Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 7 March 2019,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thom ps on (England), Chairman
S tijn Boey kens (Belgium ), member
Daan de Jong (The Netherlands ), 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 2 October 2017, the player of Country B Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant or
the player) and the club of Country D Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent or the
club) concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from
the date of signature until 2 May 2018.
2. According to art. 4.2, par. 1 and 2 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to a
salary of USD 190,000, payable as follows:
a) USD 50,000 as advance payment at the signature of the contract;
b) USD 140,000 in “seven equal monthly payments at an amount of USD 20,000
per month from October 2017 to April 2018.
Exchange rate: 1 USD – 3,66 [Currency of Country D] Currency of Country D”.
3. Pursuant to art. 4.2, par. 3.2, of the contract, the Claimant was also “entitled to
receive Match participation bonus at amount of USD 23,000 in the event the
player participate more than 50% of the official matches per month. Also he will
receive the bonus if the reason for not playing is not the old injury (muscle below
the stomach)”; bonus which was payable at the end of the month.
4. Art. 4.4 of the contract provides that “the club shall provide the player suitable
furnished accommodation in City E during the term of the contract”.
5. In accordance with art. 4.5 of the contract, “the player will be part of the club’s
collective bonus scheme structured in accordance with the club’s policy”.
6. Pursuant to art. 4.8 of the contract, the Respondent committed to provide the
player “and his wife and two kids with (1) ticket airline on business class rate from
Country F to City E (round trip) after actual booking”.
7. Art. 4.9 of the contract stipulates that the Respondent shall pay the Claimant
“schooling fees at total amount of USD 15,000 provided submission payment
receipt by the player”.
8. Moreover, art. 6.4 of the contract, stipulates that the “in the event the player
terminates the contract without just cause in accordance with art. 17 of FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Player shall promptly pay to
the Club, as compensation for the breach, the amount of USD 3,000,000”.
9. Furthermore, according to art. 6.5 of the contract, “in the event the club
terminates the contract without just cause in accordance with art. 17 of FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the Club shall promptly pay to
the Player, as compensation for the breach, an amount equal to 30% of the
remaining salaries until the expiry of the contract”.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
2
10. On 11 January 2018, the Respondent sent a letter to the Claimant, by means of
which it terminated the contract with immediate effect on the basis of art. 6.5 of
the contract and informed the player that it would pay him, within the next five
days, the amount of currency of Country D 261,749.03, corresponding to:
a) currency of Country D 180,992.90 for “unpaid salary of December 2017, plus 10
days of January 2018 inclusive of all bounces”;
b)currency of Country D 80,756.13 for “equal to 30% of the remaining salaries of
months (21 days of January – February – March – April 2018)”.
11. On 3 February 2018, the Claimant replied to the Respondent’s aforementioned
letter arguing that art. 6.5 of the contract was not reciprocal and, therefore, was
null and void. As a consequence thereof, the Claimant requested the payment,
within 15 days, of:
- USD 80,000, corresponding to the remaining value of the contract;
- currency of Country D 25,000 for an outstanding collective bonus;
- USD 23,000 for a personal bonus;
- rental costs of the house paid by the player for the months of January and
February 2018.
12. On 20 February 2018, the Claimant sent a further letter to the Respondent,
reiterating his previous requests.
13. On 25 March 2018, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the
Respondent for breach of contract, requesting the amount of USD 140,901.67,
plus 5 % interest p.a. as of 11 January 2018, broken-down as follows:
a) USD 80,000 as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to the
monthly salaries as of January until April 2018;
b) USD 23,000 for an outstanding “personal bonus” in accordance with art. 4.5 of
the contract;
c) USD 10,105 as reimbursement of the costs borne by the player for the rental of
an apartment as of the month of January 2018;
d) USD 12,796.67 as “refund of costs for the return flight tickets” for the player
and his family;
e) USD 15,000 as “refund of schooling fees for the player’s kids” as per art. 4.9 of
the contract.
Furthermore, the player requested the imposition of sporting sanctions on the
club.
14. In his claim, the Claimant argued that the Respondent terminated the contract
without just cause on the basis of an invalid clause, namely art. 6.5 of the
contract. In this regard, the Claimant argued that such clause was
disproportionate and not reciprocal, in particular compared to the content of art.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
3
6.4, which determined the compensation payable by the player in case he
terminated the contract without just cause.
15. Moreover, the Claimant stressed that, despite the Respondent terminated the
contract on 11 January 2018, he continued to train with the team and offered his
services to the Respondent until he lodged his claim.
16. Furthermore, the Claimant acknowledged that the Respondent paid him, “after
one month from the last warning notice”, the amount of currency of Country D
25,000 corresponding to the collective bonus he requested in his previous letters.
17. As to the claimed “personal bonus”, the Claimant maintained that the same
referred to “personal sporting performances (assists, goals, presences)” pursuant
to art. 4.5 of the contract.
18. In addition, the Claimant argued that, contrary to the content of art. 4.4 of the
contract, the Respondent did not pay his costs for accommodation as of the
month of January 2018. Consequently, the Claimant affirmed that it had to bear
such costs by himself and, in this respect, he submitted a “copy of tax invoice”
allegedly issued by an hotel on 9 March 2018, for the period between 1 January
and 1 March 2018, in order to corroborate his allegation.
19. As to the return flight tickets, the Claimant requested the amount of USD
12,796.97 calculated on the alleged cost, for 4 people, of the ticket “for the route
City G-City H”.
20. In his reply, the Respondent affirmed that it paid the Claimant the salary and the
“match participation bonus” for the months of October and November 2017 and
maintained that it paid him the following “collective bonus”:
a) on 8 November 2017, currency of Country D 10,000 allegedly for the “first
collective bonus”;
b)on 19 December 2017, currency of Country D 5,000, allegedly for “another
collective bonus”.
21. Moreover, the Respondent affirmed that, after the termination of the contract, it
made a payment of currency of Country D 157,380 to the Claimant on 22 January
2018, allegedly corresponding to the salary and “the match participation bonus”
for the month of December 2017.
22. Furthermore, the Respondent averred that it paid the Claimant the amount of
currency of Country D 25,000 for “pending collective bonuses”, as follows:
a) on 15 February 2018, currency of Country D 15,000;
b)on 15 March 2018, currency of Country D 10,000.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
4
23. As a consequence of the above-mentioned payments, the Respondent
acknowledged that only the following amounts were still outstanding:
a) currency of Country D 23,612.90 corresponding to the first 10 days of the
month of January 2018;
b)currency of Country D 80,756.15 corresponding to the 30% of the remaining
salaries, pursuant to art. 6.5 of the contract.
24. As to the Claimant’s request for the reimbursement of the accommodation costs,
in the alternative that such costs were not considered as already included in the
compensation set out under art. 6.5 of the contract, the Respondent
acknowledged that the Claimant was entitled to a reimbursement for the first 10
days of the month of January 2018 only which, based on the invoice submitted
the Claimant, correspond to the amount of USD 1,718.61.
25. Furthermore, as to the claimed schooling fees under art. 4.9 of the contract, the
Respondent maintained that it did not have any obligation to reimburse them, as
the Claimant did not provide any evidence that it incurred into such costs.
26. In his replica, the Claimant amended his claim requesting the final following
amounts, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 11 January 2018:
a) USD 15,766.67 as outstanding salary for the period from 1 until 11 January
2018;
b) USD 156,233.33 as compensation for breach of contract for the period starting
on 12 January 2018 until the end of April 2018, including salaries (namely USD
20,000 per month) and the match participation bonus (i.e. USD 23,000
monthly) under art. 4.2, par. 3.2 of the contract;
c) currency of Country D 5,000 “as winning home match bonus plus the pro rata
quote of the Promotion Bonus”;
d) USD 20,966.92 as reimbursement of the costs for the rental of the apartment
(based on an alleged daily refund of USD 171,86 for a total 122 days);
e) USD 12,796.97 for the return flight tickets;
f) USD 15,000 as reimbursement of “schooling fees for the player’s kids”.
27. First, the Claimant averred that his monthly remuneration amounted to USD
43,000 and argued that the payments made by the Respondent for the months of
October, November and December 2017 confirmed such circumstance. In
particular, the Claimant maintained that his monthly remuneration was composed
of:
a) USD 20,000 for the salary as per art. 4.2 par. 2 of the contract; and
b) USD 23,000 for the participation bonus under art. 4.2, par. 3.2 of the contract.
28. In this regard, the Claimant affirmed that he played in all the club’s matches
(allegedly 9 in total) until the termination of the contract and never suffered any
kind injury.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
5
29. In continuation, the Claimant alleged that, in view of the payments made by the
Respondent to him for the collective bonuses, the Respondent used the following
scheme: currency of Country D 10,000 for each away match won and currency of
Country D 5,000 for each home match won. On account of that, the Claimant
maintained that he was entitled to a bonus of currency of Country D 5,000 for a
home match won by the Respondent on 29 December 2017.
30. With reference to the flight tickets, the Claimant reiterated his requests, alleging
that, “in light of the club’s silence”, he had to buy four tickets in economic class
only, due to the lack of financial means.
31. With its final comments, the Respondent reiterated its previous arguments and
committed to pay the following amounts to the Claimant:
a) USD 6,451.61 for the salary of the first 10 days of January 2018;
b)USD 22,064.51 corresponding to the 30% of the remaining salaries in
accordance with art. 6.5 of the contract.
32. Moreover, the Respondent pointed out that the Claimant’s monthly fixed
remuneration amounted to USD 20,000 in accordance with art. 4.2 par. 2 of the
contract, while the further amount of USD 23,000 was not guaranteed but, rather,
a bonus depending on the Claimant’s performance pursuant to art. 4.2 par. 3.2 of
the contract. Therefore, the Respondent argued that such bonus could not be
taken into account for the calculation of the compensation.
33. Furthermore, as to the requested collective bonus, the Respondent affirmed that,
with reference to the match the player referred to, no bonus was payable to any
player of the team. In this context, the Respondent also stressed that no
promotion bonus had been fixed by the club.
34. As to the requested accommodation allowance, the Respondent insisted on the
fact that the same was payable until 11 January 2018 only, in the total amount of
USD 209,67. In this respect, the Respondent submitted a further calculation, based
on the costs for taxes.
35. Upon request of the FIFA Administration, the Claimant informed that it did not
conclude any employment contract with other club after the termination of the
contract.
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
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
6
hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA
on 25 March 2018. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the
Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2018;
hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of
the Procedural Rules).
2. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the
Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 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.
3. At this point, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that, contrary to the
information contained in FIFA’s letter dated 1 March 2019, by means of which the
parties were informed of the composition of the Chamber, the member X
refrained from participating in the deliberations of the case at hand due to
certain personal circumstances and, in order to comply with the prerequisite of
equal representation of the club’s and player’s representatives, also the member
XX refrained from participating. Thus, the Dispute Resolution Chamber
adjudicated the case in presence of three members in accordance with art. 24 par.
2 of the Regulations.
4. 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 2018), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 25 March
2018, the 2018 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable
to the matter at hand as to the substance.
5. 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.
6. First, the Chamber noted that the parties entered into an employment contract
valid as of 2 October 2017 until 2 May 2018, providing a monthly salary of USD
20,000 payable in seven instalments.
7. In this context, the members of the Chamber noted that, according to art. 4.2 par.
3.2 of the contract, the Claimant was also entitled to a “Match participation
bonus at amount of USD 23,000 in the event the player participate more than
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
7
50% of the official matches per month. Also he will receive the bonus if the
reason for not playing is not the old injury (muscle below the stomach)”.
8. Moreover, the members of the Chamber took note that it remained undisputed
that the Respondent paid the Claimant the monthly salary and the abovementioned match participation bonus for the period between October and
December 2017.
9. Furthermore, the DRC duly noted that, on 11 January 2018, the Respondent sent a
letter to the Claimant, by means of which it terminated the contract on the basis
of art. 6.5 of the contract.
10. After having taken note of the above, the DRC also took note of the position of
the parties in the present matter. In this respect, the Claimant argued that the
Respondent terminated the contract without just cause, on the basis of an invalid
clause.
11. Moreover, the Claimant maintained that his monthly remuneration was composed
of the basic salary and the match participation bonus under art. 4.2 par. 3.2 of the
contract, for a total amount of USD 43,000. As such, the Claimant requested the
payment of his monthly remuneration for four months, namely for the period
between January and April 2018, in the amount of USD 172,000.
12. Finally, the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant also requested the payment of
an alleged match bonus, the reimbursement of the costs for the rental of an
apartment until the expiry date of the contract, the refund of costs of return
flight tickets as well as of “schooling fees for the player’s kids”.
13. Equally, the members of the Chamber took note of the position of the
Respondent, which acknowledged having terminated the contract in accordance
with clause 6.5 of the contract and argued that the Claimant was only entitled,
pro rata, to the monthly salary for the month of January 2018 until the date of
termination of the contract, as well as 30% of the remaining salaries until the end
of the contract, as stipulated in the aforementioned clause.
14. In this respect, the Respondent pointed out that the monthly remuneration of the
player was solely composed of the monthly salary under art. 4.2 par. 1 and 2 of
the contract, being excluded the match participation bonus under the following
par. 3.2 which, in the Respondent’s view, could not be taken into account as it
depended on the player’s performance.
15. In addition, the Respondent averred that the claimed accommodation allowance
was already included in the compensation set out under art. 6.5. In the
alternative, the Respondent acknowledged that such allowance was supposed to
be limited to the first ten days of January 2018, in the total amount of USD
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
8
1,718.61. Finally, the Respondent requested the rejection of any further claim of
the player.
16. In view of the aforementioned positions, the members of the Chamber wished to
emphasise that both parties acknowledged that the contract was terminated by
the Respondent on 11 January 2018 on the basis of art. 6.5 of the contract. In this
respect the DRC deemed necessary to recall that the aforementioned provision
was applicable “in the event the club terminates the contract without just cause”.
Consequently, the members of the Chamber came to the first conclusion that it
remained undisputed that the Respondent terminated the contract without just
cause on 11 January 2018.
17. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the members of the Chamber
concurred that the main issue in the present dispute, considering the diverging
position of the parties, was to determine the consequences of the termination of
the contract without just cause by the Respondent.
18. In this respect, the Chamber came to the first conclusion that, as the Respondent
terminated the contract without just case, the latter, in accordance with art. 17
par. 1 of the Regulations, is liable to pay compensation for breach of contract to
the Claimant.
19. In continuation, the Chamber pointed out that 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.
20. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to
assess 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 breach of contract. In this regard, the members
of the Chamber recalled that articles 6.4 and 6.5 of the contract stipulated a
compensation clause, which was drafted as follows:
- Art. 6.4: “in the event the player terminates the contract without just cause in
accordance with art. 17 of FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players,
the Player shall promptly pay to the Club, as compensation for the breach, the
amount of USD 3,000,000”;
- Art. 6.5: “in the event the club terminates the contract without just cause in
accordance with art. 17 of FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players,
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
9
the Club shall promptly pay to the Player, as compensation for the breach, an
amount equal to 30% of the remaining salaries until the expiry of the contract”.
21. On account of the above, the members of the Chamber observed that the
aforementioned clause was not reciprocal and, in view of the general principle of
proportionality and of the principle of equal treatment, unanimously agreed that
said clause cannot be taken into consideration in the determination of the
amount of compensation.
22. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in
application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations.
The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive
enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the
amount of compensation payable. Therefore, other objective criteria may be
taken into account at the discretion of the deciding body. Bearing in mind the
foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to
the player under the terms of the employment contract.
23. In so doing, the Chamber recalled that, according to the Claimant, his monthly
remuneration was composed of the basic salary and the match participation
bonus under art. 4.2 par. 3.2 of the contract, for a total amount of USD 43,000.
Conversely, in the Respondent’s opinion, the monthly remuneration was
exclusively composed of the player’s basic salary, namely USD 20,000.
24. In view of the diverging positions of the parties, the members of the DRC
considered necessary to assess the monthly remuneration of the Claimant, in
order to be able to determine the compensation for breach of contract payable to
the Claimant.
25. In this respect, the Chamber first noted that the Respondent paid to the Claimant
the basic salary and the aforementioned match participation bonus for the
months as of October until December 2017, i.e. USD 43,000. What is more, the
DRC took note that, pursuant to art. 4.2 par. 3.2 of the contract, the Claimant
“will receive the bonus if the reason for not playing is not the old injury (muscle
below the stomach)”.
26. In continuation, the DRC considered that the Claimant, until the termination of
the contract, received a monthly remuneration of USD 43,000, and that, according
to the art. 4.2 par. 3.2 contract, only the presence of the “old injury” would have
justified the non-payment of the aforementioned match participation bonus. In
this respect, the members wished to emphasise that it remained undisputed by
the parties that said “old injury” was not present and, as such, the Claimant
received a monthly remuneration of USD 43,000.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
10
27. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the members of the DRC
concluded that the monthly remuneration, which the Claimant was entitled to,
amounted to USD 43,000.
28. With the above in mind, on the basis of the aforementioned monthly
remuneration, the members of the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of
the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the contract as from its
termination and concluded that the Claimant would have been entitled to receive
USD 172,000, had the contract been executed until its expiry date.
29. In continuation the Chamber assessed as to whether the Claimant has signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by
means of which he would have been able to reduce his loss of income. According
to the constant practice of DRC, such remuneration under a new employment
contract(s) shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general
obligation to mitigate his damages.
30. In respect of the above, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant had not signed
any other employment contract after the termination of the one at stake in the
present matter and, therefore, he was not able to mitigate his damages.
31. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the DRC decided that the club must pay the
player the amount of USD 172,000 which is to be considered a reasonable and
justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the matter at hand.
32. Furthermore, as to the reimbursement of the accommodation costs from the
month of January 2018, as requested by the Claimant, the members of the DRC
noted that the relevant clause of the contract (i.e. art. 4.4) only stipulated the
Respondent’s obligation to provide the Claimant with an accommodation during
the term of the contract. Nevertheless, the DRC also took note that the
Respondent acknowledged that the player was entitled to a reimbursement for
the first ten days of January 2018, namely until the termination of the contract, in
the total amount of USD 1,718.61. Consequently, the members of the Chamber
decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive to receive a reimbursement for the
aforementioned costs, in the amount of USD 1,718.61.
33. Equally, as regards the Claimant’s claim pertaining to air tickets, on the basis of
the information provided by FIFA Travel and referring to the relevant terms of the
employment contract, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay to the
Claimant the amount of CHF 3,473, corresponding to the value of a return ticket
as per art. 4.8 of the contract.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
11
34. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant
practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Chamber decided
that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the
aforementioned amounts as of the date on which the claim was lodged, i.e. 25
August 2018, until the date of effective payment.
35. In continuation, as to the Claimant’s request for the payment of an outstanding
match bonus allegedly agreed between the parties, the DRC stressed that, in
accordance with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which any
party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective
burden of proof, it would had been up to the Claimant to demonstrate the
existence of such an agreement for match bonuses. Nevertheless, the Chamber
deemed it appropriate to point out that the request for said match bonus had no
contractual or regulatory basis and no sufficient evidence had been submitted in
order to demonstrate the contrary. Consequently, the members of the Chamber
had no other option than to reject that part of the player’s claim.
36. Furthermore, as to the claim for the reimbursement of the “schooling fees” as per
art. 4.9 of the contract, taking into account the documentation presented by the
Claimant in support of his petition, the DRC noted that the payment of the
relevant amount in accordance with art. 4.9 of the contract was subject to the
submission of payment receipts. Nevertheless, the members of the Chamber noted
that the Claimant did not provide said receipts nor any evidence that he incurred
in the relevant costs. As a consequence thereof, the members of the Chamber had
to reject also this part of the claim.
37. The members of the Chamber concluded their deliberations by rejecting any
further claim of the player.
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, within 30 days as from the
date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the
amount of USD 173,718.61 and CHF 3,473, plus 5% interest p.a. on said amounts
as of 25 August 2018 until the date of effective payment.
3. In the event that the aforementioned amounts plus interest are not paid by the
Respondent within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted,
upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal
decision.
4. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
12
5. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of
the account number to which the remittances are to be made and to notify the
Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received.
*****
Note relating to the 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:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Encl.: CAS directives
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
13