Official Documents
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 9 May 2014,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member
Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member
on the claim presented by the player,
Player P, from country U
as Claimant
against the club,
Club R, from country S
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 15 September 2009, Player P, from country U (hereinafter: the Claimant or
player), and Club R, from country S (hereinafter: the Respondent or club),
concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from 23
July 2009 until 31 May 2011.
2.
In accordance with the contract, the Claimant was, inter alia, entitled to:
-
a monthly salary of EUR 4,200 payable on the 20th of every month;
A “reward remuneration“ of EUR 19,000 as a signing-on fee;
A “reward remuneration“ of EUR 19,000 before 31 January 2010;
A “reward remuneration“ of EUR 19,000 before 31 July 2010.
3.
Furthermore, by means of an amendment agreement concluded on 26 February
2010, the payment date of the “reward remuneration” of 31 January 2010 was
changed to 17 May 2010.
4.
Art. VI par. 4 of the contract stipulates that: “In case of terminating or premature
terminating the Contract on the grounds, set by items 2 and 3, in the course of the
month (as from first till last day of the calendar month) from the receipt of the
notification, the Club fires the Player.”
5.
On 17 June 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of
FIFA requesting to be awarded the amount of EUR 33,400 plus 5% interest, in
accordance with the following breakdown:
-
EUR 6,000 as “part of 1st bonus (due to be paid till 31.01.2010)”;
EUR 19,000 as “whole 2nd bonus (due to be paid till 17.05.2010)”;
EUR 8,400 for the salaries of June and July 2010.
The Claimant held that by means of the amendment agreement, the payment date
of the “reward remuneration” due on 31 July 2010 was changed to 17 May 2010.
6.
Furthermore, the Claimant explained that the Respondent stopped paying him in
the spring of 2010. In the beginning of April 2010, he received a letter by means of
which he was informed that the Respondent’s disciplinary commission, on 31
March 2010, had decided to fine him with 25% of his salaries for March, April and
May 2010. According to the Claimant, there was no violation specified, he was
never heard and only later on, he found out that he was accused of damaging the
Respondent’s reputation due to an incident in a nightclub on 28 March 2010. The
Claimant however denies that such incident occurred and holds that, in any case,
28 and 29 March 2010 were days off.
Player P, from country U / Club R, from country S
2
7.
Moreover, the Claimant explained that in the last match of the season, he “stroke”
a referee and was subsequently suspended by the country S FA from 16 May 2010
until 15 January 2011.
8.
Following such incident, the Respondent sent a letter to the Claimant on 11 June
2010 informing him that, because of “repeating violations of labor discipline”, the
contract was terminated. In reply to such letter, the Claimant informed the
Respondent that according to art. VI par. 4 of the contract, he could only be
dismissed one month after having received an official notice. He therefore asked
the Respondent to reinstate him in the team “until one month term will pass” and
asked the Respondent to pay his salaries until 31 July 2010. However, the Claimant
indicated that no answer was received.
9.
In the meantime, on 18 May 2010, the Claimant informed the Respondent that he
was not paid the amount of EUR 19,000 due on 17 May 2010.
10.
On account of the above, the Claimant, whilst denying that he committed
repeated contractual infringements, requested:
-
11.
To its claim, the Claimant enclosed, inter alia, the following documentation:
-
12.
the bonuses which were not paid while he was still playing for the
Respondent, and
the salaries of June and July 2010, arguing that he received the
termination letter on 11 June 2010 and thus the contract could not have
been terminated prior to 1 August 2010.
a letter of the Respondent dated 1 April 2010 informing him of its decision
dated 31 March 2010 to reduce the salary with 25% for the months of
March, April and May;
the “cancellation of the contract” dated 11 June 2010.
In reply to the claim, the Respondent indicated that it had complied with all its
obligations and that it had even paid a higher amount to the Claimant than that
was due. In addition, the Respondent argued that it was the Claimant who had
breached the contract on three occasions. The Respondent indicated it had
imposed two official fines on the Claimant, the one mentioned by the Claimant
himself, but also another fine imposed by the country S FA for the Claimant’s gross
misconduct against the referee. According to the Respondent, both letters relating
to the fines were signed by the Claimant and therefore he had accepted them. In
this respect, the Respondent submitted the following documents:
-
a letter dated 19 February 2010, signed by the Respondent and the
Claimant by means of which the Respondent “grant you the fine in
amount of EUR 23,300 for breach of regimen on 18.02.2010, which will be
deducted from your monthly salary as follows:
Player P, from country U / Club R, from country S
3
-
-
i. Till 22.02.2010
EUR 21,200
ii. Till 20.03.2010
EUR 2,000
At the same time please note, that in a repeated breach of Professional
contract conditions, the contract will be terminated. Annexe: Written
proof of alcohol test.”
a letter of the Respondent dated 1 April 2010, signed by the Respondent
and the Claimant, informing the latter of the decision of 31 March 2010 to
reduce the salary with 10% for the months of March, April and May 2010.
a letter signed by the Claimant dated 21 October 2010 which reads: “I,
Player P in the case of removal dated 21.10.2010 by Disciplinary
Commission of my disqualification, I refuse of payment to me in sum EUR
30,000 from Club R. I that case, Club R will pay me only EUR 16,000. If the
disqualification will not be removing, this document is void.”
13.
The Respondent explained that the fine of 19 February 2010 was imposed on the
Claimant for testing positive in an alcohol control. The second fine was issued on
“28 March 2010” when the Claimant was involved in a bar fight. The Respondent
clarified that it showed its goodwill to the Claimant by reducing the fine from 25%
to 10%.
14.
Furthermore, the Respondent stated that according to its financial records it had
paid the Claimant EUR 14,189 more than he was entitled to, stating that it had
paid the Claimant EUR 77,029.40 while he was only entitled to EUR 62,840. In this
respect, the Respondent submitted a payment list which showed that the
Respondent had paid the Claimant the amount of EUR 77,029.40, corresponding to
his salaries, his rent and match bonuses.
15.
The Respondent added that in its 100 year of history it never had to fine a player
so often. Finally, the Respondent indicated that due to the Claimant’s assault of
the referee, it had to pay EUR 5,000 to the country S FA.
16.
The Claimant reverted to FIFA stating the following:
-
-
-
The Respondent did not submit any proof that it had complied with all its
financial obligations;
The document dated 21 October 2010 contains a fake signature;
The Respondent’s explanations do not match with its actions; while
blaming the Claimant’s misbehaviour which led to a fine on 19 February
2010 and warning him of a possible contract termination, on 26 February
2010, the Respondent offered a “high money bonus”;
He has never committed any violation of the Respondent’s disciplinary
regulations stressing that “days off cannot be considered as ones, when
discipline violation can be committed by a player”;
The letter of 19 February 2010 “was drafted very recently (…) and the
signature is not mine and the sum of the fine is not persistent with any
Player P, from country U / Club R, from country S
4
-
17.
In reply thereto, the Respondent stated that:
-
18.
provisions of my contract or any club’s internal documents on
reprimands.”
“The statement of 1 April 2010 is falsified, outlining that the sum of fines
does not correspond – while real one is 25%, now club submits the
document where it is allegedly is 10%. On original document the is not my
signature”.
“The document dated 21 October 2010 was sent in PDF format to our club
manager”;
The letters of 19 February 2010 and 1 April 2010 are real and proven by a
notary.
In this respect and upon request of FIFA, the Respondent provided the alleged
original documents of the aforementioned letters.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as
Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at
hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA
on 17 June 2011. Consequently, the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the
Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber
(hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. article 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 and par. 2 in
combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (edition 2012), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with
the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between an country U player and a country S club.
3.
Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which edition of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players 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 2010 and 2012) and
considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 17 June 2011,
the 2010 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: 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
Player P, from country U / Club R, from country S
5
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 Chamber emphasised that it was undisputed between the parties
that the Respondent terminated the contract with the Claimant in writing on 11
June 2010.
6.
Turning to the claim of the Claimant, the members of the Chamber acknowledged
that the Claimant was not contesting the termination of the contract as such, but
rather that, on the basis of clause VI. par. 4 of the contract, the termination of the
contract could only have effect as of 1 August 2010. In this respect, the Chamber
recalled that clause VI. par. 4 of the contract stipulates that: “In case of
terminating or premature terminating the Contract on the grounds, set by items 2
and 3, in the course of the month (as from first till last day of the calendar month)
from the receipt of the notification, the Club fires the Player.”
7.
As a result, the Chamber duly observed that the Claimant held that, considering
that the contract was terminated on 11 June 2010 as well as taking into account
clause VI par. 4 of the contract, the contract could only be considered terminated
as from 1 August 2010 and, therefore, that he was still entitled to the salary of July
2010.
8.
After a thorough examination of clause VI. par. 4 of the contract, the Chamber
came to the unanimous conclusion that the wording of the relevant clause does
not correspond to the interpretation of the Claimant. In particular, the members
of the Chamber outlined that the relevant provision does not at all refer to a onemonth notice period, as claimed by the Claimant. As a consequence of the
foregoing conclusion, the Chamber decided that the Claimant’s request for the
salary of July 2010 needed to be rejected.
9.
In continuation, the Chamber turned its attention to the fines imposed on the
Claimant. The Chamber duly examined the documentation made available to it by
the Respondent and noted that the various fines had been signed by the Claimant.
As a result, the Chamber, whilst pointing out that the Claimant had even signed an
explicit acknowledgment to this end, as can be sustained from the letter dated 21
October 2010, determined that the fines imposed by the Respondent were
accepted by the Claimant. For the sake of good order, the Chamber wished to
underline that although the Claimant argued that the documents submitted by
the Respondent were forged, the Respondent provided the original documents. At
this stage, the DRC considered it appropriate to remark that, as a general rule,
FIFA’s deciding bodies are not competent to decide upon matters of criminal law,
such as the ones of alleged falsified signatures or documents, and that such affairs
fall into the jurisdiction of the competent national criminal authority.
10.
In this context, the DRC recalled that all documentation remitted shall be
considered with free discretion and, therefore, it focused its attention on the
Player P, from country U / Club R, from country S
6
original documents containing the Claimant’s signature, provided by the
Respondent in the present dispute. After a thorough analysis of the relevant
documents, in particular, comparing the relevant signatures of the Claimant on the
fines with the signatures in the other documents provided in the present affair,
the DRC had no other option but to conclude that, for a layman, the signatures
appear to be the same. Therefore, the Chamber considered them to be valid and
binding upon the Claimant.
11.
As to bonus payments, the Chamber pointed out that the bonus in the amount of
EUR 19,000 and payable on 31 July 2011, to which the Claimant deemed he was
entitled, did not yet fall due at the moment that the contract was terminated by
the Respondent. The Chamber concluded that there were no indications on file
that the due date of this particular bonus payment had been changed to an earlier
payment date. In fact, the amendment agreement provided by the Claimant
specified that the bonus payment due on 31 January 2010 had been changed to
the later date of 17 May 2010. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that
the Claimant was not entitled to this particular payment of EUR 19,000.
12.
Having considered all the above, the Chamber came to the conclusion that the
Claimant was entitled to the total amount of approximately EUR 77,000 for the
period of time he was under contract with the Claimant. The Chamber then turned
to the payment list provided by the Respondent and observed that the Respondent
had paid the Claimant the amount of approximately EUR 77,000, however,
including the amount of approximately EUR 10,000 for accommodation and match
bonuses. As a consequence, the Chamber determined that the Respondent still
owed the Claimant the amount of EUR 10,000.
13.
For all the above reasons, the Chamber decided to partially accept the Claimant´s
claim and determined that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant the total
amount of EUR 10,000 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest on said
amount as from 17 June 2011.
14.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter
by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
*****
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Player P, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club R, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the
date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 10,000 plus 5% interest
p.a. on said amount as from 17 June 2011 until the date of effective payment.
Player P, from country U / Club R, from country S
7
3.
In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid by the
Respondent 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 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 P, from country U / Club R, from country S
8