Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 28 January 2016,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member
Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), 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
with the club,
Club E, country D
as Intervening Party
regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 29 January 2014, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter:
Claimant/Counter-Respondent), and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter:
Respondent/Counter-Claimant), signed an employment contract (hereinafter:
contract), valid as from 27 August 2014 until 31 May 2017.
2.
According to article 3 of the contract, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was
entitled to receive a global remuneration of EUR 565,000 for each season as
follows:
Season 2014/2015 – EUR 565,000 payable as follows:
a) EUR 100,000 due on 20 September 2014 as “advance payment”;
b) EUR 465,000 as monthly payments: - EUR 45,000 on 1 September 2014;
- EUR 45,000 on 30 September 2014;
- EUR 45,000 on 30 October 2014;
- EUR 45,000 on 30 November 2014;
- EUR 45,000 on 30 December 2014;
- EUR 45,000 on 30 January 2015;
- EUR 45,000 on 28 February 2015;
- EUR 45,000 on 30 March 2015;
- EUR 45,000 on 30 April 2015;
- EUR 60,000 on 30 May 2015.
Season 2015/2016 – EUR 565,000, in similar instalments as season 2013/2014;
Season 2016/2017 – EUR 565,000 in similar instalments as season 2013/2014.
3.
According to article 3.2 of the contract, “If the [Respondent/Counter-Claimant]
fails to pay and of the amounts referred in this Employment Contract for More
than 90 days (i.e. salaries, benefits, bonuses and any other monetary obligations)
This contract may be terminated by the [Claimant/Counter-Respondent] for just
cause. In order to exercise the option, the [Claimant/Counter-Respondent] shall
make a written official notification to the [Respondent/Counter-Claimant] and if
the [Respondent/Counter-Claimant] does not pay the due amount within 30 days
after receiving this Legal Notification, the [Claimant/Counter-Respondent] will be
free to sign contracts with any other Clubs”.
4.
On 10 May 2015, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent put the Respondent/CounterClaimant in default, requesting the payment of the total amount of EUR 246,000
concerning part of the advance payment and approximately 6 monthly payments
from November 2014 until April 2015, establishing a deadline until “18 May 2015,
2PM CET”.
5.
On 14 May 2015, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant replied to the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s default notice, stating that the outstanding
Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country D
Page 2 of 12
amount is actually EUR 233,549.87 and requesting an extension of the deadline
until 25 May 2015 to pay this amount to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. In
particular, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant held it was arranging a loan in order
to pay the outstanding remuneration.
6.
On 15 May 2015, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent replied to the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant, accepting the calculation of the outstanding
amount presented by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant while denying an
extension of the deadline for payment.
7.
On 18 May 2015, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated the contract in
writing with immediate effect, invoking just cause.
8.
On 25 May 2015, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent lodged a claim before FIFA
against the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for breach of contract, requesting to be
awarded payment of the amount of EUR 1,423,549.87, composed as follows:
EUR 233,549.87 as outstanding remuneration plus 5% interest, composed of
part of the monthly salary of November 2014 and the salaries as from
December 2014 until April 2015.
EUR 1,190,000 as compensation corresponding to the residual value of the
contract; i.e. the monthly salary of EUR 60,000 due on 30 May 2015 and the
remuneration for the seasons 2015/2016 and 2016/2017.
The Claimant/Counter-Respondent further requested the imposition of sporting
sanctions on the Respondent/Counter-Claimant.
9.
According to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the Respondent/CounterClaimant failed to pay several monthly salaries for a long period of time, which is
why he put the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in default. The Claimant/CounterRespondent added that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant replied to his default
notice requesting an extension of the deadline to make the relevant payment
until 25 May 2015, which he did not agree to. Therefore, considering that the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not fulfil its obligations within the deadline
granted, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated the contract on 18 May
2015.
10.
In this respect, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent highlighted that the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant had failed to pay more than 5 monthly salaries and
thus, he had just cause to terminate the contract. In particular, the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent stressed that during the contractual period the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant had only paid 3 monthly salaries in their entirety.
11.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, for its part, stated that it was facing financial
difficulties, reason why, during the season 2014/2015, it only paid the amount of
Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country D
Page 3 of 12
EUR 260,822 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. The Respondent/CounterClaimant held that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was aware of this situation
and that both parties were in constant contact in this respect.
12.
According to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, on 16 May 2015, during a
meeting with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the latter had accepted to
postpone the payment deadline initially set at 18 May 2015. In this respect, the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant stated having informed the Claimant/CounterRespondent’s lawyer, via email, about the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s
decision to continue with the contract and acceptance of the payment schedule it
had proposed.
13.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant further held that in spite of the player’s
acceptance to postpone the payment deadline the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
terminated the contract in writing on 18 May 2015. Furthermore, the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant affirmed having held a meeting with the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent on the same day and that the latter allegedly
accepted to withdraw the termination, in the event that the Respondent/CounterClaimant would pay the outstanding amounts within 5 days. In particular, the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant held having drafted a settlement agreement,
which was allegedly sent via email to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent for
signature.
14.
According to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, subsequently, and in spite of the
alleged agreement between the parties, the next day the Claimant/CounterRespondent suddenly declared that he would only continue with the contract if
the remuneration was increased for the next season, which demand was obviously
refused by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. Afterwards, the Claimant/CounterRespondent allegedly left country D.
15.
In this context, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant held that the Claimant/CounterRespondent terminated the contract without just cause for the following reasons:
- he did not comply with the 30 days’ deadline established in the contract,
granting the club only 7 days for payment;
- he terminated the contract even though he had actually accepted the
postponement of the payment of the outstanding remuneration, in
violation of the legal principle of venire contra factum proprium;
- he tried to use the immediate termination to obtain a higher
remuneration.
16.
Therefore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant lodged a counterclaim against the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent for breach of contract, requesting compensation in
the minimum amount of EUR 1,238,950.10 plus 5% interest as from 19 May 2015
as well as legal costs. The club further asked that sanctions be imposed on the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent.
The compensation claimed by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is composed of
the remaining value of the contract (EUR 1,190,000) plus 6 monthly salaries (EUR
17.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country D
Page 4 of 12
282,500) minus the remuneration outstanding at the date of termination (EUR
233,549.87).
18.
The
Claimant/Counter-Respondent
submitted
his
position
to
the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim, rejecting it and insisting on his
claim.
19.
The Claimant/Counter-Respondent highlighted that the Respondent/CounterClaimant seriously violated its financial obligations, reason why he terminated the
contract, after having duly asked the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to pay the
outstanding remuneration within a certain time limit.
20.
The Claimant/Counter-Respondent further stated that the copy of email
correspondence which was attached to its counterclaim only demonstrates that
the Respondent/Counter-Claimant tried to gain more time to make the payment.
Moreover, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent denied having verbally agreed to
postpone the deadline and pointed out that, if such was the case, the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant would have made sure that he signed a settlement
agreement.
21.
Finally, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent stated that the deadline of 30 days for
a default notice is not applicable, specifically in this case where more than 5
monthly payments were overdue.
22.
The Claimant/Counter-Respondent signed an employment contract with the club
from country D, Club E, on 10 July 2015, valid for the period between 1 August
2015 and 31 May 2017.
23.
In this respect, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was entitled inter alia to the
following remuneration:
Season 2015/2016:
a) EUR 110,000 as a signing-on fee;
b) EUR 450,000 divided in monthly salaries of EUR 45,000 each, starting on 30
August 2015 and ending on 30 May 2016;
Season 2016/2017:
a) EUR 100,000 as signing –on fee due on 30 August 2017;
b) EUR 500,000 divided in monthly salaries of EUR 50,000 each, starting on 30
August 2016 and ending on 30 May 2017.
24.
Although invited to do so, Club E did not submit any comments on the present
matter.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country D
Page 5 of 12
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 25 May 2015. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’
Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2015; 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 and par. 2 in
combination with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (edition 2015) 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 from country
D, with the involvement of another club from 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 2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 25 May
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 recalled that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and
the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had signed an employment contract valid as
from 27 August 2014 until 31 May 2017, in accordance with which the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent was entitled to receive a total remuneration of EUR
565,000 per season, consisting of a lump sum payment and 10 monthly
instalments.
6.
The members of the Chamber took into account that, after previously having put
the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in default of payment, on 18 May 2015, the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent notified the Respondent/Counter-Claimant of the
termination of the contract invoking just cause on the basis of outstanding
remuneration. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, for its part, submits that the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated the contract on 18 May 2015 without
just cause. On this basis, both parties asked inter alia that the counterparty be
ordered to pay compensation for breach of contract.
The DRC highlighted that the central issue in the matter at stake is, thus, to
determine as to whether the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had just cause to
7.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country D
Page 6 of 12
terminate the contract on 18 May 2015 as well as to decide on the consequences
thereof.
8.
In this respect, the Chamber first considered that, on 10 May 2015, the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent put the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in default of
payment of several monthly salaries and part of the lump sum payment due on 20
September 2014 in the total amount of EUR 246,000, establishing a deadline for
payment until 18 May 2015 2 p.m. CET.
9.
The DRC further took into account that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant replied
to the default notice on 14 May 2015, acknowledging having an outstanding debt
towards the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, but stating that the total amount
owed was actually EUR 233,549.87.
10.
Moreover, the members of the DRC took note that the Respondent/CounterClaimant also asked for an extension of the deadline for payment of the
outstanding amount until 25 May 2015, which was denied by the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent on 15 May 2015.
11.
At this point, the members of the DRC were eager to emphasise that according to
article 3.2 of the contract, if the Respondent/Counter-Claimant would fail to pay
any amount for more than 90 days, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent may
terminate the contract if the Respondent/Counter-Claimant does not pay the due
amount within 30 days of receipt of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s default
notice.
12.
Notwithstanding the above, the DRC observed that, in reply to the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s default notice, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant
acknowledged owing him EUR 233,549.87 and merely requested an extension of
the deadline of approximately 1 week. That is, in its reply to the default notice,
the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, at that moment, did neither invoke or refer to
a grace period of 90 days nor a 30-day time limit as mentioned in article 3.2 of the
employment contract.
13.
In addition, the DRC noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant alleged that
the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had agreed to receive the outstanding amount
in accordance with a payment schedule it had proposed. In this respect, the
Chamber took into account that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, for his part,
denied having agreed to the postponement of the deadline for payment he had
set in his default notice, i.e. 18 May 2015 2 p.m. CET.
14.
Bearing in mind the aforementioned art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and
after study of the documentation submitted by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant
in this regard, the DRC agreed that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to
corroborate with adequate documentary evidence its allegation that the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent had agreed to extend the deadline for payment or
to receive the outstanding amount on a date after 18 May 2015.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country D
Page 7 of 12
15.
On account of the above, the Chamber concurred that the Respondent/CounterClaimant, without any valid reason, had not remitted the outstanding amount to
the Claimant/Counter-Respondent within the deadline established in the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s default notice.
16.
Having said that, the DRC recalled that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant has
acknowledged that it owes the amount of EUR 233,549.87 as outstanding
remuneration to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. In this context, the DRC
stressed that it has further remained undisputed that said amount is related to
part of the monthly salary of November 2014 and 5 monthly salaries for the
period between December 2014 and April 2015.
17.
Consequently, the members of the Chamber established that the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant had repeatedly and for a significant period of time
been in breach of its contractual obligations towards the Claimant/CounterRespondent.
18.
On account of all of the above and taking into consideration the Chamber’s
pertinent longstanding jurisprudence the Chamber decided that the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent had just cause to unilaterally terminate the
employment contract on 18 May 2015 and that, as a result, the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the
employment contact with just cause by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent.
19.
Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject the counterclaim of the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant.
20.
In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequences of the
termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant/CounterRespondent.
21.
To start with, the members of the Chamber decided that in accordance with the
general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is
liable to pay the amount of EUR 233,549.87 as outstanding remuneration to the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent.
22.
Furthermore, taking into account the petition of the Claimant/CounterRespondent and the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the
DRC decided to award the Claimant/Counter-Respondent interest at the rate of
5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 233,549.87, as from the date on which the claim
was lodged until the date of effective payment.
23.
In continuation, the DRC decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is liable
to pay compensation for breach of contract in conformity with art. 17 par. 1 of
the Regulations.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country D
Page 8 of 12
24.
Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of
compensation payable to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent by the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant in the case at stake. In doing so, the members of
the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the
Regulations, 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/Counter-Respondent under the existing contract
and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a
maximum of five years.
25.
In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to
clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by
means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of
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.
26.
As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent 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. In this regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber emphasised
beforehand that each request for compensation for contractual breach has to be
assessed by the Chamber on a case-by-case basis taking into account all specific
circumstances of the respective matter.
27.
In order to estimate the amount of compensation in the present case, the
members of the Chamber first turned their attention to the remuneration and
other benefits due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent under the existing
contract and/or the new contract, which criterion was considered by the Chamber
to be essential. The members of the Chamber deemed it important to emphasise
that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows the Chamber to take
into account both the existing contract and the new contract, if any, in the
calculation of the amount of compensation.
28.
Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of
the monies payable to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent under the terms of the
employment contract as from the date of termination of the contract until 31 May
2017, taking into account that the player´s remuneration until and including April
2015 is included in the amount of outstanding remuneration (cf. no. II./16. above).
Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 1,190,000 (i.e.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country D
Page 9 of 12
remuneration as from May 2015 until May 2017) serves as the basis for the
determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
29.
In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant/CounterRespondent 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 player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.
30.
Indeed, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent found employment with the club from
country D, Club E, as from 1 August 2015 until 31 May 2017.
31.
Therefore, the members of the DRC concluded that the Claimant/CounterRespondent was not able to mitigate his damages during the period between the
date of termination of the contract, i.e. 18 May 2015, until the commencement of
his employment with Club E, i.e. 1 August 2015. In particular, the DRC took note
that for the relevant period of time, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was
entitled to receive from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant the amount of EUR
60,000 corresponding to the monthly payment that fell due on 30 May 2015 in
accordance with the relevant employment contract.
32.
In continuation, the Chamber turned its attention to the employment contract
signed between the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and Club E and acknowledged
that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was entitled to receive the amount of EUR
560,000 for the season 2015/2016 and EUR 600,000 for the season 2016/2017.
Consequently, the Chamber established that the value of the new employment
contract concluded between the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and Club E for the
period between August 2015 and May 2017 amounted to EUR 1,160,000.
33.
In accordance with the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber and
the general obligation of the player to mitigate his damages, such remuneration
under the new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation
of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
34.
In this context, the DRC took into account that for the same period of time, i.e.
from August 2015 until May 2017, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent would have
been entitled to receive EUR 1,130,000 from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant.
35.
Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations, the
Dispute
Resolution
Chamber
concluded
that,
even
though
the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant is considered liable for the breach of the relevant
employment contract, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent did not suffer any
financial loss from the violation of the contractual obligations by the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant during the period between August 2015 and May
2017. Therefore, the Chamber decided that there is no amount that should be
Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country D
Page 10 of 12
awarded to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent as compensation for breach of
contract for said period of time.
36.
Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant must pay the amount of EUR 60,000 to the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent as compensation for breach of contract in the
present matter.
37.
The DRC concluded its deliberations on the present matter by establishing that
any further claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent 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 lodged by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is rejected.
3.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club C, is ordered 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 233,549.87 plus
5% interest p.a. on said amount as from 25 May 2015 until the date of effective
payment.
4.
In the event that the amount and interest due to the Claimant/CounterRespondent in accordance with the above-mentioned number 3. is not paid by the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant 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.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant is ordered to pay to the Claimant/CounterRespondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision,
compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 60,000.
6.
In the event that the amount due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in
accordance with the above-mentioned number 5. is not paid by the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant 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.
7.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is rejected.
8.
The Claimant/Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent/CounterClaimant, immediately and directly, of the account number to which the
Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country D
Page 11 of 12
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. 67 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against
before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to
the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall
contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS, a
copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the
time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the
facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the
directives).
The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:
Court of Arbitration for Sport
Avenue de Beaumont 2
1012 Lausanne
Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00
Fax: +41 21 613 50 01
e-mail: [email protected]
www.tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Markus Kattner
Acting Secretary General
Encl. CAS directives
Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country D
Page 12 of 12