Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 April 2014,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), President
Theo Van Seggelen (Netherlands), member
Takuya Yamakazi (Japan), member
Ivan Gazidis (England), member
Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member
on the claim presented by the player,
Player B, from country P
as Claimant
against the club,
Club C, from country R
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 20 July 2009, Player B, from country P (hereinafter: the Claimant), and Club C,
from country R (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an employment contract
(hereinafter: the contract) valid from the date of signature until 30 June 2010.
2.
According to the contract, “in case that the Club declares and notify the continue
of the contract of the player to himself before the termin 30.12.2009 or before the
termin 30.06.2010 the contract of the player will be extended until 30.06.2013 with
the conditions contained in clause V of this agreement. In other case the contract
expires 30.06.2010.”
3.
The contract established inter alia the remuneration for the period between 20 July
2009 and 30 June 2010 in the amount of EUR 144,000, to be paid in twelve monthly
instalments, each one amounting to EUR 12,000.
4.
The Claimant was also entitled to the following bonuses:
- “A net amount of Euro 1,000 game bonus if gain a victory on own ground and
EUR 2,000 if gain a victory in change of place, depending on played minutes;
- A net amount of Euro 50,000 for first position of Club in Liga 1, for all season
depending on played minutes;
- A net amount of Euro 10,000 in case of win country R Football Cup depending
on played minutes.”
5.
Moreover, according to the contract, the Claimant was entitled to the following
benefits:
- “Accommodation and two meals a day;
- Medical services, medical treatments and medicines, for any accident suffered
during the training and playing period;
- Car and 6 flight tickets go and return country R – country P – country R by
year.”
6.
Finally, article 12.1 of the contract stated the following:
“Unless the Parties shall reach an amicable resolution then any such dispute shall
be submitted to the competent bodies of the country R Football Association and
the Professional Football League.”
7.
On 23 August 2010, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA, claiming
outstanding remuneration and bonuses specified as follows:
- EUR 48,000 concerning four monthly salaries, each one amounting to EUR
12,000, for the months July 2009, April, May and June 2010;
- EUR 1,500 concerning three monthly accommodation expenses, each one
amounting to EUR 500, for the months of April, May and June 2010;
Player B, from country P / Club C, from country R
Page 2 of 14
- EUR 5,000 as bonus because the club won the country R Football;
- EUR 7,352.94 as bonus because the club achieved the first position in the
country R league;
- EUR 1,200 as bonus because the club won the dispute against;
- EUR 4,000 for flight tickets.
Additionally, the Claimant required disciplinary sanctions to be applied to the
Respondent.
8.
According to the Claimant, in the middle of May 2010, as the country R
championship finished, the Respondent gave holidays to the players until 21 June
2010. In this respect, the Claimant alleged that the Respondent promised him to
cancel his outstanding salaries at the latest on 21 June 2010.
9.
In view of the foregoing, the Claimant affirmed that at the end of the holidays, the
Respondent did neither inform him about an extension of the contract nor about a
definitive transfer, considering that he was lent from Club Q, from country K, to
the Respondent. On the contrary, he held having received a phone call from the
Respondent, by means of which it authorized him not having to show for the last
nine remaining days until the expiry of the contract. Anyhow, the Claimant
emphasized that, by that time, the Respondent already failed to fulfil its
obligations stipulated in the contract.
10. The Respondent remitted us its position, by means of which it preliminarily
challenged FIFA’s competence, stating that in country R there is the National
Resolution Chamber of the country R Football Federation as well as the Dispute
Resolution Committee of the country R Professional Football League. Moreover,
the Respondent held that according to article 12.1 of the contract, the parties
agreed that, in case that a dispute could not be solved amicably, the claim should
be lodged in front of the country R Football Federation and country R Professional
Football League tribunals.
11. Upon request, the Respondent provided a copy of the country R Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Football Players (hereinafter: the country R Regulations),
which came into force on 22 June 2009. Additionally, the Respondent enclosed a
notification from the country R Professional Football League, stating that “Starting
with the season 2010/2011 the panels are composed on a parity basis by two
members appointed by the clubs and two members appointed by the country R
Footballers Union (The Association of Amateur and Non Amateur Footballers –
recognised by FifPro).” as well as “Before 2010/2011 season foreign player
participating in the first competitive level in country R could lodge a claim
regarding an employment related dispute before Dispute Resolution Chamber of
the country R Football Federation.”
Player B, from country P / Club C, from country R
Page 3 of 14
12. With regards to the country R Regulations, in particular, art. 25 par. 5 stated the
following “According to the provisions of the country R Football Federation
Statutes, any dispute arising from or in connection with the football activity in
country R, in which clubs and club officials, country R Football Federation / country
R Professional Football League/CFA/BMFA officials, players, players’ agents or
match agents are involved, shall be solved exclusively by the country R Football
Federation competent bodies.”
13. The country R Football Federation Regulations establish the following:
a. With regard to the existing deciding bodies:
Art. 26.1 lit. a) of the country R Football Federation Regulations indicates
that the first instance deciding bodies are the NDRC of the country R
Football Federation, the DRC of the country R Professional Football League
and the Commission for the Players’ Status of the County Football
Association (CFA).
b. With regard to the jurisdiction of the deciding bodies:
According to art. 26.2 lit. a) of the country R Football Federation
Regulations, the NDRC of the country R Football Federation is competent
to decide on disputes concerning “the conclusion, interpretation and
execution of contracts concluded between clubs and players, and
maintaining contractual stability”.
As per art. 26.8 of the country R Football Federation Regulations, the DRC
of the country R Professional Football League is “exclusively” competent to
solve disputes involving “Clubs participating in the 1st League National
Championship, officials, players and their coaches (…) according to the
country R Football Federation and the country R Professional Football
League annual convention”.
c. With regard to the composition of the deciding bodies:
Art. 26.5 of the country R Football Federation Regulations provides that the
NDRC of the country R Football Federation is composed of a chairman and
a vice-chairman “elected by consensus by the players and clubs’
representatives from a list containing the names of at least five people,
drawn by the Executive Committee of the country R Football Federation”,
three players’ representatives nominated by the Association of Amateur
and Non-Amateur Footballers, and three clubs’ representatives nominated
by the Executive Committee of the country R Football Federation.
Art. 26.8 in fine of the country R Football Federation Regulations stipulates
that the DRC of the country R Professional Football League – and its appeal
body – is composed of five members, among which one president and one
vice-president, their names and functions being approved by the Executive
Committee of the R Professional Football League for a one-year mandate.
Player B, from country P / Club C, from country R
Page 4 of 14
d. With regard to the possibility of an appeal:
Art. 26.1 lit. b) of the country R Football Federation Regulations establishes
that the decisions of the NDRC of the country R Football Federation may be
appealed before the “Appeal Committee of the country R Football
Federation” and that the decisions of the DRC of the country R Professional
Football League may be appealed before the “Appeal Commission of the
country R Professional Football League”. Art. 26.1 lit. c) of the country R
Football Federation Regulations provides that the decisions of the
aforementioned appeal bodies may be appealed to the Court of
Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
14. Regarding the substance of the matter, the Respondent rejected the claim for
accommodation amounting to EUR 1,500, for the months of April, May and June
2010, emphasizing that the contract established that the Respondent provides
accommodation at the club’s permanent training camp. However, according to the
Respondent, the Claimant refused to live at the club’s camp and preferred to rent
an apartment on his own, and thus the Respondent is not liable for it. In this
respect, the Respondent also mentioned that the Claimant himself admitted having
left the club in mid-May, after the alleged telephone call, and not having returned.
In this context, the Respondent questioned the reason why it should pay for the
accommodation of May and June if the Claimant was no longer with the club.
Moreover, the Respondent stated that the Claimant did not provide any document
or receipt which proves the payment of the amount of EUR 500 to any third party.
15. Referring to the claimed bonuses, the Respondent argued that according to the
contract said bonuses would be awarded depending on the effective minutes
played by the Claimant. Therefore, the Respondent declared that it would ask the
official extracts from the country R Football Federation, to determine the games
attended and the minutes played by the concerned player.
16. Furthermore, according to the Respondent, the regulations in force at the moment
of the contract were the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players adopted
by the Executive Committee of the country R Football Federation on 22 June 2009.
In this context, the Respondent affirmed that article 25 par. 3 of the
aforementioned regulation stipulates that “The right of the clubs, coaches, players
and of the players’ agents to claim the execution of any obligation resulting from
the contractual provisions concluded with the players, from the transfer
agreements or other conventions concluded between clubs, subsist only if there
passed less than one year from the date they became due.” In this context, the
Respondent asserted that the Claimant is not entitled to claim for the salary of July
2009, since, according to the Respondent, said debt is prescribed since 1 August
2010 and the Claimant lodged his claim only on 23 August 2010.
17. Concerning the requested flight tickets, the Respondent pointed out that the
contract established that it would provide the Claimant with said tickets in case he
Player B, from country P / Club C, from country R
Page 5 of 14
requested them. However, it does not mean that the Respondent must pay for the
tickets acquired by the Claimant himself. The Respondent affirmed that only if the
Claimant would have requested the tickets and the Respondent would not have
provided them, it could have been considered that the Respondent did not observe
and fulfill its obligations. Additionally, the Respondent held that the Claimant did
not enclose any evidence, which demonstrates the acquisition of any flight ticket or
its price.
18. Moreover, the Respondent referred to the financial rights claimed by the Claimant
and alleged that it has to be considered that the Claimant has been sanctioned by
the club’s Managing Board with a sportive penalty of 25% of the contractual rights
for the competition season 2009/2010. In this regard, the Respondent enclosed to
its position the “Decision no. 315” taken by the Professional Football League,
which confirmed the above-mentioned sanction imposed to the Claimant. In this
regard, the Respondent declared that it will proceed as soon as possible with the
calculation of the contractual rights due to the Claimant for the competition year
2009/2010 in order to deduct.
19. Finally, the Respondent declared that the Claimant has no right to ask for the
application of disciplinary sanctions to the Respondent for the unilateral
termination of the contract, if at the moment of lodging the claim, i.e. 23 August
2010, the duration of the contract was already terminated, namely on 30 June
2010. Furthermore the Respondent referred to article 18.10 of the Regulation on
the Status and Transfer of Players adopted by the Executive Committee of the
country R Football Federation in May 2010 which stated the following:
“The player and the clubs can invoke the just cause and the just sportive cause for
the unilateral denunciation of the contracts for the following reasons: a) The
players:…- weren’t paid the contractual rights for a period longer than 60 days
from the due date. In the causes regarding the unilateral denunciation of the
contract, from the player’s initiative, for the non-payment of the contractual rights
within 60 days from the due date, if, from the proof administered, it turns out that
the player received at least 75% from the contractual rights due, afferent to the
respective competitional year, the commission will pronounce a decision through
which it will bind the club to the payments of the outstanding amounts, within 5
days from the communication of the decision. In case of lack of payment in the
term of 5 days shown above, the contractual relations between the club and the
player end on the pronunciation date of the decision through which it is
ascertained the non-execution of the payments obligation.”
On account of the above-mentioned article, the Respondent held that at the end of
the contract, the salary for the month of June was not due yet, since it would have
been due only on 1 July 2010 as well as that there had not passed more than 60
days from the due dates of the salaries of May and April 2010, being respectively
due on 1 June 2010 and 1 May 2010.
Player B, from country P / Club C, from country R
Page 6 of 14
20. In his replica, regarding the competence, the Claimant stated that the national
deciding bodies are not independent and highlighted that the information given
by the country R Professional Football League is referred to the season 2010/2011
and not to the season in which the contractual dispute appear (2009/2010).
Therefore, in the season 2009/2010, the above-mentioned Chamber did not seem to
fulfil the requirements imposed by the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players of FIFA. Finally, the Claimant insisted in his claim and arguments previously
submitted.
21. The Respondent maintained his position and stated that the DRC must take into
consideration the sporting penalty of 25% applied by the Respondent as this
sanction was reviewed by the Professional Football League Disciplinary Committee,
which has become irrevocable since the Claimant failed to appeal. Regarding the
amount claimed by the Claimant as bonuses, the Respondent pointed that the
Claimant played 360 minutes in the Championship and therefore, he is entitled to
EUR 5,882. As for the country R Cup, the Respondent stressed that the Claimant
played 270 minutes and therefore he is entitled to EUR 4,737. Consequently, the
Respondent calculated the disciplinary sanction of 25 % based on what he is
entitled to according to the contract, i.e. EUR 154,619 corresponding to salaries and
bonuses, which amounts EUR 38,655. Consequently, the Respondent held that the
Claimant was entitled to a total amount of EUR 103,964 and that it paid a total
amount of EUR 110,764 As a consequence, the Respondent asked to reject the
claim
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter referred to as the DRC or
the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at
stake. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA
on 23 August 2010. Consequently, the 2008 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 2008 and 2012 edition of the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the
Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in
combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (edition 2012), the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall adjudicate on
employment-related disputes between a club and a player that have an
international dimension.
3.
As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber would, in principle, be
competent to decide on the present litigation involving a country P player and a
Player B, from country P / Club C, from country R
Page 7 of 14
country R club regarding an alleged breach of the employment contract
concluded between the aforementioned parties.
4.
However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent contested the
competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of clause 12.1 of the contract,
which, according to the Respondent, in case that a dispute could not be solved
amicably, the claim should be lodged in front of the competent bodies of the
country R Football Federation and the Professional Football League therefore, this
clause would clearly exclude the competence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
to adjudicate on the present matter.
5.
The Chamber equally noted that the Claimant rejected such position and insisted
on the fact that FIFA had jurisdiction to deal with the present matter, because the
deciding bodies of the country R Football Federation and the Professional
Football League are not independent tribunal as well as that, for the season
2009/2010, the deciding body of the Professional Football League did not seem to
fulfil the requirements imposed by the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players.
6.
Taking into account all the above, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance
with art. 22 lit. b) of the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players, 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, which came into force
on 1 January 2008.
7.
In relation to the above, the Chamber also deemed it vital to outline that one of
the basic conditions that needs to be met in order to establish that another organ
than the DRC can settle an employment-related dispute between a club and a
player of an international dimension, is that the jurisdiction of the relevant
arbitration tribunal derives from a clear reference in the employment contract.
8.
Therefore, while analysing whether it was competent to hear the present matter,
the Dispute Resolution Chamber considered that it should, first and foremost,
analyse whether the employment contract at the basis of the present dispute
actually contained a clear jurisdiction clause.
9.
Having said this, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to clause
12.1 of the employment contract, on the basis of which the Respondent contested
Player B, from country P / Club C, from country R
Page 8 of 14
FIFA’s jurisdiction. Said article stipulates that “Unless the parties shall reach an
amicably resolution then any such dispute shall be submitted to the competent
bodies of the country R Football Association and the Professional Football
League”.
10.
In view of the aforementioned clause, the members of the DRC were of the
opinion that clause 12.1 of the employment contract does not make clear
reference to one specific national dispute resolution chamber in the sense of art.
22 lit. b) of the aforementioned Regulations. Therefore, the members of the
Chamber deem that said clause can by no means be considered as a clear
arbitration clause in favour either of the national deciding bodies, i.e. of the
country R Football Federation or the Professional Football League, and, therefore,
cannot be applicable. In this regard, the Chamber pointed out that this lack of
clarity is also reflected in the Respondent’s argumentation since it refers to the
alleged competence of the deciding bodies of both the country R Football
Federation and Professional Football League, without further precision.
11.
Having established that the first criteria for the recognition of the competence of
a national decision-making body is not fulfilled in the present matter, the
Chamber deemed unnecessary to examine any further points which would need
to be assessed before concluding to the competence of a national deciding body.
12.
In view of the above, the Chamber established that the Respondent’s objection to
the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter had to be rejected and
that the DRC is competent, on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players, to consider the present matter as to the substance.
13.
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 par. 2 of the Regulations (editions 2012, 2010 and 2009),
and considering that the present claim was lodged on 23 August 2010, the 2009
edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the
Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
14.
The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been
established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber started
by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation
contained in the file. 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.
15.
First of all, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that, on 20 July 2009 the
parties entered into an employment contract in accordance with which the
Respondent would pay the Claimant EUR 144,000 net for the period between 20
July 2009 and 30 June 2010, to be paid in twelve instalments, each one amounting
Player B, from country P / Club C, from country R
Page 9 of 14
to EUR 12,000. Moreover, the Claimant was also entitled to the following bonuses
and benefits:
- “A net amount of Euro 1,000 game bonus if gain a victory on own ground and
EUR 2,000 if gain a victory in change of place, depending on played minutes;
- A net amount of Euro 50,000 for first position of Club in Liga 1, for all season
depending on played minutes;
- A net amount of Euro 10,000 in case of win country R Football Cup depending
on played minutes.”
- “Accommodation and two meals a day;
- Medical services, medical treatments and medicines, for any accident suffered
during the training and playing period;
- Car and 6 flight tickets go and return country R – country P – country R by
year.”
The DRC further observed that on 23 August 2010, the Claimant lodged a claim
against the Respondent requesting, inter alia, (i) EUR 48,000 concerning four
monthly salaries each one amounting EUR 12,000 for the months of July 2009,
April, May and June 2010; (ii) EUR 1,500 concerning three monthly
accommodation expenses, each one amounting EUR 500 for the months of April,
May and June 2010; (iii) EUR 5,000 as bonus for winning the country R Football
Cup; (iv) EUR 7,352.94 as bonus because the Respondent achieved the first
position in the country R league; (v) EUR 1,200 as bonus because the Respondent
won the dispute again Cheabul, and (vi) EUR 4,000 for flight tickets.
16.
Likewise, the members of the Chamber noted that according to the Claimant,
when the country R Championship finished, the Respondent promised him to
cancel his outstanding salaries at the latest on 21 June 2010, however after the
expiry of the contract the Respondent failed to fulfil its obligations.
17.
On the other hand, the DRC noted that the Respondent rejects the claim of the
Claimant.
18.
First and foremost, the members of the DRC considered that the claim concerns
outstanding remuneration only. Therefore, the DRC proceeded to analyze the
different amounts requested.
19.
The DRC considered the request for outstanding monthly salaries in the aggregate
amount of EUR 48,000, regarding the months of July 2009, April, May and June
2010. In this respect, the DRC took into account the financial conditions
established in the contract as well as the amount claimed by the Claimant.
20.
First, the DRC took into account the argument of the Respondent that the claim for
unpaid salary for July 2009 would be time-barred and could not be admitted. In
this respect, the members of the DRC referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations
and considered that the claim was lodged on 23 August 2010, clearly within the
Player B, from country P / Club C, from country R
Page 10 of 14
two-year period since the events given rise to the dispute, i.e. the due date of the
monthly salary of July 2009, and therefore the request for the salary of July 2009 is
not time-barred and the claim is admissible.
21.
In continuation, the DRC recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as
stipulated in 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. The application of the said principle in the present matter led the members
of the Dispute Resolution Chamber to conclude that it was up to the Respondent
to prove having paid the relevant amounts.
22.
In this context, the DRC considered that the Respondent did not provide
documentary evidence that the amounts were paid to the Claimant or that it
would have just cause not to pay. Therefore, the members of the DRC concluded
that the amount of EUR 48,000 remained outstanding.
23.
In continuation, the DRC proceeded to analyze the Claimant’s claim pertaining to
the bonuses and considered that the contract established the relevant bonuses.
On the other hand, the Respondent argues that according to the contract said
bonuses would be awarded depending on the effective minutes played by the
player and that the Claimant allegedly played 360 minutes in the Championship,
being entitled to EUR 5,882 only.
24.
In this context, the DRC referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and
understood that the Respondent did not supports its allegations regarding the
minutes played by the Claimant with documentary evidence and therefore, the
decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 13,552
for bonuses as claimed.
25.
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 which established his entitlement to flight tickets, the
Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive the amount of EUR 2,541
for one flight ticket from country R to country P.
26.
Subsequently, the DRC considered the claim for accommodation expenses
amounting to EUR 1,500 for the months of April, May and June 2010. In this
respect, the DRC recalled the general legal principle of the burden of proof (cf.
art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules) and observed that the Claimant had not
presented any documentary evidence regarding his entitlement to the
accommodation expenses. In view of the foregoing, the DRC decided that the
Claimant’s request for accommodation expenses should be rejected.
Player B, from country P / Club C, from country R
Page 11 of 14
27.
Once established that the Claimant is entitled to receive EUR 64,093 as
outstanding remuneration (cf. points 22, 24 and 25), the DRC took note of the
Respondent’s argument that a sanction was imposed to the Claimant by the club´s
Managing Board with a sporting penalty of 25% of the contractual rights for the
season 2009/2010, amount to that should be deducted from his remuneration. The
DRC also took note that the Respondent maintains that this sanction was
reviewed by the Disciplinary Committee of the country R Professional Football
League and has become irrevocable since the Claimant never appealed such
decision. Finally, according to the Respondent, considering the relevant
deductions, the Claimant would be entitled to receive an amount of EUR 103,964
and allegedly already received EUR 110,764, reason why all claims should be
rejected.
28.
In this respect, the DRC highlighted that the sanctions imposed cannot be
accepted, since the relevant decision was adopted after the expiry of the contract,
i.e. 9 August 2010. Moreover, and irrespective of the foregoing consideration, the
Chamber wished to point out that the imposition of a fine, or any other available
financial sanction in general, shall not be used by clubs as a means to set off
outstanding financial obligations towards players.
29.
As a consequence, the members of the Chamber agreed that the Respondent’s
debt towards the Claimant on the basis of the employment contract cannot be
compensated with the aforementioned fine. As a result, the Chamber rejected the
respective argument of the Respondent.
30.
In view of the above, the members of the DRC concluded that the Respondent had
failed to pay to the Claimant the amounts as agreed upon the contract. As a
consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt
servanda, the Respondent must fulfil its obligations as per the contract concluded
with the Claimant and, consequently, is to be held liable to pay the outstanding
amount of EUR 64,093 to the Claimant.
31.
Moreover, the DRC considered the Claimant´s request for the imposition of
sporting sanctions on the Respondent and pointed out that sporting sanctions will
only be imposed in cases regarding the early termination of a contract, i.e. in
cases involving art. 17 of the Regulations. Therefore, the Chamber rejected the
Claimant’s request for sporting sanctions.
32.
Finally, the DRC concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing
that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
******
Player B, from country P / Club C, from country R
Page 12 of 14
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Player B, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of EUR 64,093,
within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision.
4.
In the event that the abovementioned amount is not paid by the Respondent within
the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the
aforementioned time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request,
to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.
5.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
6.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent 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.
*****
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to art. 67 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against
before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent
to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall
contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS,
a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the
time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the
facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the
directives).
The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:
Court of Arbitration for Sport
Player B, from country P / Club C, from country R
Page 13 of 14
Avenue de Beaumont 2
1012 Lausanne
Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00 / Fax: +41 21 613 50 01
e-mail: [email protected]
www.tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Markus Kattner
Deputy Secretary General
Encl. CAS directives
Player B, from country P / Club C, from country R
Page 14 of 14