Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 10 April 2015,
in the following composition:
Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman
John Bramhall (England), member
Jon Newman (USA), member
Taku Nomiya (Japan), member
Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member
on the matter involving the player,
Player A, country B,
as Claimant / Counter-Respondent
and the club,
Club C, country D,
as Respondent / Counter-Claimant
and the club,
Club E, country F
as Intervening party
regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties
I.
Facts
1.
On 1 July 2013, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent), and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter:
the contract) valid as of the date of signature until 30 June 2015.
2.
The contract specifies inter alia that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is entitled
to the following fixed remuneration:
USD 32,000 as sign-on fee;
USD 192,000 due on 15 July 2013;
USD 62,500 as monthly salary.
3.
Pursuant to article 5 of the contract, “the first party [the Respondent / CounterClaimant] shall pay for the second party [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent]
amount of (100.000 only one thousand) as housing allowance (FOR EACH SEASON)”.
4.
Article 6 stipulates that “the first party [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant] shall
provide the second party [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] a suitable means of
transport (another country makes 7 seats) to be handled to the second party [the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent] by official receipt from the first party [the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant] and the car will be under his custody till the expiry
or termination of this contract. The second party [the Claimant / CounterRespondent] shall solely bear the payment of all the fines and damages on the car”.
5.
Article 7 of the contract provides that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall
“provide air tickets to travel business class to the second party [the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent] and his wife and three of his Daughters when attending to
start work contract (Country B-Country D-Country B)”.
6.
As per article 8 of the contract, “the first party [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant]
shall provide the second party [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] with the
suitable environment and training. The first party [the Respondent / CounterClaimant] shall provide the second party [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] with
trainers and the technical and administrative bodies that assist the player on
training and developing his technical and physical skills”.
7.
On 16 October 2013, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated the contract
with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in writing.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
2/13
8.
On 17 October 2013, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent lodged a complaint before
FIFA against the Respondent / Counter-Claimant for breach of contract, requesting
the payment of the following amounts:
USD 125,000 as unpaid salaries for August and September 2013, plus 5% interest
p.a. as of the date of claim.
“USD 1,262,500” as compensation corresponding to the residual value of the
contract, plus 5% interest p.a. as of the date of claim, corresponding to:
- USD 562,500 as salary from October 2013 to June 2014;
- USD 750,000 as salary from July 2014 to June 2015.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent also requests the imposition of sporting
sanctions on the Respondent / Counter-Claimant.
9.
Prior thereto, by means of a correspondence dated 7 October 2013, sent by fax on
the same date, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent put the Respondent / CounterClaimant in default, claiming the following:
- the payment of the relevant outstanding amount by no later than 10 October
2013;
- to be provided with a car as stipulated in article 6 of the contract within the
above-mentioned deadline;
- to immediately allow him to return to the sporting activities with the professional
team.
10.
According to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the Respondent / CounterClaimant prevented him from participating in the professional team’s sporting
activities without any valid reason and in breach of article 8 of the contract. In
particular, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent alleges that he was excluded from
training with the “A professional team” and was told to train twice a day on his
own and at a different location and time from his teammates. In this regard, the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent provided a document named “Training Program”,
which he allegedly received from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, listing the
training dates with the timetable and the location from 30 September to 7 October
2013. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent further alleges that he was excluded from
taking part in a friendly match of the “A professional team” on 13 October 2013
and was told that he was not part of the team anymore. The Claimant / CounterRespondent provided a document allegedly taken from the official website of the
Pro League Committee listing of country D the name of the players and indicating
that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was “no longer with the club”.
11.
After being requested by correspondence from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
dated 8 October 2013 to provide his bank account details and a driving license from
country D, on the same day, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent sent to the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant the said documentation. However, the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant apparently did not act accordingly.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
3/13
12.
In this context, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent sent a second default notice on
11 October 2013, urging the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to comply with the
relevant requests established in the first default notice by no later than 14 October
2013.
13.
On 14 October 2013, after the Respondent / Counter-Claimant requested once again
on 13 October 2013 the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s bank account details,
especially the SWIFT code and IBAN number, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
sent again the relevant information and gave a final warning to act immediately
according to the relevant requests.
14.
Consequently, considering the apparent absence of reaction from the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent deems having duly
terminated the contract on 16 October 2013.
15.
In its statement of defence, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant solely rejects the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim and alleges that it is the Claimant / CounterRespondent who breached the contract in the first instance. According to the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant, on several occasions, the Claimant / CounterRespondent missed training or refused to take part in training with the first team.
Consequently, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant fined the Claimant / CounterRespondent in accordance with the “Discipline Regulations (Breaches & Penalties) of
Professional Players at Club C” (hereinafter: the club’s internal disciplinary rules).
16.
In this respect, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant provided the following
correspondence along with their alleged postal receipts which are partly illegible:
- correspondence dated 16 September 2013 from the Respondent / CounterClaimant, informing the Claimant / Counter-Respondent of the deduction of 5%
from his salary of September 2013 due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s
alleged absence from training with the first team on 15 September 2013;
- correspondence dated 29 September 2013 from the Respondent / CounterClaimant, informing the Claimant / Counter-Respondent of the deduction of 10%
from his salary of September 2013 due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s
alleged “rejection of collective training with the team”;
- correspondence dated 30 September 2013 from the Respondent / CounterClaimant, informing the Claimant / Counter-Respondent of the deduction of 20%
from his salary of September 2013 due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s
alleged “contravention of instructions and rejection of collective training with the
team”;
- correspondence dated 2 October 2013 from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant,
informing the Claimant / Counter-Respondent of the deduction of 10% from his
salary of October 2013 due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s alleged absence
from training with the first team on 1 October 2013;
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
4/13
- correspondence dated 3 October 2013 from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant,
informing the Claimant / Counter-Respondent of the deduction of 20% from his
salary of October 2013 due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s alleged absence
from training with the first team on 2 October 2013 as well as his alleged
“contravention of instructions and rejection of collective training with the team”.
17.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant also states that the Claimant / CounterRespondent did not put the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in default in good and
due form. In particular, it sustains that it was not given a reasonable deadline. In
this regard, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant points to the first default notice (cf.
point 9 above) which apparently was received by it on 8 October 2013 and
according to which it was granted 3 working days to comply with the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent’s requests; the second default notice (cf. point 12 above)
giving a deadline of 1 working day; and the final warning (cf. point 13 above) which
did not set a deadline, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent urging the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant to act immediately.
18.
Furthermore, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant acknowledges the outstanding
salaries but maintains that the delay of payment was of a few weeks only and thus,
the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s living conditions were not put at risk. The
Respondent / Counter-Claimant refers to its correspondence dated 8 and 13 October
2013 (cf. points 11 and 13 above) in order to evidence its will to pay the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent.
19.
In this context, on 20 November 2013, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant lodged a
counterclaim before FIFA against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent for breach of
contract and termination of the contract without just cause, requesting the
payment of:
- USD 191,333.35, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 16 October 2013;
- legal costs to be borne by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent.
20.
In his replica, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent rejects the Respondent / CounterClaimant’s position and reiterates his entire argumentation in order to prove that
he duly terminated the contract. In particular, in order to demonstrate that the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant failed to provide him with “a decent and proper
training program and supervision” as set forth in article 8 of the contract, the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent points one more time to the “Training Program”
provided which does not mention any trainer or supervisor.
21.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent also refers to the Respondent / CounterClaimant’s request for his bank account details and apparent will to proceed to the
payment subsequently. In this respect, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent sustains
having already provided the Respondent / Counter-Claimant with his bank account
details by the end of July 2013, in anticipation for the deposit of the next month’s
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
5/13
salary. Besides, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent deems that if the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant was really willing to pay the outstanding salaries, the Respondent
/ Counter-Claimant could have sent a bank check as it apparently did on previous
occasions.
22.
Finally, regarding the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim, and especially
the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s allegation relating to his absence from
training, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent acknowledges not attending a training
session on 18 October 2013 due to the absence of car in order to drive to the club,
and in addition states that the postal receipts provided by the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant (cf. point 16 above) are unreadable and should not be taken into
account. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent further emphasises that in any event,
in the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s correspondence dated 8 and 13 October
2013, it does not mention the fines imposed on him due to his alleged absence from
training.
23.
In this context, on 10 November 2014, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent amended
his claim against the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, requesting the following:
USD 125,000 as unpaid salaries for August and September 2013, plus 5% interest
p.a. as of the due date of each payment;
USD 1,312,500 as compensation corresponding to the residual value of the
contract, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 16 October 2013, corresponding to:
- USD 562,500 as salary from October 2013 to June 2014;
- USD 750,000 as salary from July 2014 to June 2015;
country D 100,000 corresponding to the accommodation cost “for the
second season”, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 16 October 2013;
USD 3,000 corresponding to flight tickets “paid by myself [the Claimant / CounterRespondent] for my [his] family“, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 29 June 2013;
Sporting sanctions to be imposed on the Respondent / Counter-Claimant;
Legal costs to be borne by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant.
24.
In its duplica, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant purely reiterates its position and
further adds that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s argumentation lacks
evidence. With regard to the postal receipts (cf. point 16 above), the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant alleges having informed the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s
legal representative of the fact that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was not
collecting correspondence addressed to him.
25.
Upon FIFA’s request, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent confirmed that he
remained unemployed for the season 2013-2014 and subsequently, on 3 July 2014,
he concluded an employment contract with the club from country F, Club E
(hereinafter: Club E), valid as of the date of signature until 30 June 2015. The
contract states that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is entitled to a total fixed
remuneration amounting to EUR 67,500 for the relevant period.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
6/13
26.
As regards Club E, it deems having signed a contract with the Claimant / CounterRespondent in accordance with the Regulations of FIFA and the Football Federation
of country F.
II.
Considerations of the Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Chamber or the DRC)
analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it
took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 17 October 2013.
Consequently, the 2012 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 stake (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural
Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the
Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in
combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (edition 2015), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with
the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between a player from country B, a club from country D
and a club from country F.
3.
Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to
the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art.
26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition
2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 17
October 2013, the 2012 edition of said Regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is
applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
4.
The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established,
the Chamber entered the substance of the present matter. In doing so, it started by
acknowledging the abovementioned facts of the matter 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.
5.
In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant entered into a contractual relationship,
which was to run from 1 July 2013 until 30 June 2015 and according to which the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent was entitled to a sign-on fee in the amount of USD
32,000, a lump-sum payment of USD 192,000 due on 15 July 2013, a monthly salary
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
7/13
of USD 62,500, as well as to be covered his accommodation expenses in the amount
of 100,000 per season. The contract also foresees that the Respondent / CounterClaimant is to provide the Claimant / Counter-Respondent with a car and flight
tickets for him and his family.
6.
In continuation, the Chamber also took note that it is uncontested by both parties
that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated in writing the contractual
relationship on 16 October 2013.
7.
In this regard, the Chamber took due note that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent,
on the one hand, insisted on the fact that his salary for August and September 2013
had not been paid at the time of his departure. Moreover, the DRC observed that
the Claimant / Counter-Respondent deplored his training conditions, insofar as he
was training on his own and was excluded from the first team. On this basis, the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent considers that he had a just cause to terminate the
contract.
8.
The Chamber further took note of the argumentation of the Respondent / CounterClaimant, which argued that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had unilaterally
terminated the contractual relationship without just cause and had thus lodged a
counterclaim, inter alia, for compensation. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant
acknowledged the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s allegations as per the
outstanding salaries, underlying that the delay of payment was of a few weeks only.
Furthermore, the DRC noted that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant sustained that
the Claimant / Counter-Respondent missed training or refused to take part in
training with the first team on several occasions, resulting in the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant fining the Claimant / Counter-Respondent as per its internal
disciplinary rules by means of several correspondence addressed to the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent.
9.
Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed that the underlying
issue in this dispute, considering the claim and counterclaim respectively lodged by
the parties, was to determine whether the employment contract had been
unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by the Claimant / CounterRespondent, and which party was responsible for the early termination of the
contractual relationship in question.
10.
At this point and for the sake of good order, the Chamber recalled the basic
principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules,
according to which a party claiming a right from an alleged fact shall carry the
respective burden of proof.
11.
In this respect, the Chamber observed that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
acknowledged the delay in the payment of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
8/13
salary for August and September 2013 and did not dispute the Claimant / CounterRespondent’s allegations as to his exclusion from training with the first team.
12.
Moreover, the DRC took into account that prior to the termination of the contract,
the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had on several occasions put the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant in default of said breaches. The members of the Chamber further
observed that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant neither disputed the contents of
the relevant default notices as to the outstanding salaries and the exclusion of the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent from the first team, nor gave valid reasons for the
non-payment of said outstanding amounts.
13.
In this regard, the DRC referred to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s argument
pertaining to the fines allegedly imposed on the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
due to his alleged absence from training, which, according to the Chamber, were
not sufficiently substantiated. In particular, the Chamber underlined the absence of
clear and undoubtable evidence as to the effective notification of the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant’s correspondence addressed to the Claimant / CounterRespondent in this respect. Therefore, the DRC decided that the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant’s argument in this respect should not be taken into account.
14.
On account of all the above circumstances, the Chamber established that the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant had no longer been interested in the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent’s services. Such conduct constitutes, in the Chamber’s view, a
clear breach of contract. Accordingly, the Chamber concurred that the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent had just cause to terminate the contract. Consequently, the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the
employment contract with just cause by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and
thus the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim is rejected.
15.
Having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination
of the contract with just cause by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, the DRC
focussed its attention on the consequences of such termination. Taking into
consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the DRC decided that the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent is entitled to receive an amount of money from the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant as compensation for the termination of the contract
with just cause, in addition to any outstanding payments on the basis of the
relevant employment contract.
16.
First of all, in relation to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s financial claim
regarding outstanding remuneration, the DRC decided that the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant is liable to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent the
remuneration that was outstanding at the time of the termination, i.e. 16 October
2013.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
9/13
17.
Consequently, and as mentioned in point II. 11. above, the DRC recalled that the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not dispute the non-payment of the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent’s salary for August and September 2013. Therefore, the
Chamber decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt
servanda, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is liable to pay to the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent the amount of USD 125,000 as outstanding salary for August
and September 2013. Equally, as regards the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim
pertaining to air tickets and on the basis of the information provided by FIFA Travel
and referring to art. 7 of the contract contract, the Chamber decided that the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent the
amount of USD 3,000 as air tickets for the player and his family.
18.
In continuation and with regard to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent's request for
interest, as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this
regard, the DRC decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay to the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent an interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of USD
125,000 as of the due date of each payment until the date of effective payment,
and on the amount of USD 3,000 as of 10 November 2014 until the date of effective
payment.
19.
In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount
of compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the
members of the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1
of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular
and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with
due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and
further objective criteria, including, in particular, the remuneration and other
benefits due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent 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
clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contracts 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 regard, the Chamber established that no such compensation clause was
included in the said employment contracts and financial protocols at the basis of the
matter at stake.
21.
As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent 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
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
10/13
provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into
consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
22.
Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the
monies payable to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent under the terms of the
employment contract as from its date of termination with just cause by the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent until its original date of expiry, i.e. 30 June 2015.
The DRC thus concluded that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent would have
received USD 1,312,500 as salary from October 2013 until 30 June 2015.
23.
Moreover, the DRC reverted to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim for
accommodation expenses for the season 2014-2015 amounting to 100,000. In spite
of the discrepancy in the contract in this respect and considering that the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not dispute such request, the DRC decided that
the Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall pay the relevant amount to the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent.
24.
Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 1,312,500 and the
amount of 100,000 serve as the basis for the final determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.
25.
In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant / CounterRespondent had signed an employment contract with another club during the
relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been enabled to reduce
his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC, such
remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the
calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection
with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s general obligation to mitigate his
damages.
26.
The Chamber recalled that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent signed an
employment contract with Club E valid as from July 2014 until June 2015, in
accordance with which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was to receive a total
fixed remuneration amounting to EUR 67,500 during the said period of time,
corresponding approximately to USD 92,000.
27.
On account of the above, the DRC partially accepted the Claimant / CounterRespondent’s claim and determined that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must
pay the amount of USD 1,220,500 and the amount of 100,000 as compensation for
breach of contract in the case at hand.
28.
In addition, taking into account the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s request as
well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the
Chamber decided that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must pay to the Claimant
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
11/13
/ Counter-Respondent interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of USD 1,220,500 as of 17
October 2013 until the date of effective payment, and on the amount of 100,000 as
of 10 November 2014 until the date of effective payment.
29.
Moreover, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided to reject the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent’s claim pertaining to procedural costs in accordance with art.
18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the Chamber’s respective longstanding
jurisprudence in this regard.
30.
The DRC concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any
further claims lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is partially accepted.
2.
The counter-claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected.
3.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision,
outstanding remuneration in the amount of USD 128,000 plus 5% interest until the
date of effective payment as follows:
a. 5% p.a. as of 1 September 2013 on the amount of USD 62,500;
b. 5% p.a. as of 1 October 2013 on the amount of USD 62,500;
c. 5% p.a. as of 10 November 2014 on the amount of USD 3,000.
4.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision,
compensation for breach of contract in the amount of USD 1,220,500 plus 5%
interest p.a. as of 17 October 2013 until the date of effective payment, as well as in
the amount of 100,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 10 November 2014 until the date
of effective payment.
5.
In the event that the aforementioned amounts plus interest are not paid within the
stated time limits by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a
formal decision.
6.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected.
7.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent / CounterClaimant immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
12/13
are 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
Avenue de Beaumont 2
1012 Lausanne
Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00
Fax: +41 21 613 50 01
e-mail: [email protected]
www.tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Markus Kattner
Acting Secretary General
Encl. CAS directives
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D / Club E, Country F
13/13