Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 2 March 2017,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thom ps on (England), Chairman
Mario Gallav otti (Italy ), member
Pav el Piv ov arov (Rus s ia), member
Jon New m an (US A), member
Roy Verm eer (Netherlands ), member
on the claim presented by the player,
Play er A, Country B
as Claimant / Counter-Respondent
against the club,
Club C, Country D
as Respondent / Counter-Claimant
regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties
I.
Facts of the cas e
Facts relating to the prelim inary is s ue of the com petence of FIFA’s Dis pute
Res olution Cham ber
1.
After the natural expiry of the first contract signed between the parties, which
was valid as from 1 February 2015 until 30 June 2015, on 1 August 2015, the
Player of Country B, Player A, (hereinafter: the Claimant / Counter-Respondent)
and the Club of Country D, Club C, (hereinafter: the Respondent / CounterClaimant), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the second
contract) which in its art. 10 provided as follows:
“Item 10: Settlement of Disputes:
1) The two parties shall seek solving their disputes on the enforcement of the
contract by amicable ways.
2) The NDRC of the Football Federation of Country D is concerned with
considering and resolving the disputes that arise between the club and player
on this professional contract, implementing and interpreting it”.
2.
On 10 November 2015, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent lodged a claim
against the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in front of FIFA.
3.
As a direct reaction to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim, the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant lodged a counterclaim on 1 August 2016, by
means of which it firstly questioned the competence of FIFA to deal with the
present matter. In particular, and based on art. 10 of the second contract, the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant argued that the only competent body to
decide upon a dispute involving the parties is the National Dispute Resolution
Chamber of the Football Federation of Country D. In this respect, the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant asserted that the NDRC of the Football
Federation of Country D complies with the requirements established in art. 22
lit. b) of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter: the Regulations).
4.
In his replica, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent reiterated that FIFA is
competent to deal with his claim, as the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
stressed that the NDRC of the Football Federation of Country D does not
comply with the requirements established in art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations in
order to be recognized as an independent tribunal.
5.
In its duplica, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant reiterated its exception
regarding FIFA’s lack of jurisdiction and after having been requested by FIFA to
provide documentation which could prove that the matter should be dealt
with by the NDRC of the Football Federation of Country D, the Respondent /
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
2/23
Counter-Claimant provided a copy of a certified translation of the Regulations
of the NDRC of the Football Federation of Country D. In this respect, art. 6 of
the said regulations stipulates inter alia as follows:
“6-2: The chamber shall be composed of a chairman, a vice-chairman and six
members.
6-3: … The chairman and the vice-chairman shall be holders of legal
qualifications in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated herein.
The chairman and the chairman shall be appointed by the board.
(…)
6-5: Pending establishment of the professional football player league to
nominate their representatives in the chamber, the board appoints three
members in the chamber to represent the professional football players”.
Facts relating to the s ubs tance of the matter:
6.
After the natural expiry of the first contract signed between the parties, the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
concluded the second employment contract, valid as from 1 August 2015 until
31 May 2016.
7.
On the first page of the second contract, the contact details of the parties are
stated, namely, the address, email address and fax number of the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant, and the email address of the Claimant / CounterRespondent.
8.
According to the second contract, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was
entitled to receive from the club, inter alia, a monthly salary of USD 130,000
payable “at the end of each subsequent month”, as well as “One (1) round
business ticket for the player and the same for his direct family member”.
9.
Furthermore, the second contract established in its art. 7 the following:
“Termination with just cause:
…
7.3 In such case and unilateral termination of contract with just cause, the FIFA
competent body shall decide the amount of compensation to be paid by the
party that has breached the contract.
7.3 In the case the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] has displayed an
uncooperative attitude ever since his arrival at the [Respondent / CounterClaimant]. He does not follow the directives given by the coach,…If, after the
coach informs him that he has not been called up for the next championship
fixture, the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] leaves the club and does not
appear for training on the following days. After two weeks of unjustified
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
3/23
absence from training, the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] decides to
terminate the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent]’s contract.
The [Claimant / Counter-Respondent]’s uncooperative attitude towards the
[Respondent / Counter-Claimant] and his team-mates would certainly justify
sanctions being imposed on the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] in
accordance with the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant]’s internal regulations.
The sanctions should, however, (at least in the beginning) be a reprimand or a
fine.
The [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] would only be justified in terminating
the contract with the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] with just cause if the
[Claimant / Counter-Respondent]’s attitude continued, together with the
[Claimant / Counter-Respondent] disappearing without a valid reason and
without express permission of the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant].”.
10.
Art. 9 of the second contract provided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
“may take decisions and issue sanctions against [the Claimant / CounterRespondent] in case of violating his obligations stipulated in the contract…,
provided that he shall inform [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] in writing,
and the latter may object according to regulations and rules.”.
11.
The second contract contained a clause in its art. 12, to deal with the
consequences of an early termination of the contract without just cause which
reads as follows:
“Compensation for an early termination of the contract without just cause
12.1 Each party has the right to terminate this contract prematurely. The
breaching party shall pay the compensation cited hereunder in sections 12.3
and 12.4, to the injured party.
12.2 For the sake of clarification, this shall be made by giving at least one
months’ prior notice of intention to terminate the contract, by one party to
the other.
12.3 The party terminating the contract shall pay to the other Party a
compensation of USD 130,000.
12.4 The compensation of an early termination of the contract amounting to
USD 130,000 is validly agreed to by the contracting parties, based on the
genuine mutual consent of the parties at the time of the execution of this
contract. Accordingly, such compensation is irrevocable and is binding to both
parties.”.
12.
On 10 November 2015, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent lodged a claim
against the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in front of FIFA for breach of
contract in the total amount of USD 555,369. The Claimant / CounterRespondent explained that the basis of this dispute is the second contract
signed between him and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
4/23
13.
In his claim, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent broke down his request as
follows:
Outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 415,999,
corresponding to salaries from 1 August 2015 until 6 November 2015,
i.e. USD 130,000 each for the months of August 2015, September 2015
and October 2015, and USD 25,999 for 6 days of November 2015, plus
5% interest p.a. as from the relevant due dates;
Compensation for the unilateral termination of the contract in the
amount of USD 130,000 in accordance with arts. 12.3 and 12.4 of the
second contract, plus 5% interest p.a. as from the date of the claim;
Reimbursement of a flight ticket in the amount of USD 9,370, in
accordance with the second contract.
14.
According to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, in “mid-September 2015”,
the Respondent / Counter-Claimant informed him that it intended to exchange
him with another foreign player, that it had already deregistered him and that
he did not have to render services any longer. In this regard, the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent held that, in consequence, he tried to make an
appointment with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant a few times.
15.
Subsequently, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent explained that, on 18
September 2015, he was informed that his father in law died and that his
presence was urgently required by his family in City E.
16.
In light of the above, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent declared that he
informed his translator and instructed him to inform the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant that he would have to travel to Country B, since the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant was in possession of his passport. The Claimant
/ Counter-Respondent further held that as he received his passport by courier
from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, he concluded that the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant was duly informed about his situation and approved his
departure, and therefore, he left Country D on 19 September 2015.
17.
Along these lines, on 22 September 2015, via his legal representative, the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent sent a letter to the Respondent / CounterClaimant, through the Football Federation of Country D via telefax, stating
that he will be returning on 28 September 2015 in order to comply with his
contractual obligations, but that since he was, allegedly, informed that the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant might prematurely terminate his contract, he
proposed “without prejudice” that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant pay
him USD 1,009,370. In the letter, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent stated
that if he did not hear from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant by 25
September 2015, he would return to Country D to retake his contractual duties
with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. The letter contains enclosed the
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
5/23
power of attorney of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s lawyer dated 11
September 2015, as well as the unsigned proposal for the economic terms of
the termination, along with a flight itinerary in which it is stated that the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s return flight would arrive to City F on 30
September 2015.
18.
On 29 September 2015, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s lawyer sent
another letter to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant through the Football
Federation of Country D via telefax, in which it is stated that due to the
holidays in Country D as from 23 September 2015 until 2 October 2015, since
no matches and trainings would take place and due to the mourning of the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s relative, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
changed his return flight for “Saturday” (3 October 2015) in order to retake his
duties with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. The Claimant / CounterRespondent’s legal representative requested the Respondent / CounterClaimant to inform her if, however, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant would
prefer to terminate the second contract with the Claimant / CounterRespondent. In this letter, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s lawyer
informed the Respondent / Counter-Claimant that if no answer is received, the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent would return to fulfil his contractual
obligations.
19.
Afterwards, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent maintained that, on 30
September 2015, by means of a telephone conversation, the parties agreed
that an amicable solution “shall be found”.
20.
In this respect, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent held that as he did not
receive further communication after the alleged telephone conversation, via
his lawyer, he sent a letter to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant on 2 October
2015, again, through the Football Federation of Country D via telefax, in which
he requested the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to present him the alleged
proposal for amicable solution as soon as possible. In this letter, his lawyer
informed the Respondent / Counter-Claimant that the Claimant / CounterRespondent would stay in City E, since it “makes no sense that he travels
tomorrow to City F, when we most probably can sign a termination agreement
in the next 2 or 3 days”. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s representative
further stated that “if we do not come to an amicable solution within an
adequate period of time, [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] will join your
club immediately to retake his contractual duties”.
21.
On 5 October 2015, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s lawyer, through the
Football Federation of Country D via telefax, sent a letter to the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant requesting to receive a proposal.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
6/23
22.
Subsequently, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent explained that, on 6
October 2015, instead of receiving the proposal he was expecting, he received
an email from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, which had enclosed a
notice of termination of the second contract (hereinafter: the termination
notice), as well as a document that informed him that half of the salary of
September 2015 would not be paid due to his unauthorized absence. Both of
the enclosed documents are dated 4 October 2015.
23.
In this respect, the termination notice enclosed to the aforementioned email
reads as follows:
“Termination of the employment contract for Unauthorized Leave
…
This is to inform you that the club has decided to terminate the employment
under article 12 of the employment contract for just cause”.
24.
The email dated 6 October 2015 also contains a letter from the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant dated 4 October 2015, in which it is stated that the only
letters that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant received from the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent are the ones dated 29 September 2015 (cf. point I.18
above) and 2 October 2015 (cf. point I.20 above), but that since they do not
contain a power of attorney, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant considered
them with “no legal effect”. Moreover, by means of this letter, the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant stated that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
left without authorization and that in consequence, it reserved “his rights to
stop payment as of the first day of absence (i.e. 18 September 2015)”, and the
deduction of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s salary and the termination
of the second contract on the basis of “just cause” in accordance with art. 12
of the second contract.
25.
In reply to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s aforementioned email, the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent, through his lawyer, sent a letter to the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant dated 16 October 2015, via email directly to
the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and via telefax through the Football
Federation of Country D, in which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s legal
representative informed the Respondent / Counter-Claimant that the Claimant
/ Counter-Respondent disagreed with the salary deduction. In this letter, the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent argued that as the Respondent / CounterClaimant provided him with his passport and he sent a letter on 22 September
2015, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant was duly notified of his absence.
Moreover, as to the termination notice, his lawyer stated that “my client will
have no alternative than to accept it since he had agreed to such termination
option…”.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
7/23
26.
By means of la etter dated, 21 October 2015, the Respondent / CounterClaimant replied to the abovementioned communication from the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent’s legal representative dated 16 October 2015, by means
of which the Respondent / Counter-Claimant rejected the argumentation put
forth by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and insisted that a valid power of
attorney had not been served to it and reiterated the unauthorized absence of
the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. Furthermore, the Respondent / CounterClaimant reminded the Claimant / Counter-Respondent that he is free to sign
with the club of his choice “taking into consideration that the termination
should be effective as of 4 November 2015 pursuant to art. 12.2 [of the second
contract]” and that in accordance with the principle of “no work- no pay”, it
only has the obligation to pay the balance of “eighteen (18) worked days in
September 2015 for [the second contract]”.
27.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent sustained that by means of a letter dated
26 October 2015 he replied to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant letter dated
21 October 2015, requesting the payment in the amount of USD 555,369, since,
allegedly, he had not received any payment for the second contract up to date
and declared that his absence was justified.
28.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent argued that in accordance with art 12.2 of
the second contract, the contract must be considered terminated only until 6
November 2015, since he received the termination notice on 6 October 2015.
29.
By means of correspondence dated 17 February 2016, the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant requested FIFA to be provided, again, with a copy of the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s statement of claim and to “allow the
[Respondent / Counter-Claimant] to file its statement of defense to the claim
filed by the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] related to the second
contract…”. In this regard, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant declared that
the copy of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s statement of claim,
forwarded by the Football Federation of Country D on 17 November 2015,
related to the second contract was lost due to “unavoidable causes beyond the
control and without fault or negligence of the [Respondent / CounterClaimant]”.
30.
After the FIFA administration provided a copy of the Claimant / CounterRespondent’s statement of claim directly to it, the Respondent / CounterClaimant, on 1 August 2016, lodged a counterclaim against the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent. In its counterclaim, as to the substance, the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant argued that it had just cause to terminate the second
contract. In this regard, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant sustained that the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent left on 19 September 2015 without its
authorization and without the Respondent / Counter-Claimant being aware of
the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s absence, which according to it,
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
8/23
constituted a breach of the second contract. In this regard, the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant declared that it had no knowledge of the player’s alleged
request of absence through his translator and that it did not give any type of
consent in this regard. Moreover, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant declared
that it “has no reason to hold [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] passport
without any mission abroad for the nearest future or upcoming day as of the
player evasion”. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant further maintained that
the Claimant / Counter-Respondent could have sent an email to it, to the email
address stated in the second contract, in order to request authorization to
leave. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant argued that a leave of absence
could only be granted for a health or an emergency reason when supported by
appropriate documentation and that the death of the Claimant / CounterRespondent’s father in law death is not a valid reason to leave without
authorization.
31.
Moreover, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant argued that the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent has not provided a valid reason to explain why he did not
return to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant on 29 September 2015, as
originally planned.
32.
Furthermore, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant sustained that the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent was absent from trainings as from 31 August 2015 until
the date of the termination notice, i.e. 4 October 2015. In this respect, the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant held that the only holidays in Country D were
from 21 September 2015 until 25 September 2015 and not until 2 October as
sustained by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. The Respondent / CounterClaimant further held that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was absent
from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s match on 18 September 2015.
33.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant argued that the Claimant / CounterRespondent’s “repetitive absenteeism” was a just cause for the unilateral
termination of the second contract, which would then entitle the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant to compensation.
34.
In this regard, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant maintained that the parties,
by means of art. 12 of the second contract, had agreed on the amount of
compensation to be paid in case of “breach without just cause”. The
Respondent / Counter-Claimant explained that “it is doubtless that the parties
have expressly agreed that if the contract is unilaterally terminated before the
expiry of its term, the breaching party would have to pay the injured party an
amount of USD 130,000 as compensation for breach”.
35.
Furthermore, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant sustained that due to the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s absence, he should only be entitled to
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
9/23
payment for the 30 days worked in August 2015 in the amount of USD
125,806.46.
36.
Additionally, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant sustained that it paid a fine
to Football Confederation of Continent G of USD 10,000 in connection with a
decision from said confederation, in which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
was sanctioned with a fine of USD 10,000.
37.
Accordingly, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant requested that the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent should be ordered to pay the amount of USD 14,193.54
composed of:
USD 130,000 as “compensation for breach”;
USD 10,000 as reimbursement of the Football Confederation of
Continent G fine paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant on behalf
of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent;
Minus 125,806.46 corresponding to the salary of the Claimant / CounterRespondent for the days worked in August 2015.
38.
In his replica, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, rejected the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim and adhered to his previous statements and
petitions set out in his initial claim.
39.
In this regard, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent insisted that he had a valid
reason to leave the Respondent / Counter-Claimant on 19 September 2015 and
that he duly informed the Respondent / Counter-Claimant about it. The
Claimant / Counter-Respondent maintained “that there are plenty of witnesses
that can confirm that [he] informed [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant] duly
via his interpreter”, and that he further reiterated this information via his
letter dated 22 September 2015 as well as that he has provided a copy of the
relevant positive fax reports corresponding to the letters he sent.
40.
Moreover, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent held that the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant has not presented any proof of having disagreed with his
absence and did not ask him to retake his work prior to sending the
termination notice.
41.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent further contested the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant’s allegation regarding his absence from trainings. In this
respect, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent held that he attended all trainings
including the match of 18 September 2015 and sustained that the evidence
presented by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant regarding his absences
should be rejected since it is not translated and “not signed by him”.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
10/23
42.
Subsequently, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent argued that the Respondent
/ Counter-Claimant did not have just cause to terminate the contract since he
was not absent “repeatedly”, and due to the fact that the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant has not presented documentary evidence of having warned
him that he should return, and that it would have been interested in his
services after he left on 19 September 2015.
43.
In respect to the fine imposed by the Football Confederation of Continent G,
the Claimant / Counter-Respondent rejected that such amount should be
deducted, as according to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the Respondent
/ Counter-Claimant failed to provide any evidence as to whether its payment
was related to the sanction imposed on the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, or
to a sanction imposed on the Respondent / Counter-Claimant regarding the
same match, and corresponding to the same amount.
44.
Moreover, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent held that, in any case, he was
never notified in writing about the sanction and he was never notified by the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant that it would deduct this amount from his
salary. Moreover, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent held that no disciplinary
proceedings had been conducted respecting the principles of fair justice and,
as a new contract was offered by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, in good
faith he concluded that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant would take over
the payment of this fine.
45.
Finally, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent held that the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant had acknowledged that it terminated the contract
unilaterally on 4 October 2015 and that it did not pay him any remuneration
under the second contract.
46.
In its duplica, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant reiterated its argumentation
and request for relief. Moreover, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
confirmed 1 August 2016 as the date when it lodged its counterclaim against
the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. Furthermore, the Respondent / CounterClaimant insisted on the unauthorized absence of the Claimant / CounterRespondent as from 31 August 2015 until 4 October 2015, and enclosed, in
addition to the previous training attendance reports, internal documents
signed by its General Secretary and Team Manager that confirmed that the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent was absent during the mentioned period.
47.
Moreover, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant held that in the context of this
matter “family reasons will not be considered as valid reason to be absent”
and that a “long lasting absence of a player” without authorization or just
cause is a justifying reason for the suspension of the payment of salary.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
11/23
48.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant further elaborated that “As a general rule,
lengthy absence of a player from his club without authorization and without
other just cause should be considered as unjustified breach of the employment
contract…”.
49.
In respect to the fine imposed by the Football Confederation of Continent G
on the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
held that as the fine was imposed by the confederation it does not fall under
the terms of art. 9 of the second contract and therefore, it did not have the
obligation to inform the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in writing. Moreover,
the Respondent / Counter-Claimant held that the Claimant / CounterRespondent was aware of the decision, since he offered to pay it and that he
was duly notified of the referenced decision, as according to the Football
Confederation of Continent G Disciplinary Code, documents intended for a
player are addressed to the affiliated Member Association and are published
online. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant maintained that it paid the fine of
the player in good faith.
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 10 November 2015. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that 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 and 2017
editions of the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 of the
Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in
combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations (edition 2016) 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 of Country B and a Club of Country D.
3.
However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
contested the competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies alleging that the Claimant
/ Counter-Respondent should have addressed his claim to the NDRC of the
Football Federation of Country D, in compliance with art. 10 of the second
contract.
4.
On the other hand, the Chamber noted that the Claimant / CounterRespondent insisted on the competence of the DRC to adjudicate on the claim
lodged by him against the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, as he sustained
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
12/23
that the NDRC of the Football Federation of Country D does not comply with
the requirements established in art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations in order to be
recognized as an independent tribunal.
5.
Taking into account all the above, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance
with art. 22 lit b) of the Regulations it is competent to deal with a matter such
as the one at hand, unless an independent arbitration tribunal, guaranteeing
fair proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of
players and clubs, has been established at national level within the framework
of the association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. With regard to
the standards to be imposed on an independent arbitration tribunal
guaranteeing fair proceedings, the Chamber referred to the FIFA Circular no.
1010 dated 20 December 2005. Equally, the members of the Chamber referred
to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber
(NDRC) Standard Regulations (hereinafter: the NDRC Regulations), which came
into force on 1 January 2008.
6.
In this respect, the DRC turned its attention to the principle of equal
representation of players and clubs and underlined that this principle is one of
the very fundamental elements to be fulfilled, in order for a national dispute
resolution chamber to be recognised as such. Indeed, this prerequisite is
mentioned in the Regulations, in the FIFA Circular no. 1010 as well as in art. 3
par. 1 of the NDRC Regulations, which illustrates the aforementioned principle
as follows: “The NDRC shall be composed of the following members, who shall
serve a four-year renewable mandate: a) a chairman and a deputy chairman
chosen by consensus by the player and club representatives (…); b) between
three and ten player representatives who are elected or appointed either on
proposal of the players’ associations affiliated to FIFPro, or, where no such
associations exist, on the basis of a selection process agreed by FIFA and FIFPro;
c) between three and ten club representatives (…).” In this respect, the FIFA
Circular no. 1010 states the following: “The parties must have equal influence
over the appointment of arbitrators. This means for example that every party
shall have the right to appoint an arbitrator and the two appointed arbitrators
appoint the chairman of the arbitration tribunal (…). Where arbitrators are to
be selected from a predetermined list, every interest group that is represented
must be able to exercise equal influence over the compilation of the arbitrator
list”.
7.
On account of the above, the Chamber went on to examine the
documentation submitted by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in order to
prove its allegation that the NDRC of the Football Federation of Country D
meets the requirements to be recognized as an independent arbitration
tribunal established at national level within the framework of the Football
Federation of Country D. In this regard, the DRC, after a thorough examination
of the certified translation of the Regulations of the NDRC of the Football
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
13/23
Federation of Country D provided in the matter at hand, noted that it can be
established from its art. 6.3 that the Chairman and deputy Chairman of the
NDRC of the Football Federation of Country D are chosen by the Board of
Directors of the Football Federation of Country D only, and not by a consensus
by and between the player and club representatives as illustrated by art. 3 par.
1 of the NDRC Regulations. Moreover, the members of the Chamber noted
that in accordance with art. 6.5 of Regulations of the NDRC of the Football
Federation of Country D it appears that the Board of Directors of the Football
Federation of Country D also appoints the player representatives. Therefore,
the player representatives are not appointed from a pool of “between three
and ten player representatives who are elected or appointed either on
proposal of the players’ associations affiliated to FIFPro, or, where no such
associations exist, on the basis of a selection process agreed by FIFA and
FIFPro”, i.e. the appointment of player representatives is not in line with art. 3
par. 1 of the NDRC Regulations.
8.
Therefore, the Chamber was unanimous in its conclusion that the NDRC of the
Football Federation of Country D does not respect the principle of equal
representation of players and clubs.
9.
As a consequence of the above-mentioned elements, the Chamber agreed that
it could not be concluded that the NDRC of the Football Federation of Country
D is indeed an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings
and respecting the principle of equal representation of players and clubs.
10.
Moreover, the Chamber was of the unanimous opinion that the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant, by lodging a counterclaim against the Claimant / CounterRespondent as direct reaction to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim,
acknowledged the competence of FIFA’s DRC to deal with the matter at hand,
since is not coherent that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant argued the
alleged lack of competence of the DRC to hear the Claimant / CounterRespondent’s claim, while at the same time it requested relief in the form of
compensation from said deciding body for the same dispute. The Chamber
duly noted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim was not
lodged as an alternative or subsidiary request, but rather as its means of
defense after receiving a copy of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s
statement of claim.
11.
On account of all the above, the Chamber established that the Respondent’s
objection towards 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, to consider the present matter as to
the substance.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
14/23
12.
Subsequently, 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 (editions 2015 and 2016), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 10 November 2015, the 2015
edition of the Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
13.
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.
14.
In this respect, the DRC acknowledged that after the natural expiry of the first
contract signed between them, the parties signed the second contract valid as
from 1 August 2015 until 31 May 2016. The DRC noted that according to the
second contract, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was entitled to receive,
inter alia, a monthly remuneration of USD 130,000, payable at the end of each
month, as well as one round business flight ticket for him and one for a “direct
family member”.
15.
Furthermore, the members of the Chamber paid due consideration to the fact
that it remains uncontested that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent left the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant on 19 September 2015.
16.
Moreover, the DRC duly observed the exchange of correspondence between
the parties as from the date of departure of the Claimant / CounterRespondent up until when the claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
was lodged (cf. points I.17 to I.26 above) and recalled that the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant acknowledged having received the letters of the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent dated 29 September 2015 and 2 October 2015, in which it
was stated that in case the parties did not find an amicable solution to
terminate the second contract, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s intention
was to return to Respondent / Counter-Claimant and resume his contractual
duties.
17.
In this context, the DRC took note that it remains uncontested that, by means
of an email dated 6 October 2015 (cf. point I.22 above), the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant provided the Claimant / Counter-Respondent with the
termination notice (cf. point I.23 above) based on art. 12 of the contract.
18.
With the above considerations, the Chamber highlighted that the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent lodged a claim against the Respondent / Counter-
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
15/23
Claimant before FIFA for outstanding remuneration and breach of contract,
requesting the amount of USD 555,369. The DRC also highlighted that the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant, on its part, after being directly informed
about the claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, lodged a counterclaim
against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, requesting the payment of USD
14,193.54.
19.
In this context, the members of the Chamber pondered that the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent, on the one hand, maintained that the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant did not have just cause to unilaterally terminate the second
contract after his departure, while the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, on the
other hand, acknowledged that it terminated the second contract, however,
sustaining that it had just cause to do so on the basis of the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent’s departure without authorization and, allegedly,
repeated absence from training as from 31 August 2015 until the date of the
termination notice, i.e. 4 October 2015. In this regard, it was duly noted by the
Chamber that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent contested his alleged
absence as from the date claimed by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and
held that he was only absent as from 19 September 2015.
20.
Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber concluded that the
underlying issue in this dispute, was to determine whether the second contract
had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by the Respondent
/ Counter-Claimant and which party was responsible for the early termination
of the contractual relationship in question. The DRC also underlined that,
subsequently, it would be necessary to determine the financial consequences
for the party that is to be held liable for the early termination of the pertinent
employment contract.
21.
In this respect, the DRC deemed it crucial to outline that it remained
uncontested that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant terminated the contract
with the email of 6 October 2015 by means of the termination notice enclosed
to it.
22.
Along this line, the Chamber analysed the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s
assertion that it terminated the employment contract with just cause, basing
its counterclaim on the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s alleged absence from
training sessions as from 31 August 2015 and his subsequent uncontested
departure on 19 September 2015 without its authorization.
23.
In this respect, the DRC recalled the contents of 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 burden of proof
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
16/23
24.
With the abovementioned consideration in mind, the Chamber took due note
of the documentation that had been presented by the Respondent / CounterClaimant in relation to the alleged absence of the Claimant / CounterRespondent as from 31 August 2015, namely, the training attendance reports
of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, which are not translated into one of
the official FIFA languages (English, French, Spanish and German) and internal
documents signed by its General Secretary and Team Manager that confirm
that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was absent during the period from 31
August 2015 until 4 October 2015.
25.
At this point, the Chamber first recalled that, in accordance with art. 9 par. 1
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 without the translations of the training
attendance reports, said documents could not be taken into account. In respect
to the internal documentation presented by the Respondent / CounterClaimant that allegedly confirms the absence of the Claimant / CounterRespondent as from 31 August 2015, the DRC recalled that said documents are
signed by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s own management in support
of its allegation and remarked that such documents were produced by the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant, as well as that the persons who signed said
documents, as employees of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, cannot be
considered as impartial witnesses. The Chamber also took into account that the
termination notice dated 4 October 2015 does not contain any reference to
the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s alleged absences from training sessions as
from 31 August 2015 but solely indicated that the decision to terminate the
second contract is based on art. 12 of the contract. Therefore, the Chamber
concluded that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had not provided
conclusive and satisfactory evidence regarding the Claimant / CounterRespondent’s alleged absence from training before 19 September 2015, i.e. the
uncontested date of departure of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent.
26.
At this moment, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that only a breach or
misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract.
In other words, only when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably
permit to expect a continuation of the employment relationship between the
parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more
lenient measures which can be taken in order for an employer to ensure the
employee’s fulfilment of his contractual duties, such measures must be taken
before terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of an
employment contract can only ever be an ultima ratio measure.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
17/23
27.
In view of the above, the Chamber observed that it remains uncontested that
after the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s departure and even after receiving
correspondence from the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant neither confronted the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
about his alleged absences nor requested him, at any point, to resume his
duties. What is more, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not issue any
prior warning to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent before sending its
termination notice and immediately terminated the employment relationship
instead. However, regardless of the question whether the Claimant / CounterRespondent was authorized to leave on 19 September 2015, the Chamber was
of the firm opinion that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did, in any case,
not have just cause to prematurely terminate the employment contract with
the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, since such breach could not legitimately
be considered as being severe enough to justify the termination of the
contract, and that there would have been more lenient measures to be taken
in order to sanction the Claimant / Counter-Respondent for his absence.
28.
On account of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant did not have just cause to unilaterally terminate the second
contract by means of the email sent on 6 October 2015 that had the
termination notice enclosed to it and, therefore, decided that the Respondent
/ Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the
employment contact without just cause.
29.
At this stage, the DRC recalled that in accordance with the content of art. 12 of
the second contract, particularly art. 12.2 of the second contract that
stipulated that the termination notice shall be provided by one party to the
other with one month’s notice, as the termination noticed was provided by the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent by email
on 6 October 2015, and with this in mind, the DRC concluded in consequence
that the second contract was effectively terminated on 6 November 2015.
30.
Having established that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is to be held liable
for the early termination of the employment contract without just cause, the
Chamber focussed its attention on the consequences of such breach of
contract. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the
Chamber decided that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is entitled to receive
from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant an amount of money as
compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding payments,
if any, on the basis of the relevant employment contract.
31.
The Chamber then reverted to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s financial
claim, which includes outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD
415,999, corresponding to salaries from 1 August 2015 until 6 November 2015,
i.e. USD 130,000 each for the months of August 2015, September 2015 and
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
18/23
October 2015, and USD 25,999 for 6 days of November 2015. Moreover, it was
duly noted that Claimant / Counter-Respondent requested the reimbursement
of a flight ticket in the amount of USD 9,370.
32.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber recalled that although the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant acknowledged owing 30 days of the August
2015 salary to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, it argued that since the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent was allegedly absent, it was entitled to
withhold his salary as from 31 August 2015. Moreover, the DRC duly observed
that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant sustained that a deduction of USD
10,000 shall apply in connection with a decision from the Football
Confederation of Continent G, wherein the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
was sanctioned with a fine of USD 10,000, which the Respondent sustained
having paid on his behalf.
33.
In this respect, the DRC recalled that there is no conclusive evidence on file in
respect to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s absence as from 31 August
2015 and therefore, there is no valid reason to withhold the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent’s salary payment as sustained by the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant.
34.
As the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, on his part, rejected that USD 10,000
should be deducted, the members of the DRC turned to the divergent opinion
of the parties in respect to the alleged right of the Respondent to deduct USD
10,000 in regards to the disciplinary fine of USD 10,000 imposed on the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent by the Football Confederation of Continent G,
which the Respondent / Counter-Claimant sustained to have paid on the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s behalf “in good faith”. In this framework,
the Chamber deemed it necessary to examine the documentation provided by
the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in support of its position.
35.
With this in mind, the Chamber noted that the disciplinary decision of the
Football Confederation of Continent G dated 19 May 2015, by means of which
USD 10,000 was imposed as a fine on the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, does
not impose an obligation on the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to pay this
amount. Furthermore, the DRC noted that there is no evidence on file that the
Football Confederation of Continent G had urged the Respondent / CounterClaimant to pay the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s respective fine in the
first place. Following this line of reasoning, the DRC concluded that the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant had paid the USD 10,000 fine imposed on the
Claimant by the Football Confederation of Continent G at its own discretion.
Subsequently, the Chamber analysed the contents of the second contract and
confirmed that there is no contractual clause that foresees that in case a fine is
imposed on the Claimant / Counter-Respondent by a competent body, the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent would have to reimburse said amount in case
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
19/23
the Respondent / Counter-Claimant covers it. As such, without an explicit urge
from the confederation to pay the respective fine in the first place and in the
absence of a contractual basis regarding the reimbursement of a paid fine, the
DRC deemed that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is not allowed to deduct
the amount of USD 10,000 from the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s
outstanding remuneration.
36.
With the abovementioned considerations in mind, and taking into account the
effective date of termination of the second contract, i.e. 6 November 2015, the
DRC deemed that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is entitled to
outstanding remuneration due at the time of termination, i.e. for the months
of August 2015 until October 2015.
37.
Subsequently, the DRC analysed the request of the Claimant corresponding to
the reimbursement of a flight ticket in accordance with the second contract. In
this respect, taking into account the documentation presented by the Claimant
/ Counter-Respondent in support of his petition, the DRC concluded that the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent had not fully substantiated his claim with
pertinent documentary evidence in accordance with art. 12 par. 3 of the
Procedural Rules. That is, there is no conclusive evidence of the purchase of the
corresponding flight ticket, since the Claimant / Counter-Respondent merely
provided a “Whatsapp messenger” conversation that states a reservation code
and that the ticket cost is “usd9370” in order to substantiate its request of
reimbursement of a flight ticket. Therefore, the DRC decided to reject this part
of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim.
38.
Consequently, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt
servanda, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must fulfil its obligations as per
the second contract concluded with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and,
therefore, is to be held liable to pay the outstanding amount of USD 390,000
to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent.
39.
In addition, taking into account the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s request,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay to the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent interest of 5% p.a. on each of the relevant
payments as of the day following the day on which the relevant payments fell
due, until the date of effective payment.
40.
In continuation, the Chamber decided that, taking into consideration art. 17
par. 1 of the Regulations, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is entitled to
receive from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant compensation for breach of
contract in addition to any outstanding salaries on the basis of the relevant
employment contract.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
20/23
41.
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 player 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.
42.
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 context, the members of the Chamber recalled the
content of art. 12.3 and art. 12.4 of the second contract, which stipulated that:
“
…
12.3 The party terminating the contract shall pay to the other Party a
compensation of USD 130,000.
12.4 The compensation of an early termination of the contract amounting to
USD 130,000 is validly agreed to by the contracting parties, based on the
genuine mutual consent of the parties at the time of the execution of
this contract. Accordingly, such compensation is irrevocable and is
binding to both parties.”.
43.
The members of the Chamber duly analysed the content of the
abovementioned provisions, and considered that said articles of the second
contract do grant the same rights to the parties, and in consequence, they
appear to respect the principle of a proportionate repartition of the rights of
the parties, in accordance with jurisprudence from the Court of Arbitration for
Sport (CAS). Moreover, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent capped his request
for relief in respect to compensation in accordance with both art. 12.3 and art.
12.4 of the second contract, thereby accepting the validity of said clause.
44.
On account of the foregoing, the Chamber decided that art. 12.3 and art. 12.4
of the second contract can be taken into consideration in the determination of
the amount of compensation payable by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant.
45.
In view of all of the above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant must pay the amount of USD 130,000 to the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent as compensation for breach of contract without just case,
which is considered by the Chamber to be a reasonable and justified amount
as compensation.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
21/23
46.
In addition, taking into account the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s request,
the Chamber decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay to the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of
compensation, i.e. USD 130,000, as of the date on which the claim was lodged,
i.e. 10 November 2015, until the date of effective payment.
47.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present
matter by establishing that the counter-claim lodged by the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant is rejected.
III.
Decis ion of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
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 Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent, w ithin 30 day s as from the date of notification of this
decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 390,000.
4.
Within the same deadline, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to
the Claimant/Counter-Respondent interest as follows:
5.
-
5% p.a. over the amount of USD 130,000 as from 1 September 2015
until the date of effective payment;
-
5% p.a. over the amount of USD 130,000 as from 1 October 2015 until
the date of effective payment;
-
5% p.a. over the amount of USD 130,000 as from 1 November 2015
until the date of effective payment.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent, w ithin 30 day s as from the date of notification of this decision,
compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 130,000 plus 5%
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
22/23
interest p.a. on said amount as from 10 November 2015 until the date of
effective payment.
6.
In the event that the amounts plus interest due to the Claimant / CounterRespondent in accordance with the above-mentioned numbers 3., 4., and 5.
are 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.
7.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected.
8.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant immediately and directly of the account number to which
the remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of
every payment received.
9.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected.
*****
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
23/23
Note relating to the m otiv ated decis ion (legal remedy):
According to article 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed
against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal
must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this
decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the
directives issued by the CAS, a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10
days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the
appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the
appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives).
The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:
Court of Arbitration for Sport
Avenue de Beaumont 2
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
24/23