Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 12 May 2015,
by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge,
on the claim presented by the player,
Player A, from country B
as Claimant
against the club,
Club D, from country L
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On an unknown date, the player A, from country B (hereinafter: player or
Claimant), and Club D, from country L (hereinafter: club or Respondent),
signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid from 1 July
2013 until 30 May 2014.
2.
According to art. 2 of the contract the club undertook to pay the player a
monthly salary of EUR 2,500.
3.
On 18 June 2014, the player put the club in default of payment of EUR 6,700
as outstanding salaries resulting “out of only partial payments of monthly
salaries”.
4.
On 14 July 2014, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA
maintaining that the club failed to pay part of his salary and he therefore
requests that the club be ordered to pay the amount of EUR 6,700 plus “the
statutory default interest accrued over the period from May 31, 2014 until full
payment, within 15 days”.
5.
In his arguments, the player states that he only received partial payments and
that the claimed amount remained unpaid.
6.
After the closure of the investigation-phase in the present matter, the club
replied and acknowledged the existence of a contract with the player for the
2013/2014 season. Nevertheless, the club argued that it fulfilled its financial
duties and that the player “has not obeyed, so the player hasn’t came across in
the club D even though he is announced officially and confidentially”.
II.
Considerations of the DRC judge
1.
First of all, the DRC judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with
the matter at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was
submitted to FIFA on 14 July 2014. Consequently, the Rules Governing the
Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution
Chamber (edition 2012; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the
matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and par. 3 of the
Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par.
2 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (edition 2015) he 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 L.
Player A, from country B / Club D, from country L
Page 2 of 5
3.
In particular, and in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 lit. i) of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players, the DRC judge confirmed that he may
adjudicate in the present dispute which value does not exceed CHF 100,000.
4.
Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which edition of the regulations should
be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed
that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2015), and considering that the present
claim was lodged on 14 July 2014, the 2012 edition of said regulations
(hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
5.
The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been
established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. In this
respect, the DRC judge started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned
facts as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the
parties. However, the DRC judge emphasised that in the following
considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary
evidence, which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at
hand.
6.
In this respect, the DRC judge acknowledged that, on an unknown date, the
parties to the dispute had signed a valid employment contract for the period
of 1 July 2013 until 30 May 2014, in accordance with which the Respondent
undertook to pay the Claimant monthly remuneration in the amount of EUR
2,500.
7.
In this respect, the DRC judge took into consideration that according to the
Claimant, the Respondent had failed to pay his remuneration in the total
amount of EUR 6,700, corresponding to partially unpaid salaries.
Consequently, the Claimant requested to be awarded payment of the total
amount of EUR 6,700 plus interest.
8.
Subsequently, the DRC judge observed that the Respondent, for its part, in
spite of having been invited to do so, failed to present its response to the
claim of the Claimant within the relevant time-limit. In fact, the reply of the
Respondent was only received after the investigation-phase of the matter had
already been concluded. As a result, the DRC judge decided not to take into
account the reply of the Respondent and established that, in accordance with
art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, he shall take a decision upon the basis of
those documents on file that were provided prior to the closure of the
investigation-phase, in casu, upon the statements and documents presented
by the Claimant.
Player A, from country B / Club D, from country L
Page 3 of 5
9.
Taking into account the documentation presented by the Claimant in support
of his petition, the DRC judge concluded that the Claimant had substantiated
his claim pertaining to outstanding remuneration with sufficient documentary
evidence.
10.
On account of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC judge established
that the Respondent failed to remit the Claimant’s remuneration in the total
amount of EUR 6,700.
11.
Consequently, the DRC judge decided that, in accordance with the general
legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the
Claimant outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR 6,700.
12.
In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant
practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the DRC judge decided that the
Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of
EUR 6,700 as from 31 May 2014 until the date of effective payment.
*****
Player A, from country B / Club D, from country L
Page 4 of 5
III.
Decision of the DRC judge
1.
The claim of the Claimant, A, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club D, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from
the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 6,700 plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 31 May 2014 until the date of effective payment.
3.
In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid 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.
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
DRC judge of every payment received.
*****
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to article 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 judge:
Markus Kattner
Deputy Secretary General
Encl: CAS directives
Player A, from country B / Club D, from country L
Page 5 of 5