F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber / Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie – labour disputes / controversie di lavoro (2017-2018) – fifa.com – atto non ufficiale – Decision15 February 2018

Decision of the

Dispute Resolution Chamber

passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 15 February 2018,

in the following composition:

Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman

Eirik Monsen (Norway), member

Stéphane Burchkalter (France), member

Philippe Diallo (France), member

Joseph Antoine Bell (Cameroon), member

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

arisen between the parties

I. Facts of the case

1. On 17 June 2015, the player of Country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the club of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 1 July 2015 until 30 June 2016.

2. The contract provides that the Claimant would be paid ten instalments of USD 9,000 net of taxes. The first instalment was payable 30 days after the contract entered into force and subsequently, every 30 days consecutively. In this respect, according to the contract, five instalments would be paid during the Tournament E and five during the Tournament F.

3. Article 4 of the contract established that “It is hereby stipulated that by the will of any of the parties, the present contract could be unilaterally terminated without just cause, if this is the case, the party which terminates the contract will be obliged to pay to its counterparty compensation in the amount of USD 18,000”. (note: free translation from Spanish. Original text reads as follows: “se establece que por voluntad de cualquiera de las partes, el presente contrato podrá ser rescindido unilateralmente sin causa justificada, circunstancia que obligará a la parte que lo hubiere dado por terminado a pagar a la contraparte una indemnización equivalente a la cantidad de USD 18,000”).

4. The “annex” of the contract establishes, inter alia, certain amounts to be paid to the Claimant as follows:

a) 1 goal = 2 points and 1 assist = 1 point. For each point the Claimant shall receive USD 100;

b) If the Respondent advances out of the group stage of the 2015/16 Continental Champions League , the Claimant would receive USD 2,500;

c) If the Claimant plays between 65% and 80% of the official matches of the “League of Country D e International football league competition”, the Respondent will pay USD 1,500, in addition to this sum, if the Claimant plays in more than 81% of the total matches played he will receive an additional USD 1,500 (note: free translation from Spanish. Original text reads as follows: ”el club proporcionará al jugador una bonificación de un mil quinientos dólares (USD 1,500) si juega del 65% al 80% de los partidos oficiales por la Liga del país D y Competición Internacional de fútbol durante la Temporada 2015-2016, así como un mil quinientos dólares (USD 1,500) más, si juega el 81% o más de los mismos partidos”).

5. On 1 December 2015, the Respondent published on its Twitter account a post stating that the contractual relationship with the Claimant had been terminated. On the same day, this post was published as a press release on the Respondent’s official website.

6. On 2 December 2015, the Claimant formally put the Respondent in default for the payment in the amount of USD 18,000, corresponding to the salaries of October and November 2015.

7. Subsequently, on 3 December 2015, the Respondent published the following statement on its website: “The only player who is still pending to sign his labour settlement is [the Claimant] who by his own choice travelled early today to Country B to attend a family matter, waiting that in the upcoming days he contacts [the Respondent] in order to agree upon the terms of his rescission in order to comply as [the Respondent] tends to do with all its coaches, national and international players, that have participated with it” (note: free translation from Spanish. Original text reads as follows: “El único jugador que aún está pendiente de firmar su finiquito es Jugador A quien por decisión propia, viajó hoy temprano a País B para atender una actividad familiar, esperando en los próximos días se ponga de acuerdo con el club con los términos de su recisión para poder cumplirle tal como Club C acostumbra hacer con todos los técnicos, jugadores nacionales y extranjeros que han participado con el mismo.”).

8. On 17 December 2015, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent for breach of contract, requesting to be paid a total of USD 88,000, plus 5% interest p.a. “from the relevant due dates”, as follows:

- USD 63,000, amount corresponding to “all owed and unpaid salaries” from October 2015 to May 2016;

- USD 7,000 as outstanding bonuses (cf. point 1.10 below);

- USD 18,000 as compensation in light of article 4 of the contract corresponding to the Respondent´s alleged “gross wrongdoing” and “the damage caused to the Claimant”; and

- The Claimant further requested sporting sanctions to be imposed on the Respondent.

9. In his claim, the Claimant held that without any prior notice, the Respondent unilaterally terminated the contract without just cause by means of its Twitter post and press release of 1 December 2015, which, according to the Claimant, contains no justification or explanation in relation to the termination. Moreover, in relation to the press release of 3 December 2015, the Claimant maintained that no settlement could be offered to him as the contract had already been terminated by the Respondent on 1 December 2015, and that he travelled to Country B not because of family matters, but because his contract was already terminated. Finally, he held that there was no just cause for the unilateral and premature termination of the contract, and that the Respondent is trying to constitute certain elements with malicious intent with the intention to demonstrate it had offered him a settlement.

10. In his claim, in respect to the bonuses, the Claimant sustained that he scored 6 goals and provided 3 assists, amounting to 15 points which should entitle him to USD 1,500. In addition, the Claimant claims to have played in over 81% of the Respondent’s matches, and that therefore, it owes him USD 1,500 + USD 1,500.

Furthermore, the Claimant claims that the Respondent qualified for the Continental Champions League, thereby entitling him to USD 2,500.

11. In its response to the claim, the Respondent stated that after the Tournament E, the Respondent’s “Directive Board” decided that the Claimant, in addition with other players would not continue playing with the Respondent for the Tournament F.

12. In respect to the outstanding remuneration, according to the Respondent, the Claimant signed a contract for a complete season of 360 days, and his salaries would be paid in 10 instalments. Along this line, according to the Respondent, since the Claimant only rendered his services for 150 days i.e. from 01/07/2015 to 30/11/2015, this would allegedly only entitle him to four complete instalments and 17% of the fifth instalment, reason why he was not entitled to receive the complete fifth instalment.

13. Along this line, the Respondent held that on 8 December 2015, it sent an email to the Claimant, in which the Claimant was informed that the fourth instalment was paid and that the fifth instalment would be paid during the first 15 days of January 2016.

14. In respect to the bonuses claimed by the Claimant, the Respondent acknowledged that it owed the Claimant the amount of USD 1,500 in relation to the bonuses referring to goals and assists, however, it contested the entitlement of the Claimant to receive further amounts as bonuses. In this regard, the Respondent held that the contract established that the Claimant would receive USD 2,500 in case the Respondent would have advanced out of the Continental Champions League group stage, situation that did not happened. Moreover, according to the Respondent since the Claimant was with it for the Tournament E only, he played, at the most, 50% of the matches for the 2015-2016 season.

15. As to the amount requested by the Claimant corresponding to compensation for breach of contract, the Respondent acknowledged that it terminated the contract unilaterally without just cause, however, it held that in accordance with art. 4 of the contract, the amount to be paid as compensation corresponds to USD 18,000, since this contractual clause was freely entered and mutually agreed by the parties in the contract.

16. In this context, the Respondent held that on 13 January 2016, it sent an email to the Claimant notifying him that the final payment was ready to be made in the amount of USD 21,030, the day he presented himself at the Respondent’s offices to sign the corresponding receipt. Said amount was broken down as follows:

- USD 1,530 as for the 17% of the fifth instalment;

- USD 1,500 as outstanding bonuses for goals and assists; and

- USD 18,000 as for the compensation for the unilateral termination of the contract by the Respondent.

17. In this regard, allegedly on 21 January 2016, the Respondent deposited in the League of Country D, a check in the name of the Claimant for the amount of USD 21,030, situation that was notified to the Claimant on 22 January 2016.

18. In his replica, the Claimant argued that in accordance with the contract and contrary to what the Respondent mentioned, at the date of the termination, it had the obligation to pay him five instalments of USD 9,000, that would amount to USD 45,000. The Claimant argued that from the USD 45,000 he was supposed to receive at the date of termination, he only received USD 24,539, amount broken down as follows:

- First instalment due on 1 August 2015 – Amount paid: USD 4,786.56 on 11 August 2015;

- Second instalment due on 1 September 2015 – Amount paid: USD 7,301.48 on 7 September 2015;

- Third instalment due on 1 October 2015 – Amount paid: USD 7,969.84 on 7 October 2015;

- Fourth instalment due on 1 November 2015 – Amount paid: USD 4,482.13 on 6 November 2015;

- Fifth instalment due on 1 December 2015 – Not paid.

19. Furthermore, the Claimant stated that the Respondent never tried to contact him before in order to terminate the contract and that the Respondent only offered him to pay compensation in accordance with article 4 of the contract after he had put the Respondent in default and lodged his claim before FIFA.

20. Having said that, the Claimant amended his claim and requested the total amount of USD 90,460.11, amount broken down as follows:

- USD 65,460.11as outstanding salaries and compensation for the breach of contract without just cause;

- USD 7,000 as outstanding bonuses; and

- USD 18,000 compensation in light of article 4 of the contract.

Alternatively, the Claimant requested that if FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber determines that the Respondent could invoke article 4 of the contract, he would be entitled to receive the total amount of USD 45,460.11, amount broken down as follows:

- USD 20,460.11 as outstanding salaries:

- USD 7,000 as outstanding bonuses; and

- USD 18,000 compensation in light of article 4 of the contract.

21. In its duplica, the Respondent argued that the amounts requested by the Claimant are not correct, and insisted that the amount that it should pay to the Claimant is USD 21,030.

22. Finally, the Respondent argued that the payments were made as established in the contract, since according to the Respondent “the first four instalments (USD 36,000) were paid in the dates and forms as established up next:

- Date 11.06.2015 – Amount: USD 4,482.13 – Payment: international money transfer;

- Date 11.06.2015 – Amount: USD 25 - Payment: tax for money transfer;

- Date 25.06.2015 – Amount: USD 1,000 - Payment: Done in cash to the player;

- Date 09.07.2015 – Amount: USD 7,301.48 - Payment: international money transfer;

- Date 09.07.2015 – Amount: USD 25 - Payment: tax for money transfer;

- Date 10.07.2015 – Amount: USD 7,969.84 – Payment: international money transfer;

- Date 10.07.2015 – Amount: USD 25 - Payment: tax for money transfer;

- Date 31.07.2015 – Amount: USD 1,325.11 - Payment: done in paycheck;

- Date 08.11.2015 – Amount: USD 4,786.44 - Payment: international money transfer;

- Date 08.11.2015 – Amount: USD 25 - Payment: tax for money transfer;

- Date 08.12.2015 – Amount: USD 9,000 - Payment: international money transfer; and

- Date 08.12.2015 – Amount: USD 25 - Payment: tax for money transfer.

TOTAL AMOUNT: USD 36,000” (note: free translation from Spanish)

23. After being requested by FIFA, the Claimant sent a copy of his contracts (“contrato deportivo” and “contrato interno deportivo”) with the club of Country B, Club G, both valid as from 29 January 2016 until 31 May 2016.

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 December 2015. Consequently, the 2015 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the 2015, 2017 and 2018 editions 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 and 2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2018), 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 of 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 (editions 2015, 2016 and 2018), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 17 December 2015, the 2015 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

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

5. In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that, on 17 June 2015, the parties to the dispute signed an employment contract, valid as from 1 July 2015 until 30 June 2016.

6. Moreover, the DRC noted that on 1 December 2015, the Respondent unilaterally terminated the employment contract.

7. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber took note that the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent, maintaining that the latter had unilaterally terminated the employment contract on 1 December 2015 without just cause. Consequently, the Claimant asked to be awarded outstanding remuneration, outstanding bonuses and compensation for breach of the employment contract.

8. In this regard, the DRC noted the Respondent’s position, which confirmed that it terminated the contract unilaterally without just cause. Furthermore, the Chamber observed that the Respondent deemed that the Claimant’s request for outstanding salaries and bonuses is not correct and that art. 4 of the contract, should be applied in respect to the compensation payable for the unilateral termination of the contract.

9. Having established the foregoing, and in view that it has been acknowledged that the Respondent unilaterally terminated the contract without just cause on 1 December 2015, the Chamber therefore considered that the matter at stake essentially relates to the consequences of the early termination of the employment contract i.e. to determine which amounts remained outstanding at the moment of the termination of the employment contract, and to determine the amount payable as compensation for breach of contract.

10. On account of the aforementioned, in particular in view of the considerations, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify the outstanding amounts the Respondent owed to the Claimant in respect to salaries and bonuses.

11. In respect to the outstanding salaries, the Chamber took note that the Claimant deemed that he was entitled to receive five monthly salaries of USD 9,000 each, to sum up the amount of USD 45,000, but that instead he only received USD 24,539 up until the date of termination of the contract.

12. The members of the Chamber then noted that the Respondent held that the amount requested by the Claimant as outstanding salaries is not correct. In this regard, the Respondent deemed having paid to the Claimant the first four instalments and only owing to the Claimant the amount of USD 1,530 i.e. 17% of the fifth instalment, which according to the Respondent is equivalent to the days the Claimant rendered his services to it during the fifth instalment.

13. In this regard, as to the divergent position of the parties in respect to the outstanding salaries at the day of the termination, the members of the DRC referred to the contract, and pointed out that it established that the salaries had to be paid in ten instalments of USD 9,000, the first instalment payable 30 days after the contract entered into force and subsequently, every 30 days consecutively. In particular, the contract established that, five instalments would be paid during the Tournament E and five during the Tournament F. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that in accordance with the contract, the amount of USD 45,000 was supposed to be paid, by the Respondent to the Claimant, by the date of the termination of the contract.

14. In the light of this, the members of the Chamber analysed the supporting documentation submitted by the Respondent. As a result, it observed that the contract clearly stated that “The salary payments will be made free of taxes (note: free translation from Spanish to English. Original text reads as follows: “el pago de honorarios se realizará libre de impuestos.”)”. In this context, the DRC decided not to consider any taxes within the total paid to the Claimant, in other words, the tax for money transfers cannot be taken into account as salary payments.

15. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 12 par, 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact, shall carry the respective burden of proof. Moreover, in this context, the DRC analysed the alleged payment dated 8 December 2014, presented by the Respondent, and concurred that it cannot be considered as a conclusive and satisfactory document that could confirm that the payment to the Claimant was indeed done, as it is only a money transfer request. Therefore, the application of the aforementioned principle in the present matter led the members of the DRC to conclude that the Respondent provided conclusive and satisfactory documentation that could prove that it paid the Claimant the amount of USD 26,865 until the date the contract was terminated i.e. 1 December 2015.

16. Consequently, the DRC concurred that the Respondent must fulfil its obligations as per employment contract in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”. Therefore, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the remuneration that was outstanding remuneration in respect to salaries at the time of the termination in the amount of USD 18,135, i.e. USD 135 regarding the third instalment and USD 9,000 corresponding to the fourth and fifth instalment, each.

17. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s claim and the Chamber’s constant jurisprudence in this respect, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the partially paid and complete outstanding instalments.

18. Subsequently, the DRC recalled the claim of the Claimant regarding the alleged outstanding bonuses. In this respect, the Chamber observed that according to the Claimant he would be entitled to the amount of USD 7,000, as follows:

- USD 2,500 for qualifying to the Continental Champions League ;

- USD 3,000 for playing in over 81% of the Respondent’s matches; and

- USD 1,500 for the assists and goals scored.

19. In these circumstances, the members of the Chamber took note that the Respondent held that the amount requested by Claimant as outstanding bonuses is not correct. In this context, the Respondent deemed that the Claimant is only entitled to the amount of USD 1,500 corresponding to assists and goals. Since the rest of the scenarios did not configure.

20. In this regard, the members of the DRC referred, again, to art. 12 par, 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact, shall carry the respective burden of proof. As a consequence, the DRC duly analysed the documents submitted by the parties. In this context, it established that the annex of the contract clearly stated that “For the participation in the Continental Champions League 2015-2016, the cub will recognize the [Claimant], USD 2,500 for advancing out of the group stage” (note: free translation from Spanish to English. Original text reads as follows: “Por la participación en la Continental Champions League 2015-2016, el cub reconocerá al Jugador, USD 2,500 por pasar la fase uno [de grupos]”). In this respect, the Chamber agreed that the Claimant did not submit conclusive and satisfactory evidence to prove that the Respondent advanced out of the group stage of the Continental Champions League 2015-2016, therefore, the Claimant’s claim for USD 2,500 cannot be granted.

21. Moreover, the members of the Chamber noted that the annex of the contract established, as well, that “the [Respondent] will provide the [Claimant] with a USD 1500 bonus if he plays between 65% and 80% of the official matches in the League of Country D and International football League tournaments during the 2015-2016 season, as well as USD 1,500 more, if he plays in 81% or more of the same matches.” (note: free translation from Spanish to English. Original text reads as follows: “El club proporcionará al jugador una bonificación de USD 1500 si juega del 65% al 80% de los partidos oficiales por la Liga del país D e la Competición Internacional de fútbol durante la temporada 2015-2016, así como USD 1,500 más, si juega el 81% o más de los mismos partidos.”). In this regard, the DRC duly analysed the documentation provided by the parties as well as their arguments, and concurred that the Claimant did not submit conclusive and satisfactory evidence that could prove that he played in more than 81% of the matches for the 2015-2016 season, therefore, the Claimant’s request for USD 3,000 cannot be granted.

22. In continuation, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant’s request for USD 1,500 as outstanding bonus for goals scored and the assists made in the Respondent’s matches remain uncontested as the Respondent acknowledged the debt with the Claimant, therefore, the Claimant’s claim for USD 1,500 relating to outstanding bonus can be granted.

23. In the light of this, the DRC took into account the Claimant’s claim and the Chamber’s constant jurisprudence in this respect, and decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as from the submission of the claim on the outstanding bonus granted.

24. Subsequently, and having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment contract, the Chamber 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 in addition to any outstanding remuneration on the basis of the relevant employment contract.

25. In this context, 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. However, 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 an early termination of the contract. In this regard, the Chamber observed that, indeed, Art. 4 of the contract stipulated the following:

“It is hereby stipulated that by the will of any of the parties, the present contract could be unilaterally terminated without just cause, if this is the case, the party which terminates the contract will be obliged to pay to its counterparty compensation in the amount of USD 18,000”. (note: free translation from Spanish. Original text reads as follows: “se establece que por voluntad de cualquiera de las partes, el presente contrato podrá ser rescindido unilateralmente sin causa justificada, circunstancia que obligará a la parte que lo hubiere dado por terminado a pagar a la contraparte una indemnización equivalente a la cantidad de USD 18,000”).

27. In this respect, the members of the DRC agreed that the contents of said clause are reciprocal and proportional, and consequently accepted that it is fully applicable in the determination of the payable compensation from the Respondent to the Claimant.

28. In this context, the parties having contractually agreed on the compensation payable in the event of breach of contract and such compensation being reciprocal and proportionate, the Chamber concluded that the provision contained under art. 4 of the employment contract has to be considered valid and fully effective, i.e. the amount of compensation provided in said article shall be awarded to the Claimant as compensation for breach of contract. Moreover, for these reasons, the DRC concurred that any remuneration under the new employment contract is irrelevant in the case at hand.

29. 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 USD 18,000, which was also accepted by the Respondent, as compensation for the unilateral termination of the contract without just cause, which is considered by the Chamber to be a reasonable and justified amount as compensation.

30. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s claim and the Chamber’s constant jurisprudence in this respect, the Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the compensation for breach of contract as from the submission of the claim.

31. The DRC concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.

*****

III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

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

2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 18,135 plus interest as follows:

- 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 135 as from 16 September 2015 until the date of effective payment;

- 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 9,000 as from 17 October 2015 until the date of effective payment; and

- 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 9,000 as from 16 November 2015 until the date of effective payment.

3. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 18,000, plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 17 December 2015 until the date of effective payment.

4. The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding bonuses for the amount of USD 1,500, plus 5% of interest p.a. as from 17 December 2015 until the day of effective payment.

5. In the event that the amounts plus interest due to the Claimant in accordance with the above-mentioned points 2., 3. and 4. are not paid by the Respondent within the stated time limits, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.

6. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.

7. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances are to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received.

*****

Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):

According to art. 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS, a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives).

The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:

Court of Arbitration for Sport

Avenue de Beaumont 2

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:

Omar Ongaro

Football Regulatory Director

Encl. CAS directives