Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 15 February 2018,
in the following composition:
Thom as Grim m (S w itzerland), Deputy Chairman
Eirik Monsen (Norw ay ), member
S téphane Burchkalter (France), member
Philippe Diallo (France), member
Jos eph Antoine Bell (Cam eroon), member
on the claim presented by the player,
Play er 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 cas e
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.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
2/13
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.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
3/13
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.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
4/13
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.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
5/13
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. Cons iderations of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
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.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
6/13
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.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
7/13
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.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
8/13
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
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
9/13
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,
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
10/13
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. Decis ion of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1. The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is partially accepted.
2. The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, w ithin 30 day s as from the
date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of
USD 18,135 plus interest as follows:
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
11/13
-
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, w ithin 30 day s 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 m otiv ated decis ion (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).
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
12/13
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: [email protected]
www.tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Omar Ongaro
Football Regulatory Director
Encl. CAS directives
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
13/13