Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 May 2014,
in the following composition:
Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman
Phillipe Piat (France), member
Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member
on the claim presented by the player,
Player B, from country P
as Claimant
against the club,
Club S, from country B
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute
arisen between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 22 June 2012, Player B, from country P (hereinafter: the player or the
Claimant), and Club S, from country B (hereinafter: the club or the Respondent),
signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 1 July
2012 until 30 June 2015. The contract is also signed by an agent, Mr R (hereinafter:
Mr R).
2.
In accordance with the contract, the Claimant was entitled to a monthly salary of:
-EUR 8,333 in the 2012/2013 season (12 X EUR 8,333 = EUR 99,996)
-EUR 9,167 in the 2013/2014 season (12 X EUR 9,167 = EUR 110,004);
-EUR 10,000 in the 2014/2015 season (12 X EUR 10,000 = EUR 120,000).
3.
The monthly salaries were to be paid no later than the 25 th day of the following
month.
4.
Art. X of the contract stipulates that the Respondent would provide the Claimant
with 3 return flight tickets country B-country P per season.
5.
On 22 May 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of
FIFA for breach of contract without just cause. In support of his claim, the player
indicated that his salary for the months of July, August and September 2012 were
paid only after he had sent a default letter on 4 October 2012. Thereafter, the
Respondent did not proceed with the payment of the salary of October, November
and December 2012.
6.
The Claimant explained that on 10 December 2012, all players received a
document from the club outlining the team’s program as well as fixing holidays as
from 16 December 2012 until 4 January 2013.
7.
In continuation, the Claimant asserted that until mid-December, he continuously
asked the Respondent to pay the relevant salaries and to provide him a ticket
country B – country P, however to no avail.
8.
On 17 December 2012, the Respondent allegedly proposed to the Claimant to
terminate the contract upon the payment of two salaries, however, the Claimant
did not wish to do so as he intended to fulfill his contractual obligations.
9.
Following the above, the Respondent allegedly told the Claimant that it would not
pay him his salaries nor his flight tickets, after which the Claimant informed the
Respondent that he would not leave until his salaries and flight tickets were paid.
According to the Claimant, the Respondent then “in act of truly humiliation of the
Player B, from country P / Club S, from country B
2
player, the Club Direction, with help of two other elements of the club, coercively
pulled the Claimant player of the club facilities. Giving immediate orders for the
player not to enter again in his office and the club facilities (…) being
automatically unable to provide work. Verifying on that date the verbal rupture of
the work relationship by the Club’s initiative.”
10.
As a result, the Claimant contacted the country P embassy in country B which
advised him to send a fax to the club giving accounts of his claims. In continuation,
the Claimant visited the club every day as from 19 December 2012 until 4 January
2013 together with another country P player, Mr T, and an official of the country P
Embassy.
11.
In the meantime, by means of two letters dated 21 and 23 December 2012, the
Claimant requested his salaries for October 2012 as well as the flight tickets. On 27
December 2012, 29 December 2012 and 3 January 2013, the Claimant also claimed
the salary for November 2012.
12.
On 5 January 2013, “as well as on day 6” the Claimant presented himself at the
stadium where “to be able to train, having serious difficulties to obtain the
practice equipment, being put, by the coach (who received order of the club), to
perform physical exercises at the side of the normal group work”.
13.
On 7 and 8 January 2013, the Claimant was not allowed to train and on 9 January
2013 he was given a list with players who would attend the club’s training camp in
Turkey, and he was not among them.
14.
Also on 9 January 2013, the Claimant was allegedly called into the office of the
club, where he was requested to sign a document and was told that he had been
dismissed due to his absence from work. The Claimant indicated that he refused to
sign the document.
15.
In the following days, the Claimant, together with two teammates, continued to
present themselves at the stadium to train, however, on 18 January 2013, he
received an “order of dismissal”. In this respect, the Claimant submitted the “order
of dismissal”, which is dated 11 January 2013, and which stipulates that the
Claimant was not at work from 18 December 2012 until 6 January 2013 as well as
that, on 11 January 2013, he was invited to “reunite with the club where was
requested an oral or written justification about his non-attendance. Player B
folded to offer whatever explanations (…)” and that, therefore, the contract was
terminated.
16.
On 28 January 2013, the Claimant replied to the club stating that he did not accept
the termination of the contract.
Player B, from country P / Club S, from country B
3
17.
On account of all the above, the Claimant holds that the termination of the
contract was without just cause and requests the following amounts:
- EUR 24,999 as outstanding salaries for October to December 2012;
- EUR 280,002 as compensation for breach of contract;
- EUR 50,000 as patrimonial damages and non-patrimonial damages.
18.
In its reply to the claim, the Respondent outlined that the Claimant lodged his
claim on 22 May 2013 requesting outstanding remuneration for the months of
October to December 2012. However, the Respondent referred to a “Mandate”
dated 25 March 2013 apparently issued by the player to Mr R, by means of which,
according to the Respondent, the Claimant authorized the agent to receive his
outstanding remuneration. What is more, the Respondent provided a
“Declaration” signed by Mr R and dated 27 March 2013 which, in the Respondent’s
view, proves that the salaries for October 2012 to January 2013 were paid.
19.
In this respect, the Respondent submitted the relevant “Mandate” by means of
which the Claimant allegedly authorized the agent to “receive the transfer from
Club S according his work relations with the mentioned club”. Also, the
Respondent submitted the “Declaration” signed by the agent confirming that he
received, on 27 March 2013, the amount of EUR 47,000 for the salaries of October
2012 until part of January 2013 for the Claimant as well as for the salaries of
November 2012 until part of January 2013 for the player T.
20.
The Respondent stressed that the above-mentioned documents prove that it no
longer owes the Claimant any money and that he has recognized and accepted the
unilateral termination of the contract without having any further claims towards
the club.
21.
What is more, the Respondent indicated that the Claimant entered into a contract
with the country P Club, Club P, immediately after the termination of the contract
and, therefore, the claim for remuneration until the end of the contract is
irrelevant.
22.
As to the Claimant’s statement that he visited the stadium between 19 December
2012 and 4 January 2013, the Respondent pointed out that this period of time was
declared as holidays. Therefore, the Claimant could not expect that someone of
the club was present to meet him.
23.
Finally, as to the unilateral termination of the contract, the Respondent deemed
that such termination was justified since the Claimant “refused to execute his
Player B, from country P / Club S, from country B
4
contractual obligations and was absent from work without being able to provide
the club with any reasonable explanations or excuse.”
24.
In his replica, the Claimant held that he never signed the “Mandate” and that such
document is forged and contains a fake signature. The Claimant stated he did not
receive any salary or compensation on his account. As to the “Declaration”, the
Claimant stressed that it is unknown to him whether this is true or false, because
“he had nothing to do with this subject and the beneficiary of this alleged bank
transfer is totally unknown”.
25.
Equally, the Claimant indicated that Mr R is not his agent and denied having
signed a contract with Club P.
26.
In its duplica, and after having been requested by the FIFA administration to
provide the original version of the “Mandate”, the Respondent emphasized that
the Claimant was not present in country B when signing the “Mandate”, therefore
he could “not possibly have signed the original document in the club’s offices or
even in its country but this could have been done only by fax (…). The player is
deliberately demanding for the original of the Mandate to be provided by the club
because he is fully aware of the fact that the club could not possibly be in its
possession because of the facts described above. Moreover, the explicit demand of
the original document as well as the fact that it has been declared by the player as
forged makes us believe that the only original document is still in the possession of
the player or has been destroyed as part of the plan to committee fraud (…)”.
27.
Nevertheless, the Respondent submitted the alleged original “Declaration” as well
as a copy of the “Mandate” which contain the apparent original signature of Mr R
and a copy of the signature of the Claimant. In this context, the Respondent
insisted that it made the payments to Mr R.
28.
Furthermore, the allegation that the Claimant does not know Mr R is false, since
Mr R signed the contract acting as his agent. In this respect, the Respondent also
provided a claim of the lawyer of the player, in which he represents Mr R in front
of FIFA against the Respondent in relation to the transfer of the player. Therefore,
the Respondent deems that it is obvious that the Claimant, the lawyer and the
agent have a relationship and that they are trying to commit financial fraud.
29.
On 17 January 2014, the Claimant signed a contract with Club D, from country C,
valid as from the day of signing until 31 May 2015. In accordance with the
contract, the Claimant would receive for the 2013/2014 season the total amount of
EUR 5,000 and for the 2014/2015 season the total amount of EUR 14,000.
Player B, from country P / Club S, from country B
5
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 22 May 2013. Consequently, the 2012 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
par. 2 and par. 3 of the 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 a country P player and a country B club.
3.
In this respect, the Chamber first wished to clarify that contrary to the information
contained in FIFA’s letter dated 22 May 2014 by means of which the parties were
informed of the composition of the Chamber, the members Joaquim Evangelista
and Mr M refrained from participating in the deliberations in the case at hand,
due to the fact that the member Mr E has the same nationality as a party involved
in the present proceedings. In order to comply with the prerequisite of equal
representation of club and player representatives, also the member Mr M
refrained from participating and thus the Dispute Resolution Chamber adjudicated
the case in the presence of three members in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
4.
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
(editions 2012) and considering that the present claim was lodged on 22 May 2013,
the 2012 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the
matter at hand as to the substance.
5.
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.
Player B, from country P / Club S, from country B
6
6.
Following the above, the members of the Chamber noted that the Claimant
lodged a claim against the Respondent maintaining that the latter had terminated
the employment contract without just cause on 18 January 2013, when he received
a letter from the Respondent that his contract was terminated due to the fact that
he had been absent from the club. Also, the Claimant held that at the time of the
termination, several monthly salaries were outstanding, and that he had been
denied access to the club’s facilities and thus unable to perform his contractual
obligations.
7.
Furthermore, the Chamber observed that the Respondent, for its part, was of the
opinion that the Claimant accepted the termination of the contract referring to
the “Declaration” and the “Mandate”. Equally, the Respondent stressed that the
Claimant had failed to provide his services under the contract by being absent
without any valid reason. What is more, the Respondent indicated that the
Claimant’s visits to the stadium between 19 December 2012 and 4 January 2013
were pointless since the aforementioned period of time was declared as holidays.
8.
In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that it had to examine whether the
reasons put forward by the Respondent could justify the termination of the
contract on 18 January 2013.
9.
In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that only a breach or
misconduct which is of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract. In
other words, only when there are objective criteria which do not reasonably
permit to expect a continuation of the employment relationship between the
parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there are more
lenient measures which can be taken in order for an employer to ensure the
employee’s fulfillment of his contractual duties, such measures must be taken
before terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of an
employment contract can only ever be an ultima ratio measure.
10.
In view of the above, the Chamber thoroughly examined the “order of dismissal”
dated 11 January 2013, which was handed to the Claimant on 18 January 2013,
and by means of which the latter was informed about the termination of the
contract. The Chamber pointed out that said document stipulates that the
Claimant was dismissed since he “didn’t appear in his work place from 18.12.2012
until 06.01.2013, including. His absence is duly confirmed by Notary no. 594, with
activity area of the Regional Court of country S the constative minutes of the dates
18, 19 and 20 December 2012 and 2 and 3 January 2013. Player B wasn’t found
during all the mentioned absence period despite several attempts by the Club S
(…), contacting him. Until 11.01.2013 Player B didn’t present in Club S justifiable
evidence for his absence.”
Player B, from country P / Club S, from country B
7
11.
Therefore, it is clear for the Chamber that the actual reason for the termination of
the contract was the Claimant’s absence from the Respondent between 18
December 2012 and 4 January 2013. Having established the foregoing, the
Chamber turned its attention to the document submitted by the Claimant
concerning the Respondent’s “program” for the period between 16 December
2012 and 4 January 2013. Said document clearly indicates that the period between
16 December 2012 until and including 4 January 2013 were declared as holidays.
What is more, the Chamber stressed that the Respondent, in its reply to the claim,
had confirmed that the Claimant’s visits to the stadium between 19 December
2012 and 4 January 2013 could not be taken into consideration since the
aforementioned period of time had been declared as holidays. Hence, the
Chamber came to the unanimous conclusion that the Claimant was in fact
authorized to be absent from the club between 18 December 2012 and 3 January
2013, i.e. on the dates that, in the “order of dismissal”, were indicated as the dates
on which the Claimant was absent from the club without a valid reason and which
lay at the basis of the dismissal.
12.
As a result, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent did not have a just cause
to prematurely terminate the employment contract with the Claimant, since the
latter was authorized to be absent from the club in view of the fact that the
relevant period was declared as holidays.
13.
Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber went on to deliberate as to
whether, as alleged by the Claimant, the Respondent had, prior to the termination
of the contract, failed to fulfil its financial obligations towards the Claimant. In this
regard, the Chamber pointed out that the Respondent had not contested that it
had not made payment of the Claimant’s salaries for the months of October to
November 2012. Indeed, the Respondent had indirectly confirmed such fact by
alleging having paid the salaries in March 2013, i.e. after having terminated the
contract.
14.
Consequently, the Chamber came to the unanimous conclusion that the
Respondent had breached the contract by failing to pay the Claimant’s salaries for
the months of October and November 2012.
15.
On account of the above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent had no just
cause to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship between the Claimant
and the Respondent and, therefore, concluded that the Respondent had
terminated the employment contract without just cause on 18 January 2013.
Equally, the Chamber reiterated that, prior to terminating the contract, the
Respondent had breached its contractual obligations by failing to pay 2 monthly
salaries to the Claimant. Consequently, the Respondent is to be held liable for the
early termination of the employment contact without just cause.
Player B, from country P / Club S, from country B
8
16.
Bearing in mind the previous considerations, the Chamber went on to deal with
the consequences of the early termination of the employment contract without
just cause by the Respondent.
17.
First of all, the members of the Chamber concurred that the Respondent must
fulfill its obligations as per employment contract up until the date of termination
of the contract in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt
servanda”. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the Respondent indicated that,
in March 2013, it had already paid the outstanding salaries claimed by the
Claimant to his agent, Mr R, which could be adduced by the “Mandate” and the
“Declaration.” The Chamber noted as well that the Claimant however contested
the validity of the relevant documents stating that his signature on the “Mandate”
was falsified and that he therefore never authorized the Respondent to make any
payments to Mr R.
18.
On account of the above, the Chamber duly noted that it had to examine if the
Claimant’s remuneration for the period between October and December 2012 was
still outstanding. In this regard, the Chamber referred to the rule of the burden of
proof mentioned in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which any
party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of
proof.
19.
With due consideration to the above and while examining the content of the
“Mandate”, the Chamber established that it did not have to enter into the
question whether or not the signature of the Claimant on the “Mandate” was
forged. The Chamber stressed that the content of the “Mandate” could not be
interpreted in the sense that the Claimant had authorized the Respondent to pay
his remuneration to Mr R. Indeed, the “Mandate” merely stipulates that the agent
could “receive the transfer from Club S according his work relations with the
mentioned club”. In the Chamber’s view, the aforementioned statement does not
specifically refer to the Claimant’s salaries and, as a consequence, the Chamber
decided that the Respondent had not provided any documentation from which it
could unambiguously be established that the Claimant had authorised the
Respondent to pay his outstanding salaries to Mr R. In other words, the
Respondent had not proved to the Chamber’s satisfaction that, with the alleged
payment transferred to the agent, it had in fact settled the debt it had towards
the Claimant.
20.
As a result, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the
Claimant the remuneration for the months during which the Claimant was
employed by the Respondent but had not yet been paid at the time of the
termination i.e. the amount of EUR 24,999, consisting of the three monthly salaries
of EUR 8,333 for the months of October, November and December 2012. In this
Player B, from country P / Club S, from country B
9
respect, the Chamber clarified that although the salary for December 2012 only fell
due on 25 January 2013, it should be included in the calculation for the
outstanding remuneration since the relevant payment corresponded to the
remuneration earned in a month prior to the termination of the contract.
21.
In continuation, the Chamber decided that, taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1
of the Regulations, the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent
compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding salaries on the
basis of the relevant employment contract.
22.
In this context, the Chamber outlined that, in accordance with said provision, 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.
23.
In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to
clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision by
means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of
compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of
contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that no such compensation clause
was included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.
24.
As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant 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.
25.
Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber
proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the
terms of the employment contract until 30 June 2015, taking into account that the
player´s remuneration until December 2012 is included in the calculation of the
outstanding remuneration (cf. no. II./20. above). Consequently, the Chamber
concluded that the amount of EUR 280,002 (i.e. the remuneration as from January
2013 until 20 June 2015) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
Player B, from country P / Club S, from country B
10
26.
In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant 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.
27.
Indeed, on 17 January 2014, the Claimant found employment with Club D, from
country C. In accordance with the pertinent employment contract, which has been
made available by the Claimant, valid until 31 May 2015, the Claimant was entitled
to receive a total salary of EUR 19,000.
28.
Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must
pay the amount of EUR 261,002 to the Claimant, which was to be considered a
reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the
present matter.
29.
In conclusion, for all the above reasons, the Chamber decided to partially accept
the Claimant´s claim and that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant the
amount of EUR 24,999 as outstanding remuneration and the amount of EUR
261,002 as compensation for breach of contract.
30.
As to the Claimant’s request for EUR 50,000 as patrimonial damages and nonpatrimonial damages, the Chamber decided to reject such request due to the lack
of a legal basis.
31.
In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the further consequences of
the breach of contract in question and, in this respect, addressed the question of
sporting sanctions in accordance with art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations. The cited
provision stipulates inter alia that, in addition to the obligation to pay
compensation, sporting sanctions shall be imposed on a club found to be in breach
of contract during the protected period.
32.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to item 7 of the “Definitions”
section of the Regulations, which stipulates, inter alia, that the protected period
shall last “for three entire seasons or three years, whichever comes first, following
the entry into force of a contract, where such contract is concluded prior to the
28th birthday of the professional, or two entire seasons or two years, whichever
comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where such contract is
concluded after the 28th birthday of the professional”. In this respect, the Chamber
took note that the breach of the employment contract by the Respondent had
Player B, from country P / Club S, from country B
11
occurred on 18 January 2013, i.e. just 6 months following the entry into force of
the contract at the basis of the dispute. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that,
irrespective of the player’s age, such breach of contract by the Respondent had
occurred within the protected period.
33.
As a result, by virtue of art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations and considering that the
Respondent had been found in breach of an employment contract without just
cause, the Chamber decided that the Respondent shall be banned from registering
any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the two next entire and
consecutive registration periods following the notification of the present decision.
In this regard, the Chamber emphasized that apart from the Respondent having
clearly acted in breach of the contract within the protected period, the
Respondent was also found to have breached the contract with the player T (case
ref. nr. 13-02461/XXX), having terminated the contract under similar circumstances.
34.
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 B, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club S, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the
date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of
EUR 24,999.
3.
The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of
notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of
EUR 261,002.
4.
In the event that the aforementioned amounts are not paid within the stated time
limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will apply as of the expiry of the stipulated
time limits and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA
Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and a formal decision.
5.
Any further request filed by the Claimant is rejected
Player B, from country P / Club S, from country B
12
6.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the
account number to which the remittances are to be made and to notify the
Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received.
7.
The Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either
nationally or internationally, for the two next entire and consecutive registration
periods following the notification of the present decision.
*****
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 B, from country P / Club S, from country B
13