Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 7 February 2014,
in the following composition:
Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman
Philippe Diallo (France), member
Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member
John Bramhall (England), member
Santiago Nebot (Spain), member
on the claim presented by the player,
D, from country P,
as Claimant
against the club,
Club A, from country R,
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute
arisen between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 1 July 2008, the player D, from country P (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the Club A,
from country R (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an employment contract
(hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the date of signature until 1 July 2012.
2.
In addition, the parties signed an undated financial appendix and a professional
appendix to the contract, which form part of the latter, according to its art. 12.2 and
19.2.
3.
According to art. 1 of the financial appendix, the Respondent undertakes to pay the
Claimant the following amounts:
- EUR 60,000, payable in four equal instalments of EUR 15,000 on 15 July 2008, 15
December 2008, 15 March 2009 and 30 June 2009;
- EUR 72,000, payable in four equal instalments of EUR 18,000 on 15 July 2009, 15
December 2009, 15 March 2010 and 30 June 2010;
- EUR 108,000, payable in four equal instalments of EUR 27,000 on 15 July 2010, 15
December 2010, 15 March 2011 and 30 June 2011;
- EUR 120,000, payable in four equal instalments of EUR 30,000 on 15 July 2011, 15
December 2011, 15 March 2012 and 30 June 2012;
- food and accommodation.
4.
Furthermore, art. 1.4. of the financial appendix stipulates that “the payment of all the
sums of money shall be made in the national currency at the country R National Bank’s
rate of exchange that will be the day of the payment or in EUR”.
5.
Finally, art. 17.2 of the contract establishes that “The parties shall in good faith make all
efforts to amicably settle any dispute, controversy or misunderstanding that derives from
or is related to this convention. Should this be impossible, the litigation will be
submitted, for being settled, only to the country R’s and/or P’s sporting jurisdiction
courts”.
6.
On 7 and 18 April 2011, the Claimant reminded the Respondent, in writing, of its arrears
pertaining to outstanding remuneration for December 2009, March, June, July and
December 2010, and March 2011, in the total amount of EUR 117,000.
7.
On 22 April 2011, having received no answer or payment from the Respondent, the
Claimant terminated the employment contract, in writing, based on the Respondent’s
outstanding financial obligations towards him.
8.
On 6 May 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent for
breach of contract, requesting the payment of the total amount of EUR 264,000, plus
interest of 5% p.a., made up of:
Player D, country P / Club A, from country R
2/12
- EUR 117,000 as outstanding remuneration, corresponding to part of the instalment
of 15 December 2009 (EUR 10,800), part of the instalment of 15 March 2010 (EUR
7,200), the instalment of 30 June 2010 in full (EUR 18,000), the instalments of 15 July
2010, 15 December 2010 and 15 March 2011 in full (3 x EUR 27,000);
- EUR 147,000 as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to the
instalment of EUR 27,000 due on 30 June 2011 and EUR 120,000 as the entire amount
due for the 2011/2012 season.
9.
In addition, the Claimant requests that sporting sanctions be imposed on the
Respondent.
10.
In his arguments, the Claimant argues having played his last official match with the first
team on 11 December 2009, having subsequently been transferred to the second team.
11.
On 5 January 2010, taking into account the fact that he had been training with the
second team in the third league and that the Respondent had allegedly not kept its
promise – made orally – of paying higher bonuses in exchange of a 10% reduction to all
players’ salaries, the Claimant proposed to the Respondent, in writing, the amicable
termination of the contract so that he could search for new employment and the
Respondent could cut costs by releasing an expensive player. In its reply, dated 20
January 2010, the Respondent evaluated the sportive performance of the Claimant as
unsatisfactory and accepted the termination only in case a concrete offer for the
Claimant would be made by another club.
12.
The Claimant further claims that he fell ill and was, therefore, unable to take part in
training from 11 until 13 January 2010. The Respondent, however, allegedly accused him
of having been absent as from 11 to 15 January 2010, as well as having arrived one day
late after the Christmas holidays; thus the Respondent imposed a fine on the Claimant
amounting to 15% of the yearly value of the contract, i.e. EUR 10,800, deducted from his
salary.
13.
The Claimant, however, states having been authorized by the coach to arrive one day
after the end of the Christmas holidays and having been present on 14 and 15 January
2010. In this respect, he presents a declaration of other members of the team, in which
the latter state that “[…] player D was present in trainings at days 14 and 15 of January.
We confirm that he was visibly sick and weak with fever and made training in gym just
after speaking with coach […]”.
14.
According to a medical statement, dated 23 February 2010, the Claimant fell sick again,
being diagnosed with a respiratory virus, fever and lung infection and advised to rest for
five to seven days. Another medical statement, dated 10 March 2010, indicated that the
Claimant also suffered a partial rupture of the muscle of the posterior right thigh and,
thus, should rest for three weeks before progressively restarting training.
Player D, country P / Club A, from country R
3/12
15.
The Respondent, however, allegedly accused the Claimant of simulating the injury and
did not provide him with the indicated treatment. In addition, it imposed on him a
second fine amounting to 10% of his yearly income, i.e. EUR 7,200, allegedly based on his
unauthorized absence from training and an unauthorized visit to the hospital. This
amount was apparently deducted from his salary of March 2010.
16.
On 23 April 2010, the Claimant proposed to the Respondent to amicably terminate the
contract, upon payment of EUR 48,000 to him. In its response, dated 4 May 2010, the
Respondent stated that it would accept the termination in case the Claimant pays
compensation in the amount of EUR 250,000. The Claimant, though, considered the
Respondent’s proposal unfeasible.
17.
The Claimant claims not having received the instalment due on 30 June 2010 or the one
due on 15 July 2010, for a third fine amounting to 25% of the yearly value of the
contract, i.e. EUR 27,000, was imposed on him. This fine was apparently based on his
alleged absence from a specific individual training camp, as well as from the team’s
training, for three weeks.
18.
The instalments due on 15 December 2010 and 15 March 2011 were also not paid by the
Respondent, according to the bank statements provided by the Claimant.
19.
Furthermore, the Claimant states always having complied with his contractual obligations
and rejects the fines imposed on him by the Respondent and confirmed by the country R
Football League, which he considers disproportionate to the alleged breach. Moreover,
the Claimant states never having received any warnings whatsoever from the Respondent
regarding his alleged non-compliance with the contract, or having been informed of or
participated in a procedure in front of the country R Football Federation. He was just
informed by the Respondent of the imposition of the disciplinary fines against him and
their ratification by the country R Football Federation. In addition, he claims that the
latter allegedly does not comply with the minimum procedural standards for the
independent arbitration courts and, thus, fair proceedings cannot be guaranteed.
20.
In view of the fact that the Respondent did not reply to his reminders on 7 and 18 April
2011, on 22 April 2011, the Claimant terminated the employment contract in writing.
21.
In its response, the Respondent argues that the Claimant did not comply with the
contract, by not showing discipline and not meeting the sporting expectations of the
club. Therefore, the Respondent imposed on him three fines, ratified by the Disciplinary
Commission of the country R Football Federation on 18 February 2010, 21 April 2010 and
15 September 2010, respectively amounting to 15%, 10% and 25% of the value of his
contractual rights. The Respondent argues that such decisions have respected the due
process of law for the ratification by the country R Football Federation and, therefore,
should be taken into account by the DRC.
Player D, country P / Club A, from country R
4/12
22.
In addition, the Respondent, on 3 June 2011, lodged a request at the country R Football
Federation for the termination of the contract with the Claimant with effect as of 20
April 2011, based on the fact that the Claimant missed training sessions and matches
without authorization between 20 April 2011 and 3 June 2011, and that during the
2010/2011 season he allegedly did not participate in any official match due to his poor
performance.
23.
The Respondent claims having duly informed the Claimant of the aforementioned
request on 27 July 2011, but the later refused to acknowledge receipt of such
correspondence.
24.
According to the Respondent, the country R Football Federation, on 9 August 2011,
based on the fact that the Claimant had missed training between 20 April 2011 and 3
June 2011 and did not participate in any official match during the 2010/2011 season,
decided that “the contractual relations between the parties has ceased […], starting with
09.08.2011”.
25.
In addition, the Respondent states that it has paid the Claimant his entire remuneration
for the 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 seasons, having deducted from the instalment due in
March 2010 the amount of EUR 10,800 corresponding to the first fine and the amount of
EUR 7,200 corresponding to the second fine. Concerning the 2010/2011 season, the
Respondent considers that the Claimant is not entitled to any remuneration, since he left
the club and since another fine in the amount of EUR 27,000 is pending against him.
26.
In March 2012, the parties tried to reach an amicable settlement to the present dispute.
The Respondent offered to pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 117,000 in exchange of
the withdrawal of the claim before FIFA, which the Claimant rejected.
27.
Even though an amicable settlement could not be reached by the parties, the Claimant
informed FIFA, on 2 April 2012, that the amount of EUR 78,600 referring to outstanding
remuneration had been paid by the Respondent. However, the amount of EUR 38,400
remains outstanding.
28.
Finally, the Claimant claims not having signed any new employment contract between
the alleged breached and 1 July 2012.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC or the Chamber)
analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake. In this respect, the
Chamber referred to art. 21 par. 1 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’
Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural
Player D, country P / Club A, from country R
5/12
Rules). The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 6 May 2011. Therefore, the Chamber
concluded that the edition 2008 of the Procedural Rules was applicable to the matter at
hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 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 b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010 and 2012;
hereinafter: the Regulations), the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall adjudicate on an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension, between a player and a
club.
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 par. 2 of the Regulations (editions 2010 and 2012), and considering that the
present claim was lodged on 6 May 2011, the 2010 edition of said regulations is
applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
4.
The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established, the
Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, 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 members of the DRC acknowledged that it was undisputed by the
parties that, on 1 July 2008, they signed an employment contract valid as from the date
of signature until 1 July 2012. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that it was also
undisputed by the parties that they signed an undated financial appendix and a
professional appendix to the contract, according to which the Claimant was entitled to
receive the remuneration detailed in point I.3. above.
6.
The DRC noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant claims that the Respondent failed to
pay him several contractual instalments from December 2009 to March 2011. The
Claimant further states that several fines in the amounts of 10%, 15% and 25% of his
annual earnings were imposed on him by the Respondent, due to allegedly unjustified
absences, and ratified by the country R Football Federation. The Claimant states,
however, never having taken part in these procedures or been warned by the
Respondent of any contractual violations allegedly committed by him. Furthermore, he
maintains that his absences were either authorized by the Respondent or justified by
medical statements.
7.
The Chamber further noted that the Claimant, taking into account the Club’s failure in
paying his remuneration, as well as the fact that he had been excluded from the first
team and that the Respondent had been relegated to the third league, proposed on two
Player D, country P / Club A, from country R
6/12
occasions the amicable termination of the contract. The DRC observed that, as per the
Claimant, no amicable solution was reached, since the Respondent would only accept the
termination in case of a concrete offer or of the payment of compensation by the
Claimant.
8.
In view of the foregoing and after having reminded the Respondent of its arrears, on 7
and 18 April 2011, the Claimant terminated the contract, in writing, on 22 April 2011. On
6 May 2011, he lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent, requesting the
payment of outstanding remuneration and compensation for breach of contract, as
detailed in point I.8. above.
9.
Subsequently, the DRC noted that, on the other hand, the Respondent claims that the
Claimant violated his contractual obligations, in particular, by lacking discipline and not
meeting the sporting expectations of the Respondent. Therefore, he was imposed the
three fines detailed in point I.21. above.
10.
The DRC further noted that the Respondent, based on the Claimant’s allegedly nonauthorized absence at training sessions and matches, filed a request for the termination
of the contract on 3 June 2011 in front of the country R Football Federation, which was
approved by the latter on 9 August 2011. Thus, the Respondent deems that the
Claimant’s claim should be rejected.
11.
Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue
in this dispute, considering the claim of the Claimant and the allegations of the
Respondent, was to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally
terminated with or without just cause by the Claimant, and which party was responsible
for the early termination of the contractual relationship in question. The DRC also
underlined that, subsequently, if it were found that the employment contract had been
breached by one of the parties without just cause, it would be necessary to determine
the consequences for the party that caused the unjust breach of the relevant
employment contract.
12.
In view of the above, the Chamber first focused its attention on the claim of the
Claimant, according to which the Respondent has failed to pay part of the instalment
due on 15 December 2009, part of the instalment due on 15 March 2010, as well as the
instalments due on 30 June 2010, 15 July 2010, 15 December 2010 and 15 March 2011 in
full, in the total amount of EUR 117,000, leading to the termination of the contract by
the player on 22 April 2011.
13.
Subsequently, the Chamber took into account that the Respondent, in response to the
Claimant’s claim, maintains having paid him all remuneration due for the 2008/2009 and
2009/2010 seasons. The Respondent further claims that the amounts of EUR 10,800 and
EUR 7,200 were duly deducted from the instalment of March 2010, corresponding to the
fines imposed on the Claimant on 18 February and on 21 April 2010. In addition, the DRC
Player D, country P / Club A, from country R
7/12
noted that the Respondent deems that the amount of EUR 27,000 should still be
deducted from any amounts due to the Claimant, corresponding to the third fine
imposed on him on 15 September 2010, which has not yet been executed.
14.
At this point and for the sake of good order, the Chamber 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. In this context, the Chamber deemed that the Respondent bore the burden of
proof regarding either the fulfilment of all its financial obligations towards the Claimant,
as per the contract, or to justify the non-payment based on substantial documentary
evidence.
15.
In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Claimant, on the one hand, provided a copy
of his personal bank statements indicating the amounts received from the Respondent, as
well as of the two reminders addressed to the Respondent on 7 and 18 April 2011, by
means of which he put the club in default in relation to his unpaid remuneration as
indicated in point II.13. above.
16.
The Chamber also observed that the Respondent, on the other hand, was not able to
provide the DRC with any type of substantial evidence regarding the alleged payment of
the Claimant’s entire remuneration for the 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 seasons, as it claims,
or to justify the failure in complying with its contractual obligations. In this respect, the
Chamber noted that the Respondent did not provide any receipts proving that the
amounts claimed by the Claimant have been paid and, what is more, it even
acknowledges having deducted the total amount of EUR 18,000 from the Claimant’s
remuneration for March 2010, based on the fines allegedly imposed on him on 18
February and on 21 April 2010 (cf. point I.25 above).
17.
In relation to the above-mentioned fines, the Chamber noted that the only
documentation provided by the Respondent in this regard were English translations of
decisions dated 18 February, 21 April and 15 September 2010, allegedly issued by the club
and ratified by the country R Football Federation. Equally, the DRC noted that the
Respondent was unable to provide any type of evidence regarding the Claimant’s due
participation in the proceedings leading to the imposition of said fines or of the
disciplinary infringements allegedly committed by him.
18.
At this point, the Chamber first reminded the parties that, in accordance with art. 9 par. 3
lit. e) of the Procedural Rules, all documentation provided in the context of a dispute in
front of FIFA should be presented in the original version and, if applicable, translated
into one of the official FIFA languages (English, French, Spanish and German). Bearing in
mind the wording of the aforementioned provision, the Chamber concluded that the
translations of the decisions provided by the Respondent without the original version
could not be taken into account. Consequently, the members of the DRC deemed that no
substantial evidence was provided by the Respondent’s with regard to the existence of
Player D, country P / Club A, from country R
8/12
the alleged fines, of the Claimant’s participation in such proceedings or of any
disciplinary infringement on his part.
19.
Subsequently, the DRC noted that the Claimant, in turn, provided a copy of two medical
statements dated 23 February 2010 and 10 March 2010, which confirm, respectively, that
he had been ill or injured and, consequently, unable to participate in the team’s training
for a certain period of time. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the fine allegedly
imposed on the Claimant on 21 April 2010, due to his allegedly non-authorized absence
from training and unauthorized visit to the hospital, as per the Respondent, appears to
have been unjustified.
20.
The Chamber further wished to point out that, in any case, the fines imposed on the
Claimant for alleged wrongdoing in relation to his behaviour and performance, not
supported by substantial evidence in this regard, and amounting to 15%, 10% and 25%
of his earnings for an entire season must be considered disproportionate and therefore
not applicable.
21.
In this context, and irrespective of the foregoing consideration, the Chamber was eager
to emphasize that the imposition of a fine, or any other available financial sanction in
general, shall not be used by clubs as a means to set off outstanding financial obligations
towards players. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject the Respondent’s
argument in this regard.
22.
In continuation, the DRC noted that, according to the documentation on file, the
Claimant, in view of the non-payment of his remuneration, his exclusion from the main
squad – which is not disputed by the Respondent – and the club’s relegation to the third
league, proposed the amicable termination of the contract in exchange of the payment
of his outstanding remuneration on two different occasions. The Chamber, however,
noted that the Respondent would only accept the termination in exchange of a concrete
offer for the Claimant or the payment of compensation. In view of the foregoing, the
DRC deemed that the Respondent no longer appeared to be interested in the Claimant’s
services, but in obtaining financial advantage from the situation.
23.
Bearing in mind the aforementioned considerations, the member of the DRC concluded
that, by the time the contract was terminated by the Claimant, i.e. on 22 April 2011, the
total amount of EUR 117,000, corresponding to the instalments due on 15 December
2009, on 15 March 2010, on 30 June 2010, on 15 July 2010, on 15 December 2010 and on
15 March 2011 were either entirely or partially outstanding. In spite of his reminders of 7
and 18 April 2011, no payment was made by the Respondent. In view of the foregoing as
well as of the fact that the Claimant had been excluded from the main squad and that his
alleged disciplinary failures could not be proven by the Respondent, the Chamber
decided that the Respondent was to be held responsible for the breach of contract
without just cause and that, consequently, the contract was terminated by the Claimant
with just cause on 22 April 2011.
Player D, country P / Club A, from country R
9/12
24.
Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber focused its attention on the
consequences of the breach of contract without just cause on the part of the
Respondent. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber
decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent an amount of
money as compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding payments
on the basis of the relevant contract.
25.
Prior to establishing the amount of compensation for breach of contract due to the
Claimant by the Respondent, the DRC proceeded with the calculation of the outstanding
monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the employment contract until the
date of termination, i.e. on 22 April 2011.
26.
In this regard, the DRC noted that, during the course of the present proceedings, the
Respondent proceeded with the payment of a relevant part of the amount claimed as
outstanding remuneration by the Claimant. According to the information provided to
FIFA by the Claimant, EUR 78,600 out of EUR 117,000 were paid by the Respondent and,
consequently, only the amount of EUR 38,400 remained unpaid, in relation to
outstanding remuneration.
27.
Thus, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as the reasons previously
exposed, the DRC concluded that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta
sunt servanda, the Respondent must fulfill its obligations as per the employment contract
concluded with the Claimant and, consequently, is to be held liable to pay the
outstanding remuneration due to the latter in the total amount of EUR 38,400.
28.
The Chamber further established that an interest rate of 5% p.a. would apply over the
aforementioned amount, as from 6 May 2011, as per the Claimant’s claim.
29.
In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract 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 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.
30.
In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify
as to whether the pertinent employment contract contains 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
Player D, country P / Club A, from country R
10/12
established that no such compensation clause was included in the employment contract
at the basis of the matter at stake.
31.
Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the
monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the employment contract as from the
date of termination until 1 July 2012. The Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR
147,000, corresponding to the instalment due on 30 June 2011 and to the Claimant’s
global remuneration for the 2011/2012 season, serves as the basis for the final
determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
32.
In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of
which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income. According to the
constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, 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.
33.
In this regard, the Chamber noted that, as per the Claimant’s declaration and as
confirmed by the Transfer Matching System (TMS), no new employment contract was
signed by the Claimant between the 22 April 2011, i.e. the date of termination, and 1
July 2012, the expiry date of the contract. Therefore, no deductions shall be made to the
basic amount of compensation calculated in point II.31. above.
34.
For all the above reasons, the DRC decided to accept the claim of the Claimant and to
hold the Respondent liable to pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 38,400, plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 6 May 2011 until the date of effective payment, as outstanding
remuneration, as well as the amount of EUR 147,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 May
2011 until the date of effective payment, as compensation for breach of contract.
*****
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Player D, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club A, is ordered to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in
the amount of EUR 38,400, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 May 2011 until the date of
effective payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision.
Player D, country P / Club A, from country R
11/12
3.
The Respondent is ordered to pay to the Claimant compensation for breach of contract in
the amount of EUR 147,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 6 May 2011 until the date of
effective payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision.
4.
In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant in accordance with the abovementioned numbers 2. and 3., plus interests, 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.
5.
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. 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:
Player D, country P / Club A, from country R
12/12
Jérôme Valcke
Secretary General
Encl.
CAS directives
Player D, country P / Club A, from country R
13/12