

6. Moreover, the Chamber further took note that it remained undisputed that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was transferred on a loan basis from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to Club E for the period between 1 July 2014 until 30 June 2015, in accordance with the loan agreement, i.e. until the expiry of the contract with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant.

7. Furthermore, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant signed the Supplement 2 on 14 July 2014, i.e. on the date of signature of the loan agreement between Club E and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, amending the contract. In particular, the members of the DRC took note that, in accordance with the Supplement 2, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant remained responsible for the payment of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s remuneration for the duration of the loan period, i.e. from 1 July 2014 until 30 June 2015. In addition, the DRC highlighted that the Supplement 2 established as the due date for payment of the remuneration “the 15th day of the following calendar month”.

8. In continuation, the DRC noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent claimed having terminated the contract on 15 January 2015 with just cause, after having put the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in default, since the latter failed to pay his remuneration for November and December 2014. Moreover, the Claimant/-Counter-Respondent argued that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to provide him with adequate training after it had become clear in January 2015 that Club E was no longer interested in his services.

9. On the other hand, the DRC noted that, according to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent did not have a valid reason to terminate the contract, notably taking into account that the remuneration had not been outstanding for a long enough period. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant further held having paid the remuneration corresponding to November 2014 on 15 January 2015 and that the December 2014 remuneration had not yet fallen due. Moreover, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant stated that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent failed to respect the contractual provisions relating to deadlines and notice of default.

10. In view of the foregoing, the DRC deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute was to determine as to whether or not the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had a just cause to terminate the contract on 15 January 2015 and, subsequently, to decide on the consequences thereof.

11. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber proceeded to the analysis of the arguments and the corresponding documentation provided by the parties. At this point and for the sake of good order, the DRC recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right from an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof.

12. In this respect, the DRC recalled that, on 12 January 2015, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent put the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in default of payment of his remuneration corresponding to the month of November 2014, before terminating the contract on 15 January 2015. In this respect, the DRC highlighted that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent granted only three days, i.e. until 15 January 2015, for the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to cure its default and that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated the contract on the day on which the time limit set by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in his default notice would expire. In addition, the members of the DRC took into account that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had not contested the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s statement that it had paid the remuneration corresponding to November 2014.

13. In addition, the members of the DRC considered that, in accordance with the due date established in the Supplement 2 for the payment of the monthly remuneration, i.e. the 15th day of the following month, the monthly remuneration of December 2014 only fell due on the date of termination of the contract by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, i.e. 15 January 2015.

14. Having said this, the DRC turned its attention to the other reason invoked by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent for the termination the contract, i.e. the alleged failure of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to provide him with adequate training following Club E’s premature termination of his services on a loan basis in January 2015.

15. In this respect, the Chamber stressed that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s default notice of 12 January 2015 does not include any reference to the alleged failure of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to provide him with adequate training.

16. Subsequently, the Chamber reverted to the loan agreement as well as to the Supplement 2 and recalled that it remained undisputed that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was transferred to Club E on a loan basis for the period between 1 July 2014 until 30 June 2015, during which period, whereas the Claimant/Counter-Respondent would render his services to Club E, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant remained responsible for the payment of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s monthly remuneration.

17. In this respect, the DRC took into account that it has remained undisputed between the parties that, in January 2015, the employment relationship between Club E and the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had prematurely ended.

18. However, considering the loan agreement, the DRC deemed that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had no obligation to accept the services of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent during the loan period which, in the present matter, coincides with the end of the relevant contractual period, as well as after the premature end of his loan period with Club E. Therefore, the members of the Chamber concluded that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had no obligation to provide the Claimant/Counter-Respondent with training in January 2015.

19. Consequently, on account of all the above, the Chamber decided that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s argumentation could not be upheld and that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had no just cause to terminate the contract on 15 January 2015.

20. On account of the above, the Chamber decided that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim for compensation for breach of contract shall be rejected.

21. In continuation, the DRC reverted to the counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant requesting inter alia compensation for breach of contract without just cause by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent.

22. In this respect, the members of the DRC recalled that it remained undisputed by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant that it had informed the Claimant/Counter-Respondent that it was no longer interested in his services, reason why he was transferred to Club E (cf. point I./16. above) until the end of the contractual period.

23. Moreover, the DRC took into account that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not incur any damages as a result of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s departure from Club E. In this respect, the DRC considered that the amounts due by Club E to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in accordance with the loan agreement were a proportional part of the monthly remuneration due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent during the loan, which was terminated in January 2015.

24. In addition, the DRC considered the requests of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant related to the alleged use of the car by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and determined that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not discharge its burden of proof in this respect. Moreover, the Chamber considered that such requests had no contractual basis and thus, decided to reject the pertinent requests.

25. Subsequently, the DRC reverted to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s request related to the pecuniary sanction allegedly imposed on the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and decided to also reject this request, considering that the alleged disciplinary sanction was imposed by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on 16 March 2015 and thus, after the termination of the contractual relationship between the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant.

26. Notwithstanding the above, the DRC was eager to emphasize that it must still verify whether any amounts contractually agreed upon by the parties have remained outstanding for services rendered by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent when the latter terminated the contract.

27. In this respect, the DRC considered that it has remained undisputed that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s remuneration corresponding to services rendered during the month of December 2014 was not paid. On the other hand, the DRC recalled that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent did not dispute the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s allegation that it had paid the remuneration for the month of November 2014.

28. Thus, taking into consideration the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim as well as the reasons previously exposed, the Chamber decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant must fulfil its obligations as per the Supplement 2 and, consequently, is liable to pay outstanding remuneration to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in the total amount of EUR 9,411, corresponding to the remuneration regarding the month of December 2014.

29. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s request pertaining to payment of interest and bearing in mind that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had not indicated the date as of when the 5% interest p.a. should be calculated, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant/Counter-Respondent interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 9,411 as of the date of receipt of the claim, 17 January 2015.

30. Moreover, the DRC decided that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim for reimbursement of alleged costs of team trainings and of alleged payments for pension for professional football players must be rejected due to the lack of a contractual basis as well as to the fact that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent did not specify the amounts claimed.

31. Additionaly, as regards the parties’ claims for 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 parties’ requests relating to legal expenses.

32. The DRC concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is partially accepted and that the counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is rejected.

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Player A, is partially accepted.

2. The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club C, is rejected.

3. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 9,411 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 17 January 2015 until the date of effective payment.

4. In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid to the Claimant / Counter-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.

5. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected.

6. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent / Counter-Claimant 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 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber:

Omar Ongaro

Football Regulatory Director

Encl. CAS directives