Solidarity Contribution
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 24 April 2015,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member
Todd Durbin (USA), member
on the claim presented by the club
Club A, from country B
against the club
Club C, from country B
and the club
Club D, from country E
as Intervening party
regarding a solidarity contribution dispute related to the
the international transfer of the Player F
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to the player passport issued by the Football Federation from
country B, the player, Player F (hereinafter: the player), born on 15 February
1993, was registered with the club from country B, Club A (hereinafter: Club
A), as from 9 July 2004 until 30 June 2008 as an amateur and from 1 July 2008
until 2 August 2012 as a professional.
2.
The football seasons in country B during the period of time the player was
registered with Club A started on 1 July and ended on 30 June of the following
year.
3.
The Football Federation from country B confirmed that the player was
registered with its affiliated club, Club C, on 2 September 2013 as a
professional.
4.
According to Club A, Club C paid the amount of EUR 20,000,000 to the club
from country E, Club D, for the definitive transfer of the federative rights of
the player.
5.
On 30 September 2014, Club A contacted FIFA claiming its proportion of the
solidarity contribution in connection with the transfer of the player concerned
from Club D to Club C. In particular, Club A requested 3,033% of the transfer
compensation, equivalent to EUR 606,600 plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as
of 30 September 2013.
6.
In support of its claim, Club A explained that Club D and the player, in
accordance with the specific decree from country E (hereinafter: decree), had
included an indemnification clause in the employment contract, which
stipulated that in case of a unilateral termination of the employment contract
by the player, the latter had to pay the amount of EUR 20,000,000 to Club D.
7.
In this context, Club A stated that Club D and Club C, following negotiations
regarding the transfer of the player from Club D to Club C, eventually reached
an agreement in this regard, which is why, subsequently, the player
terminated the employment contract unilaterally and Club C allegedly directly
paid the amount of EUR 20,000,000 to Club D, in order to transfer the player’s
federative rights.
8.
Club A argued that the aforementioned circumstances shall be considered an
international transfer of a professional player, and, in this regard, referred to
Solidarity Contribution for the Player F
(Club A, from country B / Club C, from country B / Club D, from country E)
2/14
the jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (hereinafter: CAS) and
stressed that a transfer typically requires four elements, namely (1) the consent
of the club of origin to the early termination of its contract with the player, (2)
the willingness and consent of the club of destiny to acquire the player’s
rights, (3) the consent of the player to move from one club to the other and (4)
the price or the value of the transaction.
9.
In this regard, Club A stated that (1) Club D gave its consent to transfer the
player against payment of EUR 20,000,000 in advance, i.e. as an anticipated
offer to a future transfer of the player, by putting such indemnification clause
in the contract. Moreover, Club A argued that (2) Club C agreed to the terms
of such anticipated offer by paying the amount of EUR 20,000,000 to Club D
via the Country E League and by subsequently offering an employment
contract to the player. Even though the buy-out or indemnification clause was
put into the employment contract between Club D and the player because of
the decree, Club A argued that (3) Club D and the player were absolutely free
as regards the actual amount of indemnification to be put in the employment
contract. Lastly, Club A stated that also (4) the player gave his consent to the
transfer, given that he signed an employment contract with Club C.
10.
Consequently, Club A argued that the move of the player from Club D to Club
C should be considered as a transfer, hence triggering Club C’s obligation to
pay solidarity contribution to the training clubs of the player.
11.
Moreover, Club A referred to art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the FIFA Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations), which stipulates
that if “a professional moves during the course of a contract, 5% of any
compensation [….] shall be deducted […].” In this context and based on the
wording of the aforementioned article, Club A stressed that art. 21 of the
Regulations is not only limited to transfers in a narrow sense.
12.
In its reply to Club A’ claim, Club C emphasized that the decisive question in
this regard is the nature of the “consent rendered in advance” that was given
by Club D when the decree clause was included in the player’s employment
contract with Club D and whether in absence of such consent on the part of
Club D, a transfer arises which would require the payment of solidarity
contribution to Club A.
13.
In this regard, Club C argued that the consent to a future transfer as it is
manifested in a buy-out clause is different to the one given in an
Solidarity Contribution for the Player F
(Club A, from country B / Club C, from country B / Club D, from country E)
3/14
indemnification clause, as in the latter case it was included by obligation under
the decree.
14.
As to the argument of Club A that the consent of Club D to a future move of
the player is irrelevant for the assessment if such move should be considered as
a transfer in the sense of the Regulations, Club C also referred to the
jurisprudence of CAS and referred to the circumstances of a similar dispute in
connection with the decree which was decided by CAS, and which was inter
alia based on the conclusion that “the player’s release from the Employment
Agreement was not effected by [the former club of the player] but by
operation law, [the former club of the player] did not consent to the early
termination of the Employment Agreement: It was obliged to “tolerate” it, as
imposed by the law. [The former club of the player] actually, stipulated in the
Indemnification Clause the amount to be paid by the Player in the event of
exercise of the statutory right of termination. But the claim for such payment
would have existed irrespective of the Indemnification Clause, and cannot be
regarded to refer to a consideration for the grant of a (termination) right to
the Player”.
15.
Moreover, Club C, again by referring to the relevant CAS award, stressed that
in said decision no consent of the club of origin arose as a result of the
particular nature of the decree and that this had adverse consequences for a
claim filed by Club A against Club D. Therefore, Club C concluded that,
contrary to what Club A alleged, it is far from being established that the
absence of consent from Club D with respect to the termination of the player’s
employment agreement would enable Club A to rely on a right for solidarity
contribution, especially in view of the fact that there is no clear jurisprudence
in this regard.
16.
Finally, Club C argued that if it should be ordered to pay solidarity
contribution to Club A on top of the amount it directly paid to Club D for the
buyout of the player, the latter club should be asked to join the present
proceedings since it might be legally feasible that Club D is obliged to
reimburse the relevant amount of solidarity contribution to Club C, as it has
been established by the DRC in its jurisprudence regarding similar cases in
which 100% of the transfer compensation was paid to the former club of the
player.
17.
Club D, in its comments to the positions of Club A and Club C, argued that
according to the law in country E as well as to the employment contract
between the player and Club D, the player had the right to early terminate his
Solidarity Contribution for the Player F
(Club A, from country B / Club C, from country B / Club D, from country E)
4/14
employment relationship without just cause by paying an amount for the
“legal and definitive termination of the employment contract as well as the
damages suffered by Club D”.
18.
In this context, Club D held that, on 28 August 2013, it was notified of the
intention of the player to leave the club. Subsequently, on 29 August 2013, a
legal representative of Club C appeared together with the player at the office
of the Country E League and deposited a check in the amount of EUR
20,000,000 in favour of Club D. In this respect, the player declared that with
the payment of the buyout clause, all his economic obligations towards Club D
are fulfilled and Club D is, as a result, compensated for the damages suffered
due to the early termination of the employment relationship. Besides, Club C
declared that it was interested in the services of the player and that for that
reason, it was willing to pay the buyout clause for the player to compensate
the damages suffered by Club D.
19.
As a result, Club D stated that the amount of EUR 20,000,000 it received should
be considered a net amount destined to compensate its damages and that any
solidarity contribution should be paid by Club C on top of the buyout clause.
20.
In this respect, Club D pointed that, upon the payment of the buy-out amount,
the player was a free agent and, in particular, that it neither negotiated with
Club C in order to transfer the player nor gave consent to the transfer of the
player. Consequently, Club D referred to the CAS jurisprudence in similar cases
and in particular to the aforementioned CAS award and concluded that it is a
third party and, hence, solidarity contribution cannot impact its economic
rights.
21.
In its reply to the comments of Club D, Club C argued that it was always in
good faith during the present proceedings. In this regard, Club C stated that
despite the level of legal uncertainty in connection with movement of players
following the termination of player contracts in application of the decree, it
offered to pay solidarity contribution to Club A in case Club D would have
agreed to reimburse the relevant amount. However, after it asked Club D to
either pay solidarity contribution to Club A or to reimburse Club C, the club
from country E refused to make any payments in connection with the relevant
move of the player.
22.
Furthermore, Club C held that in accordance with the FIFA Regulations in
conjunction with the relevant commentary to it, moves of players under the
decree can be expressly interpreted as buy-out clauses. Therefore, Club D, by
Solidarity Contribution for the Player F
(Club A, from country B / Club C, from country B / Club D, from country E)
5/14
providing for such a clause stipulating the amount of EUR 20,000,000,
demonstrates that it could be interpreted as having provided consent in
advance to the unilateral termination of the player. In particular, Club C
pointed to the fact that Club D not only chose to include an agreed amount in
the event of a unilateral termination on this basis, but also to expressly state
that it viewed the amount of EUR 20,000,000 as being the relevant amount in
the event of a termination expressly connected to the FIFA Regulations. Based
on the above, Club C stressed that this renders it impossible to accept Club D’s
assertion that it never gave advance consent for the termination of the
employment contract between it and the player.
23.
Moreover, as to Club D’s assertion that the amount of EUR 20,000,000 was a
net amount, Club C stressed that such consideration was neither ever
negotiated nor stipulated in any agreement between the parties. Therefore,
this allegation should be deemed non sustainable.
24.
Likewise, Club C pointed to the aforementioned CAS award and emphasized
that said award did not relate to the issue of solidarity contribution as in the
present dispute, but to a sell-on-fee, which is why its conclusions cannot be
directly applied to the present dispute.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as
DRC or Chamber) analysed which Procedural Rules were applicable to the
matter at hand. In this respect, it referred to art. 21 of the Rules Governing the
Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution
Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) as well as to the fact that the
present matter was submitted to FIFA on 30 September 2014. Therefore, the
DRC concluded that the 2014 edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to
the matter at hand.
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. (d) 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 the distribution of solidarity
contribution between clubs belonging to different associations.
3.
In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that contrary to the
information contained in FIFA’s letter dated 20 April 2015 by means of which
Solidarity Contribution for the Player F
(Club A, from country B / Club C, from country B / Club D, from country E)
6/14
the parties were informed of the composition of the Chamber, the member
Philippe Diallo and the member Leonardo Grosso refrained from participating
in the deliberations in the case at hand, due to the fact that the member
Philippe Diallo has the same nationality as Club A as well as Club C and that, in
order to comply with the prerequisite of equal representation of club and
player representatives, also the member Leonardo Grosso refrained from
participating and thus the Dispute Resolution Chamber adjudicated the case in
presence of three members in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 of the
Regulations.
4.
Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with
his new club on 2 September 2013, 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
on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2012, 2014 and 2015), the 2012
version of the said Regulations is applicable to the present matter as to the
substance.
5.
The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been
established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. The
members of the Chamber started by acknowledging the facts of the case as
well as the documentation on file. However, the Chamber emphasized 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.
In this regard, the DRC started by acknowledging that Club A is requesting
solidarity contribution in the amount of EUR 606,600 based on the amount of
EUR 20,000,000 paid by Club C to Club D in connection with the move of the
player from Club D to Club C.
7.
In continuation, the DRC took note that, on the one hand, the player and Club
D signed an employment contract valid until which, inter alia, based on the
decree from country E, stipulated the right of the player to terminate his
employment contract against the payment of EUR 20,000,000.
8.
The Chamber also observed that it had been established that on 28 August 2013,
the player informed Club D of his intention to unilaterally terminate the
employment contract. Furthermore, the Chamber took note of the fact that on 29
August 2013, a legal representative of Club C appeared together with the player
Solidarity Contribution for the Player F
(Club A, from country B / Club C, from country B / Club D, from country E)
7/14
at the office of the Country E League and deposited a check in the amount of EUR
20,000,000 in favour of Club D.
9.
Thus, in view of the above, the DRC concluded that it had been established
and was not contested by the parties that the employment contract between
the player and Club D had terminated at the above mentioned date, i.e. on 29
August 2013, as a result of the payment of the sum of EUR 20,000,000 to Club
D.
10.
The DRC further noted that the parties did not dispute that the player in
question signed an employment contract with Club C subsequently and was
registered with the latter club on 2 September 2013.
11.
In a next step, the Chamber took note of the argument of Club A that the
move of the player from Club D to Club C should be considered as a transfer,
taking into account that, by inserting the aforementioned early termination
clause, Club D gave its consent to transfer the player against the payment of
EUR 20,000,000 in advance, as an anticipated offer to a future move of the
player. Moreover, Club A stressed that Club C agreed to the terms of such
anticipated offer by paying the amount of EUR 20,000,000 to Club D and by
subsequently offering an employment contract to the player. Finally, the DRC
took note that Club A argued that Club D and the player freely agreed upon
the indemnification amount and that the player also gave his consent to the
transfer to Club C.
12.
Moreover, the DRC took note that Club A also argued that art. 1 of Annexe 5
of the Regulations stipulates that if “a professional moves during the course of
a contract, 5% of any compensation […]” from which it can be concluded that
the payment of solidarity contribution would not be limited to transfers in a
narrow sense but to any move.
13.
Subsequently, the DRC continued by taking note of the arguments of Club C
and in particular of the fact that the latter club argued that contrary to the
situation in case of a classic buy-out clause, the alleged consent of Club D to a
future move of the player was included in the relevant employment contract
by obligation under the decree, which is why Club D was merely obliged to
tolerate an early termination of the employment contract by the player.
Consequently, in view of the absence of the consent of Club D to a future
move of the player, Club C argued that the move of the player should not be
considered a transfer.
Solidarity Contribution for the Player F
(Club A, from country B / Club C, from country B / Club D, from country E)
8/14
14.
Likewise, the DRC took note that Club C further stressed that in case the DRC
would consider the move of the player a transfer having the consequence that
it was liable to pay solidarity contribution to Club A, Club D should be asked to
join the present proceedings since it would then be required to reimburse the
relevant amount of solidarity contribution to Club C since the latter club did
not have the opportunity to deduct the 5% from the “transfer compensation”
as it is the case in a regular transfer of a player.
15.
On the other hand, the Chamber acknowledged the arguments of Club D,
according to which the amount of EUR 20,000,000 it received from Club C
should be considered a net amount to compensate for the damages it suffered
due to the early termination of the employment contract by the player.
Therefore, Club C should be obliged to pay solidarity contribution on top of
the net amount of EUR 20,000,000.
16.
In this regard, the DRC took note that Club C had argued that Club D’s
consideration that the amount of EUR 20,000,000 was a net amount was
neither negotiated nor stipulated in any agreement between the parties.
17.
Consequently, and in view of the opposing views of the parties, the Chamber
deemed that it had to decide on the following two questions at the centre of
the dispute:
- Was the payment of the amount of EUR 20,000,000 in the above
circumstances equivalent to the payment of transfer compensation which
would thus trigger Club C’s obligation to pay solidarity contribution to Club
A?
- In case that Club C has to pay solidarity contribution to Club A, does Club D
have the obligation to reimburse the relevant amount to Club C?
18.
Thus, the Chamber firstly analysed the relevant indemnification clause of the
employment contract between the player and Club D. In this regard, the
deciding authority underlined that this release clause, the content of which
had been approved by the above two parties, should not be interpreted
literally, i.e. by adhering only to the letter of the clause in question, but in
accordance with the theory of the parties’ recognisable intent, i.e. by
ascertaining the meaning that the parties could reasonably have wished to
give to the contractual clause in question. The Chamber highlighted the fact
that according to this interpretation, it appears likely, according to the
principle of good faith and in view of the considerable sum of EUR 20,000,000
Solidarity Contribution for the Player F
(Club A, from country B / Club C, from country B / Club D, from country E)
9/14
set forth in the clause in question, that Club D and the player were providing
for the possibility of a third club indirectly intervening in the payment of the
release clause on a subsidiary basis with a view to contracting the services of
the player in question.
19.
The Chamber then recalled that it is not disputed by any of the parties that
Club C deposited the amount in question, EUR 20,000,000, in favour of Club D,
so that the player could terminate the employment contract signed with Club
D.
20.
In this regard, the DRC compared the content of the relevant indemnification
clause of the employment contract signed between the player and Club D as
well as the facts of this case, to a transfer agreement signed by two clubs for
the transfer of a player. The Chamber underlined that a typical transfer
agreement signed by two clubs and a player generally stipulates a sum of
money freely agreed between the player’s former and new club in exchange
for the early termination of the contractual relationship between the player
and his former club, which is thus tantamount to the early termination of the
employment contract in question by means of the payment of a sum
commonly described as the “transfer amount”. Furthermore, the Chamber
underlined that the professional services that a player renders to a club is a
factor that is liable to be assessed by the employer from a financial standpoint.
Consequently, when a club shows an interest in the professional services of a
player who has a valid employment contract with another club, the interested
club must reach an agreement with the old club with regard to the value of
this transfer, with a view to compensating the old club for agreeing to
dispense with the professional services of the player in question before the
expiry of the employment contract.
21.
In view of the above paragraph, the Chamber deemed that the two situations,
i.e. the concrete one at hand in the present procedure concerning the payment
of EUR 20,000,000 by Club C in accordance with the clause in the employment
contract signed between the player and Club D and the payment of a sum by
one club to another in connection with a typical transfer agreement, are
similar and have the same characteristics, in that they both constitute a
transfer agreed between two clubs and a player for a specific amount for the
early termination of a former labour relationship, except for the fact that in
this dispute, at first the value of the transfer was agreed bilaterally, i.e.
without the intervention of Club C. Yet, the latter gave its agreement to the
move of the player, thus to his transfer, at a later stage, namely when it
Solidarity Contribution for the Player F
(Club A, from country B / Club C, from country B / Club D, from country E)
10/14
agreed to sign the player and to pay the amount in accordance with the
pertinent clause of the employment contract and the decree.
22.
With regard to the similarities in the above two situations, the DRC
highlighted that in both cases a sum was paid to the player's former club to
enable him to terminate the employment contract before the contractually
stipulated expiry date, with a view to being transferred to a new club. The DRC
further stressed that the only difference resided in the fact that in the present
case, the “transfer amount” was set bilaterally and Club C was not consulted at
first, although it nevertheless subsequently freely accepted it and paid the
relevant amount, EUR 20,000,000, to the player so that he could forward it to
Club D. The Chamber thus concluded that the facts of the present case
constitute a transfer agreed to by Club D, in the terms it had offered at the
time of concluding the employment contract with the player.
23.
Consequently, and in view of the above paragraphs, and bearing in mind the
established jurisprudence of the DRC in this regard, the Chamber decided that
in the present case, the activation of the relevant contractual clause by the
player, bearing in mind that the sum in question, EUR 20,000,000, was
voluntarily borne by Club C, has to be considered a transfer in the sense of the
Regulations and in particular with regard to art. 21 and art. 1 of Annexe 5 of
the Regulations which clearly stipulates that “if a professional moves during
the course of a contract, 5% of any compensation, not including training
compensation paid to his former club, shall be deducted from the total
amount of this compensation (…) “ (emphasis added). This is also in line with
the spirit and the ratio of the Regulations which basically provide that training
clubs are entitled to a share of the solidarity contribution for any
compensation paid by the new club to the former club. Therefore, the
Chamber concluded that Club C has to pay solidarity contribution to Club A.
24.
In this regard, having confirmed the above-mentioned obligation incumbent on
Club C, the DRC went on to establish the proper calculation of the relevant
proportion of solidarity contribution due to Club A.
25.
To that end, the DRC referred to art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the Regulations which
provides the figures for the distribution of the solidarity contribution, according
to the period of time the player was effectively trained by a specific club and
taking into consideration the age of the player at the time he was being training
and educated by the club(s) concerned.
Solidarity Contribution for the Player F
(Club A, from country B / Club C, from country B / Club D, from country E)
11/14
26.
In this respect, the DRC recalled that the Football Federation from country B had
confirmed that the player, born on 15 February 1993, was registered with Club A
as from 9 July 2004 until 2 August 2012 and that the player was registered with
Club C on 2 September 2013 as a professional as well as that the relevant
compensation amounts to EUR 20,000,000.
27.
On account of the above and in accordance with art. 1 of Annexe 5 of the
Regulations, the Chamber considered that Club A is, thus, entitled to receive
solidarity contribution for the period as from 9 July 2004 until 2 August 2012.
28.
In view of all of the above, taking into account the EUR 20,000,000 as
compensation paid by Club C to Club D, as well as taking into account the claimed
amount by Club A, the DRC decided that Club C must pay to Club A the amount of
EUR 606,000 plus default interest at a rate of 5% p.a. on said amount as of 3
October 2013 until the date of effective payment.
29.
In continuation, the DRC recalled that Club C requested to be reimbursed by Club
D for that amount. In this regard, the DRC first referred to the general rule that
the player’s new club has to remit the relevant proportion(s) of the 5%
solidarity contribution to the club(s) involved in the player’s training and
education in strict application of art. 1 and art. 2 of Annexe 5 of the
Regulations whereas, at the same time, according to said well-established
jurisprudence, the player’s former club is ordered to reimburse the same
proportion(s) of the 5% of the compensation that it received from the player’s
new club. However, in view of the particularities of the specific case and the
characteristics of buy-outs in connection with the decree and the
indemnification clause included in the employment contract between the
player and Club D, the Chamber held that no reimbursement can take place.
The indemnification clause amounted to EUR 20,000,000 and cannot be
reduced by the Chamber by now ordering Club D to return a part of the paid
amount to Club C. Consequently, Club C’s request for reimbursement has to be
rejected.
30.
Lastly, the DRC referred to art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to
which, in proceedings before the DRC, including the DRC relating to disputes
regarding training compensation and the solidarity mechanism, costs in the
maximum amount of CHF 25’000 are levied. The relevant provision further
states that the costs are to be borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of
success in the proceedings (cf. art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules).
31.
According to Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings
are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute. On that basis, the DRC
Solidarity Contribution for the Player F
(Club A, from country B / Club C, from country B / Club D, from country E)
12/14
held that the maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to
CHF 25,000 (cf. table in Annexe A).
32.
In respect of the above, and taking into account that the claim of Club A has
been almost completely accepted, the DRC concluded that Club C has to bear
the costs of the current proceedings in front of FIFA.
33.
Considering the above, the DRC determined the costs of the current proceedings
to the amount of CHF 15,000 which shall be borne by Club C.
*****
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of Club A is partially accepted.
2.
Club C has to pay to Club A, within 30 days as from the date of notification
of this decision, the amount of EUR 606,600 plus interest at a rate of 5% p.a.
on said amount as from 3 October 2013 until the date of effective payment.
3.
In the event that the aforementioned amount plus interest is not paid by Club
C within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon
request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal
decision.
4.
Any further claim lodged by Club A is rejected.
5.
The final costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 15,000 are to be paid
by Club C, within 30 days of notification of the present decision, as follows:
a)
The amount of CHF 5,000 to Club A.
b)
The amount of CHF 10,000 to FIFA to the following bank account with
reference to case no.:
UBS Zurich
Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH 27 0023 0230 3666 7701U
Solidarity Contribution for the Player F
(Club A, from country B / Club C, from country B / Club D, from country E)
13/14
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
6.
Club A is directed to inform Club C immediately and directly of the account
number to which the remittances under points 2. and 5.a) are to be made and
to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received.
7.
The claim of Club C for reimbursement of solidarity contribution is rejected.
*****
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:
Jérôme Valcke
Secretary General
Solidarity Contribution for the Player F
(Club A, from country B / Club C, from country B / Club D, from country E)
14/14
Encl. CAS directives
Solidarity Contribution for the Player F
(Club A, from country B / Club C, from country B / Club D, from country E)
15/14