Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 18 February 2016,
in the following composition:
Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman
Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member
Eirik Monsen (Norway), member
Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member
Mohamed Al Saikhan (Saudi Arabia), 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
Facts relating to the preliminary issue of the competence of the DRC:
1.
On 11 June 2010, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter:
Claimant/Counter-Respondent or player), and the club from country D, Club C
(hereinafter: Respondent/Counter-Claimant or club), concluded an employment
contract (hereinafter: contract) as well as an annex (hereinafter: annex), both valid
from 1 July 2010 until 30 June 2013.
2.
The club contested the competence of FIFA to deal with the claim lodged by the
player, referring to art. 12.1 of the contract which stipulates that “any dispute
between the Parties arising from or in connection with this Agreement, including its
validity, interpretation, execution or termination, shall be settled amiably. Unless
the Parties shall reach an amiable resolution then any such dispute shall be
submitted to the competent bodies of the Football Association of country D and the
Professional Football League with respect of the legislation of country D and to the
competent bodies of FIFA with respect of the FIFA regulations”.
3.
In this context, the club argued that the parties did not expressly exclude the
competence of FIFA, but that such exclusion arises from the FIFA Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: Regulations) and its art. 22 lit. b.
4.
In light of the above, the club held that the player should have filed his claim in
front of the DRC of the Professional Football League of country D (hereinafter:
Professional Football League of country D) and not with FIFA.
5.
Furthermore, the club asserted that the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the
Professional Football League of country D meets all the requirements set forth in
art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations.
6.
In support of such position, the club presented a letter from the Professional
Football League of country D dated 10 October 2013, which explains the
constitution of the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Professional Football League
of country D and concludes that said deciding body meets the requirements. In
particular the letter states:
i. “Starting with the season 2010/2011 the panels are composed on a parity
basis, by two members appointed by the clubs and two members
appointed by the Footballers Union of country D”;
ii. “The Presidents of the panels are recognized as independents by the
Footballers Union of country D and clubs”;
iii. “The Professional Football League of country D’s commissions ensures the
legality of the proceedings, the right to defense, to a fair hearing and,
the most important, the possibility to appeal any final internal decision
before Court of Arbitration for Sport from Lausanne.”
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 2 of 13
7.
The player, for his part, insisted that FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber is
competent to deal with the present matter. In particular, the player held that the
parties did not exclude the competence of FIFA. Furthermore, the player held that
the club failed to submit evidence that the deciding body of the Professional
Football League of country D fulfils the requirements of an independent arbitration
tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting the principal of equal
representation of players and clubs, for which it carries the burden of proof.
8.
Moreover, the player argued that art. 12.1 of the contract is no valid arbitration
clause since there is no clear reference to the national arbitration body.
Facts relating to the substance of the matter:
9.
On 11 June 2010, the player and the club signed an employment contract as well as
an annex to it, both valid as from 1 July 2010 until 30 June 2013.
10.
According to art. 5 of the contract, the club undertook to pay the player, inter alia,
a monthly salary of EUR 12,500.
11.
According to the annex, the club undertook to pay the player, inter alia, the
amount of EUR 500 per month for accommodation.
12.
According to art. 6.1 of the contract, the club must pay the player the remuneration
“until the 25th of next month, in the currency of country D at the official exchange
rate of the National Bank of country D on the day such payment is made.”
13.
On 10 June 2013, the player allegedly sent a default notice to the club with respect
to outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 103,773 corresponding to an
“unjustifiable penalty” of 28 September 2011, outstanding accommodation
allowance and outstanding salaries for the months of February to June 2013.
14.
On 28 June 2013, the player allegedly terminated the contract on the basis of the
club’s alleged non-fulfilment its financial obligations.
15.
The insolvency administrators of the club have asked that proceedings in which the
club is involved are suspended in the light of the insolvency procedure that has
been opened against the club on 15 April 2015 and of national law of country D.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 3 of 13
Claim of the player against the club:
16.
On 28 June 2013, the player lodged a claim with FIFA against the club for breach of
contract without just cause and requested payment of the following monies:
- EUR 32,250 corresponding to outstanding remuneration in connection with a
financial penalty imposed on 28 September 2011 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 26
October 2011;
- EUR 37,500 corresponding to outstanding salaries of March to May 2013;
- EUR 3,500 corresponding to the accommodation allowance of November 2012
to May 2013;
- EUR 12,500 corresponding to compensation for June 2013;
- EUR 75,000 corresponding to “additional compensation”.
In addition, the player requested interest of 5% p.a. as from the respective due
dates for payment of the aforementioned amounts.
17.
In his arguments, the player argued that the club imposed a disciplinary measure on
him in September 2011 without inviting him to a hearing and giving him the
possibility to defend himself during the relevant procedure. Additionally, the player
held that the imposed fine was abusive, since it disproportionately favours the club.
18.
Moreover, the player stated that the club failed to pay his salaries of March to May
2013 in the total amount of EUR 37,500.
19.
Regarding the accommodation allowance, the player argued that the club failed to
pay the accommodation allowance as of November 2012, after having previously
organised a room in a hotel for the months of September and October 2012.
20.
The player concluded that he had just cause to terminate the contract on 28 June
2013 since the club did not respect its contractual financial obligations and that he
is entitled to receive the salary of June 2013 as compensation.
21.
In addition, the player claimed EUR 75,000 as “additional compensation” for the
alleged early termination based on Swiss Law.
The reply and the counterclaim of the club:
22.
The club requested that the claim of the player be rejected since it complied with its
contractual obligations and submitted a counterclaim against the player requesting
that he be ordered to pay EUR 53,500 plus interest of 5% p.a.
23.
First of all, the club held that the disciplinary sanction imposed on the player on 28
September 2011 was justified.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 4 of 13
24.
The club explained that according to a report of the assistant coach, the player
seriously violated his obligations between 15 April and 15 May 2011, such as:
- “Uncivilized behaviour towards the coaching staff”;
- “Refusal to make efforts in his activity as a professional football player during
training”;
- “Refusal to make efforts for reaching Club C’s sporting aims”.
25.
On these grounds, the player was sanctioned with a “sporting penalty of 15% of
the value of contractual rights due for 2010/2011 competition season”.
26.
Moreover, the club pointed out that the decision states that “the player was
subpoenaed in order to heard and to submit his defense”.
27.
Subsequently, the club explained that the decision was notified to the player’s
address in country B on 19 July 2011 via DHL.
28.
On 26 October 2011 the Disciplinary Committee of the Professional Football League
of country D informed the club that the decision became final and binding.
29.
The club further held that the player never protested against the disciplinary
decision before lodging his claim in front of FIFA.
30.
Regarding the alleged termination of the contract by the player, the club argued
that it never received the player’s default notice dated 10 June 2013.
31.
Moreover, the club denied having received the player’s termination letter before
the contract expired on 30 June 2013 and therefore held that the player did not
terminate the contract unilaterally prior to its expiration.
32.
Additionally, the club held that the player is not entitled to an additional
compensation of EUR 75,000 based on Swiss law since law of country D is applicable.
According to the club, even if Swiss law would be the applicable law, such claim
would constitute a claim in bad faith since the player tried to terminate the contract
two days before its expiration.
33.
The club further alleged that the player failed to prove that he did not receive the
salaries as of March to June 2013 amounting to EUR 50,000.
34.
Regarding the claimed housing allowance, the club pointed out that it paid the
amount agreed upon to the hotel directly and never to the player.
35.
In its arguments, the club further pointed out having made a payment to the player
in the total amount of EUR 53,500 on 31 March 2014. The club held that said
payment was done “without acknowledgement of any legal obligation and/or
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 5 of 13
responsibility” and that the “only reason for payment was that the Respondent
[Club] was obliged by the relevant licensing department of the Football Federation
of country D (Football Federation of country D) to execute payment of EUR 53,500/to the Player as otherwise it would have not received the license to participate in
the top division of country D concerning the upcoming 2014/2015 sportive season”.
36.
In light of the above, the club held that it paid said amount only “upon unlawful
intervention by the Football Federation of country D” and concluded that the
player is “unjustified enriched”. Therefore, the club asked that the player shall be
ordered to reimburse this amount to the club.
The player’s reply to the counterclaim:
37.
The player acknowledged receipt of the payment of EUR 53,500 and requested that
the club’s counterclaim be rejected.
38.
Regarding outstanding remuneration, the player pointed out that the club failed to
bring forward any arguments regarding the non-payment of his salaries from March
to May 2013. The player concluded that he therefore had just cause to terminate
the contract and is entitled to compensation for the salary of June 2013.
39.
Regarding the alleged notification of the disciplinary decision, the player held that
he was living and working in country D at the time and that it made no sense to
send the notification to country B.
40.
Moreover, the player argued that he was confronted with said disciplinary decision
for the first time in November 2012 during settlement negotiations regarding
outstanding salaries.
41.
The player denied “any uncivilized behaviour, any refusal or any other behaviour
occurred that could be reasonably sanctioned accordingly” and he reiterated that
he was never invited to a hearing in order to defend himself.
42.
Furthermore, the player argued that the club used said financial penalty to settle
outstanding payments.
43.
Moreover, the player held that the club cannot withhold salary payments in order
to enforce the payment of a fine.
44.
The player upheld his request regarding the additional compensation of EUR 75,000
based on Swiss Law since the club “dismissed the Claimant prematurely”.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 6 of 13
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 28 June
2013. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status
Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2012; 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 2015) the Dispute Resolution Chamber, would, in principle, be
competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related
dispute with an international dimension between a player from country B and a
club from country D.
3.
In continuation, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant
contested the competence of FIFA’s deciding body on the basis of art. 12.1 of the
employment contract invoking an alleged compulsory jurisdiction of the Dispute
Resolution Chamber of the Professional Football League of country D.
4.
In this regard, the DRC noted that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent rejected such
position and insisted that FIFA has jurisdiction to deal with the present matter.
5.
While analysing whether it was competent to adjudicate the present matter, the
Chamber recalled that art. 12.1 of the employment contract stipulates that “any
dispute between the Parties arising from or in connection with this Agreement,
including its validity, interpretation, execution or termination, shall be settled
amiably. Unless the Parties shall reach an amiable resolution then any such dispute
shall be submitted to the competent bodies of the Football Association of country D
and the Professional Football League with respect of the legislation of country D
and to the competent bodies of FIFA with respect of the FIFA regulations”.
6.
In this respect, and regardless of the fact that art. 12.1 of the employment contract
contains a reference to dispute resolution at national level, the Chamber pointed
out that the wording of said art. 12.1 was unclear in the sense that it merely refers
to “the competent bodies of the Football Association of country D and the
Professional Football League with respect of the Legislation of country D and to the
competent bodies of FIFA with respect of the FIFA regulations” and not to one
specific deciding body in the sense of art. 22 lit. b) of the aforementioned
Regulations.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 7 of 13
7.
Therefore, the Chamber held that clause 12.1 of the employment contract cannot
be considered as a clear jurisdiction clause in favour of one specific national
deciding body within the framework of the Football Federation of country D or the
Professional Football League of country D and, consequently, cannot be applicable.
8.
Moreover, the members of the Chamber outlined that art. 12.1 equally refers to the
“competent bodies of FIFA”.
9.
On account of the above and in accordance with its well-established pertinent
jurisprudence, the Chamber established that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s
objection to the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be
rejected and that the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent, on the basis of art.
22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, to deal with the
present matter as to the substance.
10.
In continuation, 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 28 June 2013, the 2012
edition of said regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
11.
With respect to the request put forward by the insolvency administrators of the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant
to
suspend
proceedings
in
which
the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant is involved, the Chamber stressed that in accordance
with jurisprudence of both the DRC and the Court of Arbitration for Sport,
bankruptcy/insolvency procedures do not affect procedures in front of the DRC.
Consequently, so the Chamber, such request has to be dismissed.
12.
The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been
established, the DRC 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.
13.
In this respect, the DRC recalled that, on 11 June 2010, the parties had signed an
employment contract and an annex thereto, both valid as from 1 July 2010 until 30
June 2013.
14.
In continuation, the members of the Chamber noted that the Claimant/CounterRespondent, on the one hand, lodged a claim against the Respondent/CounterClaimant maintaining that he had terminated the employment contract with just
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 8 of 13
cause on 28 June 2013, after previously having put the club in default, since the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant allegedly had failed to pay the Claimant/CounterRespondent’s remuneration. In this respect, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
submits that remuneration in relation to a financial penalty that was imposed on
him, his salaries of March to May 2013 as well as accommodation allowance as of
November 2012 until May 2013 remained outstanding. Consequently, the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent asked to be awarded outstanding dues as well as
compensation for breach of the employment contract and an “additional
compensation”.
15.
The Chamber further noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, for its part,
rejected the player’s claim and submitted a counterclaim against the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent maintaining that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
must reimburse the amount of EUR 53,500, which it remitted to Claimant/CounterRespondent on 31 March 2014 due to the “unlawful intervention” of the Football
Federation of country D. In this respect, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant argued
that the player must reimburse said amount since he is “unjustified enriched”.
16.
Subsequently the DRC observed that said counterclaim was rejected by the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent, who acknowledged receipt of the aforementioned
EUR 53,500, but upheld his claim against the Respondent/Counter-Claimant.
17.
Having said this, the Chamber proceeded with an analysis of the circumstances
surrounding the present matter, the parties’ arguments as well the documentation
on file, bearing in mind art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with
which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the
burden of proof.
18.
In continuation, the Chamber focussed its attention on the alleged termination of
the contract by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent on 28 June 2013, i.e. 2 days prior
to the ordinary date of expiry of the employment contract. Indeed, the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent alleges having sent a notice, dated 28 June 2013, to
the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in order to terminate the employment contract.
19.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, for its part, denied having received any such
notification from the Claimant/Counter-Respondent prior to the expiration of the
contract and held that, thus, the employment contract was not unilaterally
terminated prior to its expiry.
20.
In this regard, bearing in mind art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the members
of the Chamber took into account that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had not
submitted any documentation demonstrating that, in fact, the alleged notice of
termination was transmitted to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. Therefore, the
DRC agreed that it cannot be established that the contract was terminated prior to
its ordinary date of expiry on 30 June 2013.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 9 of 13
21.
On account of the above, the DRC rejected the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s
allegation that he terminated the employment contract on 28 June 2013 and
decided that the employment relationship between the parties ended by means of
expiry of the end date of the relevant contract, i.e. on 30 June 2013.
22.
Having established the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim pertaining to outstanding remuneration as
well as the counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant.
23.
In this regard, the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent held
that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to pay the amount of EUR 41,000 in
relation to the monthly salaries of March until May 2013 as well as the
accommodation allowance for November 2012 until May 2013. In this respect, the
Chamber recalled that the salary for June 2013 in the amount of EUR 12,500 was
claimed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent as compensation. In light of the
consideration under point II./21. above, the DRC concluded that, in fact, the June
2013 salary should be taken into account when establishing the amount of
outstanding remuneration, if any.
24.
In continuation, the Chamber took note of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s
argumentation that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent failed to prove that he did
not receive said salaries and that the accommodation allowance was allegedly paid
to the hotel directly instead of to the player.
25.
Furthermore, the DRC took into account that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant
made a payment of EUR 53,500 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent during the
proceedings, reimbursement of which was claimed by the Respondent/CounterClaimant, who argued that said payment was only made upon the intervention of
the Football Federation of country D, as a result of which the Claimant/CounterRespondent allegedly was “unjustified enriched”.
26.
In this respect, the DRC first turned its attention to the question as to whether the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent was entitled to receive the amount of EUR 53,500
from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant.
27.
The Chamber noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not present any
evidence demonstrating that it had remitted the claimed salaries and
accommodation allowance to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent prior to the
moment when it proceeded with the payment of EUR 53,500 during the
proceedings.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 10 of 13
28.
What is more, the Respondent-Counter/Claimant has not presented any reasons
which possibly could justify the non-payment of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s
salary as from March until June 2013 and accommodation allowance as from
November 2012 until May 2013 prior to the expiry of the employment contract.
29.
In view of the above, the DRC established that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
was entitled to receive the amount of EUR 53,500 in relation to the aforementioned
remuneration in accordance with the employment contract and the annex.
30.
As a consequence and in view of the above, the Chamber decided that it had to
reject the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim with respect to
reimbursement by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent of said amount of EUR 53,500,
receipt of which was acknowledged by the latter during the proceedings.
31.
Subsequently, the Chamber analysed the fine imposed by the Respondent/CounterClaimant on the Claimant/Counter-Respondent on 28 September 2011 due to his
alleged uncivilized behaviour and refusal to make efforts.
32.
In this regard, the DRC took note of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s
argumentation that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had unlawfully deducted the
fine of EUR 32,250 from his salary and that he had not been granted the possibility
to defend himself. It was further noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had
not denied that it had deducted said amount from the remuneration of the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent.
33.
In this context, the Chamber concurred that the fine imposed on the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant shall be
disregarded, since no convincing evidence was presented by the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant with respect to the pertinent disciplinary
proceedings. Furthermore, the amount of the fine imposed on the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent represents more than 200% of the player’s monthly
remuneration, as a consequence, the fine must be considered disproportionate. For
these reasons, the Chamber decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s
argument in this respect shall be rejected and that the Respondent/CounterClaimant could not validly deduct the amount of EUR 32,250 from the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s receivables.
34.
Furthermore, and irrespective of the foregoing consideration, the DRC wished to
point out 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.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 11 of 13
35.
Consequently, on account of the above and in accordance with the general legal
principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant is liable to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
the amount of EUR 32,250 in relation with the remuneration due to the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent in accordance with the employment contract and its
annex.
36.
In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim, the
Chamber decided to award the Claimant/Counter-Respondent interest at the rate of
5% p.a. as of the date of the claim, i.e. 28 June 2013.
37.
Having established the above, the DRC analysed the request of the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent corresponding to “additional compensation” in the
amount of EUR 75,000. In this regard, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to point
out that the request for said compensation presented by the Claimant/CounterRespondent had no legal or regulatory basis and pointed out that no corroborating
evidence had been submitted that demonstrated the damage suffered or its
quantity.
38.
The members of the Chamber concluded their deliberations by rejecting any further
claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Player A, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is partially accepted.
3.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected.
4.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision,
outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 32,250 plus 5% interest p.a. as
from 28 June 2013 until the date of effective payment.
5.
In the event that the aforementioned sum is not paid by the Respondent / CounterClaimant within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon
request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.
6.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected.
7.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent / CounterClaimant, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 12 of 13
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 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
Page 13 of 13