Labour Disputes
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
Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member
Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member
Philippe Diallo (France), member
Todd Durbin (USA), member
on the claim presented by the player,
Player A, from country B
as Claimant
against the club,
Club C, from country D
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 23 July 2007, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: the Claimant)
and the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded an
employment contract valid as of 10 January 2008 until 10 December 2011.
2.
On 2 December 2011, the Respondent submitted a letter to the Claimant
(hereinafter: the recognition of debt) stating that “[the Respondent] undertakes
to pay [the Claimant] the amount of USD 200,000 net regarding the (contract)
year of 2009, until February 2012”.
3.
On 26 February 2014, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in
front of FIFA claiming the amount contained in the recognition of debt, i.e. USD
200,000 plus 5% interest p.a. “as from the respective due date, i.e. February
2012…”
4.
In particular, the Claimant explained that the recognition of debt was signed in
view of the failure of the Respondent to pay “part of the bonus for the access to
the First Division (Country D-League) as well as part of the remuneration
regarding season 2009”.
5.
In its reply to the claim, the Respondent argued that “we are surprised at the
sudden inquiry from [the Claimant]” and that “In fact, under the consent of him,
there was delaying the payment of compensation. However, as of the Agreement
(exhibit 1 by country D), he has agreed to complete the payment with us”. In this
respect, the Respondent enclosed an “Agreement” in the language of country D
dated 20 August 2012 (hereinafter: the settlement agreement) signed by both
parties which, according to the translation provided by the Respondent, reads as
follows: “[The parties have] agreed that all the payment has completely ended by
payment of September 2012 (hereinafter called the layer payment). [the Claimant]
will receive the last payment within 7 days from the date of sign of this
agreement as is not allowed to claim extra payment at all. The agreement in the
language of country D is admitted as formal document”.
6.
In view of the above, according to the Respondent, the Claimant accepted having
received all his remuneration thus, the claim must be rejected.
7.
In his replica, the Claimant “vehemently sustains that he has never signed the
referenced agreement” and argued that said settlement agreement was created
by the Respondent. In this respect, the Claimant presented a report (hereinafter:
the expert report) issued by Mr T, “a Certified Forensic Document Expert,
specialised in signature identification, handwriting and hand printing records”,
who determined that the Claimant’s signature contained in the settlement
Player A, from country B / Club C, from country D
Page 2 of 7
agreement “was not produced by the same author of the paradigm exemplars,
therefore, I conclude it is a forgery”.
8.
Furthermore, the Claimant stressed that on 26 February 2012, the player entered
into a new employment contract with the club from country E, Club F valid until
31 October 2012. Consequently, according to the Claimant, “in date in which the
club alleges the agreement was signed (…), the player was in country E” and that
therefore, it seems quite improbable that he would travel to country D in order to
sign an agreement waiving the right to receive USD 200,000 without any
apparent reason.
9.
In view of the foregoing, the Claimant sustained that he never signed the
agreement and thus, ratified his claim.
10.
In its duplica, the Respondent sustained that the Claimant did sign the settlement
agreement and argued that “[the Claimant] himself sent me e-mail on 5
September 2012 3:41 p.m. (…) with the attachment of the agreement which was
signed only by him in advance (…) for the purpose of smooth procedure of
signature of our club.”
11.
In addition, the Respondent held that “the last payment from us to his bank
account have been completed on 31 August 2012, which was recorded with bank
certification”. In this regard, the Respondent enclosed an “Application for
Remittance” dated 31 August 2012 for the amount of USD 40,000.
12.
After having been requested by FIFA to provide his comments on the
Respondent’s latest submission, the Claimant firstly stressed that the Respondent
“confirms having signed” the recognition of debt and that by ignoring the expert
report and not providing “any word or comment about it”, the Respondent
“confirms that the agreement was forged”.
13.
As to the alleged e-mail sent by him, the Claimant sustained that he never
addressed any e-mail to the club on 5 September 2012. Moreover, the player
made the following remarks:
a. It is not clear if the e-mail enclosed by the Respondent corresponds to one
e-mail or to two since “there is a transcription which seems to be one
email at the top of the page (in the language of country D) and another
one, below it, (in the language of country B)”;
b. The e-mail is written in the language of country D and the language of
country B, i.e. not in a FIFA official language hence, it cannot be taken
into consideration by the Chamber;
Player A, from country B / Club C, from country D
Page 3 of 7
c. The contents of the e-mail “detains very unusual words and grammar
mistakes which clearly dismiss any possibility of having being written by a
native speaker of the language of country B”;
d. The e-mail in “the language of country B” does not appear to have any
document attached;
e. The e-mail in “the language of country D” seems to have a document
attached but there is neither any indication nor confirmation that such
attachment was the agreement;
f. It appears that the sender and the date were “purposely occulted”.
14.
As to the payment of USD 40,000 apparently made by the Respondent, the
Claimant argued that the said payment “has no connection whatsoever with the
statement of admission of debt dated 2 December 2011, as neither as may be
considered as evidence that [the player] accepted to waive the right to receive
overdue amount”.
15.
Furthermore, the Claimant reiterated the arguments of his previous positions.
16.
Despite having been asked to do so, the club did not provide FIFA with any
further comments.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as DRC or
Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In
this respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was submitted to
FIFA on 26 February 2014. 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 hand
(cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the
Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 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 and a club from country
D.
3.
Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to
the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber 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 claim was lodged in front of
Player A, from country B / Club C, from country D
Page 4 of 7
FIFA on 26 February 2014, the 2012 edition of the aforementioned regulations
(hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
4.
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.
5.
First of all, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that on 23 July 2007, the
parties entered into an employment contract valid as of 10 January 2008 until 10
December 2011. Moreover, the Chamber took note that on 2 December 2011, the
Respondent submitted the recognition of debt to the Claimant, undertaking to
pay to the latter the amount of USD 200,000 “until February 2012”.
6.
Furthermore, the members of the Chamber noted that, according to the
Respondent, on 20 August 2012, the parties concluded the settlement agreement
whereby, apparently, the Claimant declared “that all the payment has completely
ended by payment of September 2012” and that “[it] is not allowed to extra
payment at all”.
7.
Conversely, the members of the Chamber took note that the Claimant denied
having signed the settlement agreement and stressed that such was created by
the Respondent. In this respect, the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant
provided an expert report which concluded that the Claimant’s signature on the
settlement agreement had been forged.
8.
At this point, the DRC deemed it appropriate to remind the parties of the legal
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.
9.
Having said this, the DRC, first of all, held that the alleged e-mail of 5 September
2012 could not be considered as it was not submitted with a translation into one
of the four FIFA official languages, despite the Respondent being duly informed
by the FIFA administration that failure to provide the necessary translation of a
document into one of the official languages, could result in the document in
question being disregarded. What is more, the members of the Chamber were
eager to emphasise that the Respondent did not challenge neither the validity of
the expert report presented by the Claimant nor its conclusion, i.e. that the
Player A, from country B / Club C, from country D
Page 5 of 7
10.
Claimant’s signature was forged, thereby, in the Chamber’s opinion, accepting the
arguments of the Claimant in this regard.
On account of the above, and in the absence of an original document, the DRC
was of the unanimous opinion that the Respondent was unable to prove, to the
Chamber’s satisfaction, that the Claimant actually signed the settlement
agreement.
11.
In view of the foregoing, the members of the Chamber decided not to take into
consideration the settlement agreement.
12.
In continuation, the DRC highlighted that the Respondent did not dispute the
validity of the recognition of debt. Therefore, the DRC concluded that on 2
December 2011, the Respondent agreed to pay to the Claimant USD 200,000
“until February 2012”.
13.
Having said this, the DRC turned its attention to the “Application for Remittance”
for USD 40,000 submitted by the Respondent and observed that, in this regard,
the Claimant only argued that said payment “has no connection whatsoever with
the statement of admission of debt dated 2 December 2011”. Nevertheless, the
DRC highlighted that i) the application for remittance was dated 31 August 2012,
i.e. after the recognition of debt was concluded and ii) the Claimant did not deny
having received the amount stated therein. As such, the DRC concluded that the
Respondent paid to the Claimant USD 40,000 on 31 August 2012, amount which
shall be deducted from the USD 200,000 stipulated in the recognition of debt.
14.
As a consequence of the above-mentioned considerations and while referring to
the legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the members of the Chamber decided
that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD 160,000
in accordance with the recognition of debt.
15.
In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim, the Chamber decided
to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of USD
160,000 as from 1 March 2012 until the date of effective payment.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the
date of notification of this decision, the amount of USD 160,000 plus 5% interest
p.a. on said amount as of 1 March 2012 until the date of effective payment.
Player A, from country B / Club C, from country D
Page 6 of 7
3.
In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest are not paid within the
stipulated 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 the Claimant is rejected.
5.
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
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
Encl. CAS directives
Player A, from country B / Club C, from country D
Page 7 of 7