Labour Disputes
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 F, from country B
as Claimant / Counter-Respondent
against the club,
Club K, from country G
as Respondent / Counter-Claimant
with the club,
Club B, from country P
as Intervening Party
regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 15 August 2009, Player F, from country B (hereinafter: player or
Claimant/Counter-Respondent), and Club K, from country G (hereinafter: club or
Respondent/Counter-Claimant), signed an employment contract made out on the
country G super league form valid as from the date of signature until 30 June
2012 (hereinafter: super league contract).
2.
In accordance with the super league contract, the club undertook to pay to the
player a monthly salary of EUR 826 (12x per year) and Christmas, Easter and
holiday bonuses equalling 2 monthly salaries.
3.
In addition, the player was to receive the amount of EUR 15,000 in six instalments
of EUR 2,500 each, falling due on 30 December 2009, 30 June 2010, 30 December
2010, 30 June 2011, 30 December 2011, and 30 June 2012.
4.
According to the super league contract, the regulations of the “professional
association”, among others, are an integral part of the contract.
5.
The super league contract refers to art. 17 par. 2 of “the Regulations” in
connection with compensation for breach of contract in the event of the parties
terminating the contract without just cause.
6.
Art. 5.6 of the super league contract stipulates that: “The player is entitled to buy
the remainder of his contract, by paying out to the Club the amount of 1,000,000
EUR”.
7.
On 15 August 2009, the player and the club signed a “private agreement”
(hereinafter: agreement), which refers to the signature by the parties of the
country G super league contract and which determines that the payments in
accordance with the country G super league contract are included in the
agreement, which are not to be added together.
8.
According to the agreement, the club undertook to pay, inter alia, the following
remuneration to the player:
2010-11 season:
Total of EUR 140,000 in 11 monthly payments: EUR 40,000 on 30 August 2010
and 10 x EUR 10,000 as from 30 September 2010 until 30 June 2011.
2011-12 season:
Total of EUR 160,000 in 11 monthly payments: EUR 60,000 on 30 August 2011
and 10 x EUR 10,000 as from 30 September 2011 until 30 June 2012.
Player F, from country B / Club K, from country G / Club B, from country P
Page 2 of 14
EUR 15,000 if the player starts in 20 league games.
4 flight tickets per year
Housing
9.
On 14 July 2011, the player asked the club in writing to provide him with the air
ticket in order for him to return to the club. In this letter, he stressed that he was
in country B for vacation with the approval of the club. Furthermore, he put the
club in default of payment of his salary as from April 2011 until June 2011 as well
as the EUR 15,000 bonus in accordance with the agreement, setting the time limit
of 18 July 2011 in order for the club to remedy the alleged breach. In his
correspondence, the player further stressed that he was committed to comply
with the employment contract.
10.
On 19 July 2011, the player sent another default notice to the club warning the
latter that he would consider the contractual relation terminated with just cause,
if the club would not remedy the default by 20 July 2011.
11.
On 21 July 2011, the player terminated the employment contract in writing
invoking just cause.
12.
On 20 August 2011, the player signed an employment contract with the Club B,
from country P, valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2015, in
accordance with which the player was entitled to receive for the 2011-12 season
the total amount of EUR 321,027.28 payable in 11 equal monthly instalments as
from 10 September 2011.
Claim of the player:
13.
On 21 July 2011, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA
maintaining that the club is to be held liable for breach of contract without just
cause and payment of compensation.
14.
Therefore, the player claims payment of the total amount of EUR 1,205,000, which
was detailed as follows:
a. EUR 30,000 as outstanding salary for April, May, and June 2011;
b. EUR 15,000 as bonus for having started in 20 league games in the 2009-10
season;
c. EUR 160,000 as compensation for breach of contract;
d. EUR 1,000,000 based on clause 5.6 of the super league contract;
e. 5% interest p.a. over the outstanding salaries;
f. EUR 60,000 additional compensation corresponding to 6 months’ salary.
Player F, from country B / Club K, from country G / Club B, from country P
Page 3 of 14
15.
The player further asks that sporting sanctions be imposed on the club.
16.
The player explains that whereas he has fully complied with his contractual
obligations, the club failed to pay his remuneration between April 2011 and June
2011 as well as the EUR 15,000 bonus, totalling EUR 45,000.
17.
The player deems that he had just cause to terminate the contract due to the
club’s failure to remit his remuneration during at least 3 months.
Response to the claim of the player and counterclaim of the club:
18.
The club, for its part, rejects the player’s claim and, on 25 August 2011, lodged a
counterclaim against him.
19.
The club points out that with the signature of the employment contract, the
player expressly consented to comply with the internal rules of the club, among
which are the “Internal Regulation of 2010-2011” (hereinafter: internal rules).
20.
The club holds that, in April 2011, the player left without the approval of or
notification to the club, whereas the sporting season was still ongoing, and that
he never returned to the club.
21.
In addition, the club asserts that its efforts to contact the player to settle “the
misunderstanding” have remained in vain.
22.
The club further states that due to his long-lasting absence from the club’s
training, a first fine of EUR 54,600 was imposed on the player on 15 May 2011 due
to his absence as from 2 May 2011 in accordance with the club’s internal rules and
that, on 16 July 2011, the player was imposed fines of EUR 96,600 for violations
allegedly committed in the 2010-11 season and of EUR 54,000 for alleged
contractual breaches during the 2011-12 season, respectively.
23.
According to the club, the player was informed of the starting date of training for
the 2011-12 season, i.e. 4 July 2011, and on 28 June 2011 it sent him the e-ticket
to fly from country B to country G in order for the player to return to the club and
attend training, as it was still counting on his services.
24.
Therefore, the club holds that the player cannot justify his absence from training
as of 4 July 2011 by lack of travel means.
25.
In addition, the club points out that the player, due to the fines that were
imposed on him, actually owes the amount of EUR 60,600 as outstanding fines to
the club. In this respect, the club specified that the player had outstanding
Player F, from country B / Club K, from country G / Club B, from country P
Page 4 of 14
receivables of EUR 90,000 relating the period of time between 30 April 2011 and
30 June 2011, whereas he was fined the total amount EUR 150,600.
26.
For these reasons, the club maintains that the player acted in breach of his
contractual obligations and therefore, is to be held liable for the termination of
the employment contract without just cause and payment of compensation to the
club.
27.
Consequently, the club asks that the player’s claim be dismissed and that it be
established that the player terminated the employment contract without just
cause within the protected period.
28.
Furthermore, the club asks that the player be ordered to pay compensation for
breach of contract in the amount of EUR 1,000,000 in accordance with art. 5.6 of
the super league contract as well as the amount of EUR 60,600 relating to
outstanding fines.
29.
In addition, the club asks that sporting sanctions be imposed on the player and
that he shall be held liable for legal expenses.
Player’s reply to the club’s counterclaim:
30.
The player contests that he left the club without approval or notification
emphasising that he left for holidays after the end of the sporting season, which,
according to the player, ended on 17 April 2011, date on which he played his last
match of the season. He adds that all players were released to start their vacation
after this match.
31.
In this respect, the player refers to his correspondence of 14 July 2011, in which he
also indicated that he was on vacation in country B with the club’s approval.
32.
The player furthermore states that he never received the e-ticket that was
presented by the club in support of its counterclaim and adds that only after his
default notification to the club on 14 July 2011 did the club finally send him the
flight tickets to return on 17 July 2011.
33.
The player adds that the club, however, failed to remedy its default regarding the
outstanding remuneration.
34.
Furthermore, as regards the fines that the club imposed on him, the player states
that the club never sent him a written warning regarding his alleged absence
without approval and that he was not aware of any disciplinary procedure against
Player F, from country B / Club K, from country G / Club B, from country P
Page 5 of 14
him. He also expresses his doubts as to the calculation of the amount of the fines
in the light of the wording of the club’s internal rules, which he considers vague.
Position of Club B:
35.
Club B holds that the player’s claim is to be accepted, since he had just cause to
terminate his employment contract with the club, and that the club’s
counterclaim is to be rejected.
36.
Club B further maintains that it cannot be held responsible in any way in this
matter and it insists that it did not induce the player to commit a breach of
contract. It was in contact with the player after he had terminated his
employment contract with the club and Club B stresses that it has no connection
with such termination.
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 matter at
hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA
on 21 July 2011. Consequently, the Rules governing the procedures of the Players’
Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008; hereinafter:
Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 1 and par. 2
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 a country B player and a country G club and involving a country P club.
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 (2012), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 21 July 2011, the 2010 edition of
said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as
to the substance.
Player F, from country B / Club K, from country G / Club B, from country P
Page 6 of 14
4.
The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been
established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect,
the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as
the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. 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, on 15 August 2009, the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant signed a
Greek super league contract as well as a “private agreement” (hereinafter
together referred to as employment contract) valid during three seasons until 30
June 2012.
6.
The Claimant/Counter-Respondent, on the one hand, maintains that he had just
cause to terminate the employment contract on 21 July 2011, as the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant had failed to comply with its financial obligations
since April 2011 and that, therefore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was to be
held liable for the early termination of the employment contract and payment of
compensation in addition to allegedly outstanding remuneration.
7.
The Chamber further noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant rejected the
claim and held that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated the
employment contract without just cause, on the basis of which it lodged a
counterclaim against the Claimant/Counter-Respondent.
8.
In continuation, the Chamber took into account that the Claimant/CounterRespondent fully rejected the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim.
9.
Considering the diverging position of the parties, the members of the Chamber
highlighted that the central issue in this dispute was to determine as whether the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent had terminated the employment contract on 21 July
2011 with or without just cause as well as to decide on the consequences thereof.
10.
Subsequently, the Chamber proceeded with an analysis of the circumstances
surrounding the present matter, the parties’ arguments as well the documentation on
file, bearing in mind art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with which
any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of
proof.
11.
In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, on 14 July 2011, the Claimant/CounterRespondent served a first notice of default on the Respondent/Counter-Claimant
Player F, from country B / Club K, from country G / Club B, from country P
Page 7 of 14
setting a four days’ time limit to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in order to
comply with its contractual obligations relating inter alia to his remuneration as
from April 2011 as well as an air ticket. The Chamber noted that, on 19 July 2011,
a second default notice was sent by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant and that, on 21 July 2011, the Claimant/CounterRespondent terminated the employment contract invoking just cause. The
members of the Chamber further took into account that the Respondent/CounterClaimant has not replied to said default notices of the Claimant/CounterRespondent.
12.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, for its part, held that the Claimant/CounterRespondent had no just cause to terminate the employment contract on 21 July
2011, since he had left the club without notification or its permission in April 2011
during the ongoing season. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent, for his part,
indicated that he had left for vacation after the club’s last match. In this regard,
the Respondent/Counter-Claimant highlighted that all of its efforts in contacting
the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had remained in vain. The members of the
Chamber, however, took into account that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had
not presented any documentary evidence demonstrating that it had, indeed,
contacted the player, put the latter in default of his obligations, or warned him.
13.
In
addition,
the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant
asserted
that
the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent had been duly notified of the starting date of
training for the new season and that, on 28 June 2011, it sent an air e-ticket to
the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to return to the club on 3 July 2011, receipt of
which was contested by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, who asserted that he
was provided with the relevant air ticket by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to
return on 17 July 2011, i.e. after having put the club in default on 14 July 2011, a
copy of which was presented by the player. In this respect, the members of the
Chamber noted that there was no evidence on file corroborating the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s allegation that it transmitted the relevant return
air e-ticket dated 28 June 2011 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent.
14.
The Chamber then turned its attention to the argument of the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant relating to the fines that had been imposed on the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent on the basis of the latter’s alleged absence from
the club without its permission. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, who does not
contest that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s remuneration as of April 2011
had remained unpaid, held that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in fact has a
debt of EUR 60,600 towards it taking into consideration the fines totalling,
according to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, EUR 150,600.
Player F, from country B / Club K, from country G / Club B, from country P
Page 8 of 14
15.
In continuation, the members of the Chamber noted that in support of its
position, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant presented a copy of the club’s
“Internal Regulation of 2010-2011”, in accordance with which, after a previous
written warning, 3% on the contractual instalments for each training missed shall
be imposed as a fine. Furthermore, after 2 unjustified absences, the player shall
be called to plea in front of the club’s disciplinary board.
16.
The Chamber then focussed its attention on the contents of the respective
decisions passed by the Board of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. According to
the decision passed on 15 May 2011, a fine of EUR 54,600 was imposed on the
player due to his absence as from 2 May 2011, i.e. EUR 4,200 x 13 days. On 16 July
2011, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s Board imposed on the player a fine of
EUR 96,600, i.e. EUR 4,200 per day of absence for 23 days until 25 May 2011, and a
fine of EUR 54,000, i.e. EUR 4,500 per day of absence during 12 days of the 201112 season.
17.
Regardless of the Chamber’s observation under point II./12. above, having duly
taken note of the club’s internal rules and the aforementioned decisions, the
Chamber deemed it important to highlight that these fines do not appear to have
been issued in accordance with the stipulations of the club’s internal rules. What
is more, the members of the Chamber agreed that the fines totalling the amount
of EUR 150,600, bearing in mind that the first fine of EUR 54,600 seems to be
included in the amount relating to the second fine of EUR 96,600, were
considered clearly disproportionate to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s
income. For these reasons, the Chamber decided that these fines shall be
disregarded.
18.
Furthermore, for the sake of good order, the Chamber wished to point out that
the imposition of a fine, or any other available financial sanction in general, shall
not be used by clubs as a means to set off outstanding financial obligations
towards players.
19.
On account of the aforementioned considerations, the Chamber established that
the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had no valid reasons not to pay the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s remuneration as of April 2011.
20.
Taking into account all of the above, the Chamber decided to reject the
arguments put forward by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in its defence and in
its counterclaim and decided that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had just
cause to terminate the employment contract on 21 July 2011. Hence, the members
of the Chamber decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is to be held
Player F, from country B / Club K, from country G / Club B, from country P
Page 9 of 14
liable for the early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent.
21.
In continuation, prior to establishing the consequences of the termination of the
employment contract with just cause by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in
accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber held that it had to
address the issue of any unpaid remuneration at the moment the employment
contract was terminated by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent.
22.
In this regard, the members of the Chamber recalled that according to the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent, his remuneration as of April 2011 until the end of
June 2011 in the total amount of EUR 30,000 as well as a EUR 15,000 bonus for
the 2009-10 season had remained unpaid.
23.
The members of the Chamber further took into account that, as stated above, the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant had not contested that the player’s remuneration
as of April 2011 had remained outstanding and that it had no valid reasons
justifying such non-payment. Consequently, the Chamber decided that, in virtue
of the principle pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is liable to
pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the amount of EUR 30,000 that had
remained outstanding in accordance with the private agreement on the day on
which the Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated the employment contract
with just cause.
24.
In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim,
the Chamber decided to award the Claimant/Counter-Respondent interest at the
rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 30,000 as of the day on which the claim
was lodged in front of FIFA, i.e. 21 July 2011.
25.
Furthermore, in the absence of any documentary evidence demonstrating that the
contractual condition related to Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s entitlement to
the EUR 15,000 bonus in accordance with the private agreement was fulfilled (cf.
art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules), i.e. the player having started in 20 league
games, the Chamber decided to reject the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim
pertaining to said bonus.
26.
Having established the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question
of the consequences of the termination of the employment contract by the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent with just cause on 21 July 2011.
27.
Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber
concurred that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, would, in principle, be entitled
Player F, from country B / Club K, from country G / Club B, from country P
Page 10 of 14
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 private agreement.
28.
Subsequently, 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 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.
29.
In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to
clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contains 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 respect, the members of the Chamber recalled that according to
art. 5.6 of the super league contract, which article was equally invoked by the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent in his claim for compensation for breach of
contract, “The player is entitled to buy the remainder of his contract, by paying
out to the Club the amount of 1,000,000 EUR”. The Chamber, however, agreed
that said clause does not regulate compensation payable in the event of a breach
of the employment contract by either of the parties and, thus, that it cannot be
taken into consideration in this context.
30.
In continuation, the Chamber established that the reference of the super league
contract to “art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations” in connection with compensation
for breach of contract in the event of the parties terminating the contract without
just cause is insufficiently clear for it to be taken into consideration in the
determination of the amount of compensation.
31.
As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation in the present matter 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 provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken
into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
Therefore, other objective criteria may be taken into account at the discretion of
the deciding body. In this regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber emphasised
Player F, from country B / Club K, from country G / Club B, from country P
Page 11 of 14
beforehand that each request for compensation for contractual breach has to be
assessed by the Chamber on a case-by-case basis taking into account all specific
circumstances of the respective matter.
32.
In order to estimate the amount of compensation in the present case, the
members of the Chamber first turned their attention to the remuneration and
other benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contract and/or the new
contract, which criterion was considered by the Chamber to be essential. The
members of the Chamber deemed it important to emphasise that the wording of
art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows the Chamber to take into account both the
existing contract and the new contract, if any, in the calculation of the amount of
compensation.
33.
Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of
the monies payable to the player under the terms of the private agreement for
the remaining duration until 30 June 2012 and concluded that the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent would have received a total remuneration of EUR
160,000.
34.
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 player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.
35.
Indeed, on 20 August 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent signed an
employment contract with the Club B, from country P, valid as from the date of
signature until 30 June 2015, in accordance with which the player was entitled to
receive for the 2011-12 season the total amount of EUR 321,027.28 payable in 11
equal monthly instalments as from 10 September 2011.
36.
Consequently, the Chamber established that the value of the new employment
contract concluded between the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and his new club
for the period of time between July 2011 and 30 June 2012 amounted to EUR
291,842.
37.
In accordance with the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber and
the general obligation of the player to mitigate his damages, such remuneration
under the new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation
of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
Player F, from country B / Club K, from country G / Club B, from country P
Page 12 of 14
38.
Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that,
even though the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is considered liable for the early
termination of the employment contract, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent did
not suffer any financial loss from the violation of the contractual obligations by
the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and, therefore, the Chamber decided that
there is no amount that should be awarded to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
as compensation for breach of contract in the matter at hand.
39.
The members of the Chamber concluded their deliberations on the present matter
by rejecting any further claim lodged by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Player F, is partially accepted.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club K, 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, the
amount of EUR 30,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 21 July 2011 until the date of
effective payment.
4.
In the event that the amount due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is not paid
by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant within the stated time limit, the present
matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for
consideration and a formal decision.
5.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is rejected.
Player F, from country B / Club K, from country G / Club B, from country P
Page 13 of 14
6.
The Claimant/Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent/CounterClaimant 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:
Markus Kattner
Deputy Secretary General
Encl.: CAS directives
Player F, from country B / Club K, from country G / Club B, from country P
Page 14 of 14