Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 7 June 2013
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Philippe Piat (France), member
Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member
Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member
Guillermo Saltos Guale (Ecuador), member
on the claim presented by the club,
Club R, from country B
as Claimant/Counter-Respondent
against the club,
Club Z, from country N
as Respondent/Counter-Claimant
regarding a training compensation dispute
related to the transfer of the player E
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to the player passport issued by the country B Football Association the player,
E (hereinafter: the player), born in August 1987, was registered with the country B clubs
as follows:
Registration period
3 July 2003 – 30 June 2004
1 July 2004 – 23 January 2006
24 January 2006 – 4 December 2006
5 December 2006 – 9 January 2007
10 January 2007 – 10 July 2007
11 July 2007 – 23 July 2007
Club
Club R
Club R
Club S (on loan)
Club R
Club Z
Club R
Player’s status
amateur
professional
professional
professional
professional
professional
2.
The sporting season in country B follows the calendar year.
3.
According to a written statement of the country N Football Association the player was
registered with the Club Z, from country N (hereinafter: the Respondent/CounterClaimant), on 22 January 2007 as a professional. Furthermore, it stated that the player
has never been registered on a loan basis with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant.
4.
The country N Football Association confirmed that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant
belonged to category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year within UEFA) during
the season 2006/2007.
5.
On 20 May 2009, Club R (hereinafter: the Claimant/Counter-Respondent) contacted FIFA
asking for its proportion of training compensation from the Respondent/CounterClaimant in the amount of EUR 161,754.44 plus 5% interest p.a. as from August 2007.
6.
In its claim, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent stated that the player was first
transferred on 10 January 2007 from the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant, on a loan basis, for a period of six months without the
payment of a transfer fee. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent further states that, on
24 July 2007, the player was definitely transferred to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant,
after having terminated his employment contract with the Claimant/CounterRespondent.
7.
In support of its allegations, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent provided FIFA with the
following documentation:
Training Compensation for the player E
(Club R, from country B / Club Z, from country N)
2
a. a letter dated 18 January 2007, sent to the country B Football Association and
signed by the president of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the director of
the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the player, according to which “the
athlete Player N (…) has a contract in force with Club R (…) from
02 January 2007 to 02 January 2009. (…) the loan contract is free of charge for
the period comprehended between 10 January 2007 to 10 July 2007 with a
monthly wage or EUR 2,000”;
b. a termination agreement (“acknowledgement of debt”) dated 18 July 2007
signed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and Mr B, the player’s father,
which establishes the following: “Taking into account the fact that the
Sportsman Player E has no interest in continuing his employment contract with
Club R, and, considering the fact that his father wishes to offer the sum of U$
50,000 (fifty thousand dollars) to the club to grant the certificate releasing him
and rescinding his employment contract on this date, the parties sign this
instrument irreversibly and irrevocably.”
8.
In its reply, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant rejected the claim lodged by the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent claiming that the player was under contract with the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant since 10 January 2007 on a permanent basis, i.e. the
player was allegedly never registered with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on a loan
basis.
9.
In this respect, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant stated that the player signed his first
professional contract with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on 10 January 2007, for
which reason the claim lodged by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent on 20 May 2009
should be considered as prescribed, in line with art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations).
10.
Furthermore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant alleged that, if FIFA would be of the
opinion that the player was playing for the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on a loan
basis, from January to July 2007, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent has already received
compensation for the training of the player, since the latter had to pay a penalty in the
amount of USD 50,000 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent for the early termination of
the contract. Therefore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant deems that it should not be
obliged to pay any training compensation to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent.
11.
In this regard, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant also enclosed a copy of the
termination agreement signed between the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the
player’s father (cf. point I.7.b. above), as well as copies of two employment contracts
concluded with the player, one dated 10 January 2007 for the period of 1 January 2007
Training Compensation for the player E
(Club R, from country B / Club Z, from country N)
3
until 30 June 2007 and the other one dated 16 May 2007 for the period of 1 July 2007
until 30 June 2008.
12.
Additionally, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant asserted that, should FIFA decide to
take into account the information contained in the player passport issued by the
country B Football Association, this would be a case of “subsequent transfer”, according
to art. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations. In such cases, training compensation is only
due to the previous club of the player for the time he was effectively trained by that
club. In this context, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant deems that it should only be
obliged to pay training compensation to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent for the
period from 11 July 2007 until 23 July 2007.
13.
Moreover, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant stated that, should FIFA consider that the
player was on loan with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant as from 10 January 2007
until 10 July 2007, it lodges a counterclaim against the Claimant/Counter-Respondent,
requesting the amount of EUR 45,000 as training compensation for the aforementioned
period, based on the player’s transfer from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent on 11 July 2007, according to the country B player
passport.
14.
In its replica, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent rejected the counterclaim lodged by the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant. According to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, its
employment contract with the player was valid until January 2009, and from 10 January
2007 until 10 July 2007 the player had been loaned to the Respondent/CounterClaimant. In this context, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent stated that "the player has
never been transferred from Club Z to Club R. On 11 July 2007, the player returned to
Club R after the final term of his loan period with the country N club, which means that
no transfer has occurred – the parties were only complying with the loan agreement".
15.
Furthermore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent pointed out that "Immediately after
the early and unjustified termination of his contract, the player was definitely
registered by Club Z in the country N Football Association as a free player, despite the
fact that, during the loan period, Club Z has never formally manifested its intention to
hire the player on a definitive basis".
16.
For all the aforementioned reasons, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent adhered to its
claim, asking for its proportion of training compensation from the Respondent/CounterClaimant.
17.
In its duplica, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant referred to its previous statements.
Training Compensation for the player E
(Club R, from country B / Club Z, from country N)
4
18.
In its last position on the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim,
Claimant/Counter-Respondent maintained its previous argumentation.
the
II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the 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 20 May 2009. Consequently, the 2008
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 par. 2 and 3 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. d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2012), the
Dispute Resolution Chamber is, in principle, competent to deal with the matter at stake
relating to training compensation between clubs belonging to different associations.
3.
The Chamber continued to analyse which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect and in accordance with art. 26 par. 2 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2005, 2008, 2009, 2010 and
2012; hereinafter: the Regulations), the members of the DRC pointed out that, in order
to establish which edition of the regulations is to be applied in the case at hand, the
date of the event giving rise to the present dispute must be determined.
4.
In this context, the Chamber recalled that, in accordance with art. 2 par. 1 of Annexe 4
of the Regulations, training compensation is due when the player is registered for the
first time as a professional, or if a professional is transferred between two clubs of two
different associations (whether during or at the end of his contract) before the end of
the season of his 23rd birthday. Therefore, in the present matter, the dispute must be
assessed according to the regulations that were in force when the professional was
registered with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant.
5.
In this respect, the DRC noted, however, that there appears to be a discrepancy
between the registration dates of the player as indicated by the Claimant/CounterRespondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant.
6.
Turning its attention to the evidence on file, the members of the Chamber noted that,
while the Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims that the date of the definitive transfer
of the player to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was the 23 July 2007 and that
Training Compensation for the player E
(Club R, from country B / Club Z, from country N)
5
between 10 January 2007 and 10 July 2007 the player was on loan with the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the latter states that the definitive transfer of the player
already took place on 10 January 2007 and, thus, he was never on loan with the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant.
7.
In continuation, the DRC noted that in support of its argumentation, the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent provided a copy of the player’s passport issued by the
country B Football Association, according to which the player was loaned to the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant between 10 January 2007 and 10 July 2007, as well as of
a letter dated 18 January 2007, signed by the president of the Claimant/CounterRespondent, the director of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the player, which
established that “the athlete Player E (…) has a contract in force with Club R (…) from
02 January 2007 to 02 January 2009. (…) the loan contract is free of charge for the
period comprehended between 10 January 2007 to 10 July 2007 with a monthly wage
or EUR 2,000”.
8.
Subsequently, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant
equally provided documental evidence of its position, namely a declaration of the
country N Football Association, dated 21 September 2010, according to which the player
has never been registered on a loan basis for the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, and
the copy of the agreement dated 18 July 2007 signed by the Claimant/CounterRespondent and Mr B, which states that “Taking into account the fact that the
Sportsman Player N has no interest in continuing his employment contract with Club R,
and, considering the fact that his father wishes to offer the sum of U$ 50,000 (fifty
thousand dollars) to the club to grant the certificate releasing him and rescinding his
employment contract on this date, the parties sign this instrument irreversibly and
irrevocably.”
9.
In view of the aforementioned arguments and documentation provided by the parties
and of the discrepant information provided by the country B Football Association and
the country N Football Association, the DRC deemed that the document dated
18 January 2007 was to be considered as fundamental to determine the registration
date of the player.
10.
In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that since the aforementioned document,
dated 18 January 2007, is signed by both clubs and the player, clearly indicates who is
loaning and who is receiving the player, on loan, the duration of and the compensation
for the loan, as well as the player’s remuneration for such period, this letter contains all
elements of a loan agreement and has, therefore, to be considered as such.
Training Compensation for the player E
(Club R, from country B / Club Z, from country N)
6
11.
What is more, according to an agreement signed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
and the player, dated 18 July 2007 and submitted to FIFA by the Respondent/CounterClaimant, the signing parties decided to terminate the employment contract (cf. points
I.7.b. and I.11. above). In this regard, the DRC had to assume that the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant was duly aware of the player being still contractually
bound to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent.
12.
As a consequence, the members of the Chamber concluded that during the period as
from 10 January 2007 until 10 July 2007 the player was registered with the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant on a temporary basis.
13.
Therefore, the DRC concluded that the definitive registration of the player with the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant had occurred after the termination of his employment
contract with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent.
14.
According to the player passport issued by the country B Football Association, the player
was registered with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent as from 11 July 2007 until
23 July 2007, after returning from the loan with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, as
established in the letter of 18 January 2007 (cf. point I.7.a. above). Consequently, the
Chamber concluded that the definitive transfer of the player to the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant took place one day after the last registration day of the
player with the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, i.e. on the 24 July 2007.
15.
In view of the foregoing, the members of the Chamber confirmed that in accordance
with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(editions 2012, 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2005; hereinafter: the Regulations), the 2005
edition of said Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
16.
The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been
established, the DRC focused on the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s objection,
according to which the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent would not be
admissible, since it was submitted more than two years after the event giving rise to the
dispute, taking into account the argument that the player’s definitive registration with
the Respondent/Counter-Claimant would have been concluded on 10 January 2007.
17.
In view of the objection of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the Chamber stated that
prior to deliberating on the substance of the matter, the DRC must verify whether it
would be able to deal with the present affair or not for formal reasons.
18.
In this context, the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations, in connection
with the Procedural Rules, which stipulate that the decision-making bodies of FIFA shall
not hear any dispute if more than two years have elapsed since the facts leading to the
Training Compensation for the player E
(Club R, from country B / Club Z, from country N)
7
dispute arose and that the application of this time limit shall be examined ex officio in
each individual case.
19.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to the conclusions of its previous
analysis on the player’s definitive registration with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant
(cf. points II.6. to II.14. above), according to which the player was to be considered
registered with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on a permanent basis on
24 July 2007, in line with the information contained in the player’s passport issued by
the country B Football Association, the document dated 18 January 2007 and the
agreement of 18 July 2007.
20.
Therefore, the members of the DRC concluded that, in casu, and, in accordance with art.
3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the payment of training compensation fell due
on 24 August 2007, i.e. 31 days after the registration of the player within the country N
Football Association, and that this date was the starting point of the time period of two
years set out under art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations. Equally, the Chamber held that the
time period of two years had elapsed, in casu, on 25 August 2009.
21.
In view of the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that, considering the date of the
player’s registration with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, i.e. 24 July 2007, and the
date on which the Claimant/Counter-Respondent lodged its claim, i.e. 20 May 2009, the
latter was lodged within two years since the event giving rise to the dispute and,
consequently, the Chamber rejected the Respondent’s objection regarding the
prescription of the claim.
22.
Having established that the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is admissible, the
DRC entered into the substance of the matter and, in this respect, it proceeded in the
analysis of the argumentation and documentation provided by both parties in the
context of the present affair.
23.
With due consideration to the above, the members of the Chamber wished to recall
that, as established in art. 20 as well as in art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 in combination with
art. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, training compensation is payable, as a general
rule, for training incurred between the ages of 12 and 21 when a professional is
transferred between two clubs of two different associations, before the end of the
season of the player’s 23rd birthday. Moreover, in accordance with art. 3 par. 1 and par.
2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, in case of subsequent transfers of the professional
training compensation will only be owed to his former club for the time he was
effectively trained by that club.
Training Compensation for the player E
(Club R, from country B / Club Z, from country N)
8
24.
Furthermore, the Chamber referred to art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations, which stipulates
that professionals may be loaned to another club on the basis of a written agreement
between the professional and the clubs concerned. Moreover, the last sentence of said
article stipulates that any such loan is subject to the same rules as apply to the transfer
of players, including the provisions on training compensation and the solidarity
mechanism.
25.
In this context, the members of the DRC turned their attention to the argument raised
by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant according to which, should the DRC decide to take
into account the information contained in the player passport issued by the country B
Football Association, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent would only be entitled to
training compensation for the period as from 11 July 2007 until 23 July 2007, since the
chain of entitlement had been broken on 10 January 2007, as the player was transferred
to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, causing the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to be
deprived of its potential entitlement to claim training compensation for any period of
time prior to such transfer.
26.
In this respect, the Chamber stressed that one of the aims of the last sentence of art. 10
par. 1 of the Regulations is to ensure that the training clubs which register a player on a
loan basis also benefit from the solidarity mechanism and training compensation,
provided that the relevant prerequisites in the pertinent provisions of the Regulations
are fulfilled. This approach is also in line with the Chamber’s well-established
jurisprudence that all clubs which have in actual fact contributed to the training and
education of a player as from the age of 12 until the age of 21 (unless it is evident that
the player has already terminated his training period before the age of 21) are, in
principle, entitled to training compensation for the timeframe that the player was
effectively trained by them.
27.
At this point, the members of the Chamber deemed it essential to emphasize that, as to
the liability to pay training compensation, the analogy established in art. 10 par. 1 of
the Regulations could not be extended to the case in which a player is loaned to a club
and, thus, is not definitively transferred to it. In other words, the transfer of a player
from his club of origin to the club that accepts him on loan, as well as the return of this
player from the club that accepted him on loan to his club of origin, do not constitute
“subsequent transfers” in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations. The Chamber was eager to point out that it could not have been the
intention of the legislator of the relevant regulatory provision (i.e. art. 10 par. 1 of the
Regulations) to trigger the consequences of art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations
on the occasion of a transfer on a loan basis and, thus, potentially deprive the loan of
its essential flexibility and, in connection with the training and education of players, its
Training Compensation for the player E
(Club R, from country B / Club Z, from country N)
9
purpose of providing young players with the opportunity to gain practical experience in
official matches for another club in order to develop in a positive way.
28.
Hence, the DRC reiterated that for the purposes of the provisions of the Regulations
governing the payment of training compensation, the loan of a young player from his
club of origin to other clubs does not interrupt the ongoing training period of the
player and the obligation to pay training compensation arises only in case a player is
transferred on a definitive basis, with the effect that, at that moment, the club which
transferred the player on a loan basis to another club is entitled to training
compensation for the entire period of time during which it effectively trained the
player, excluding, however, the period of time of the loan.
29.
Bearing in mind the foregoing, the members of the Chamber concluded, in line with the
considerations made in points II.6. to II.14. above, that the loan of the player to the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant on 10 January 2007 did not break the chain of
entitlement to training compensation, as a player’s temporary transfer to another club
while still being contractually bound to his club of origin (yet, with the effects of the
relevant contract being temporarily suspended) does not trigger the application of art.
3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
30.
Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber
concurred that it had to reject the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s argumentation in
relation to art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations and establish that, the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent is entitled to claim training compensation for entire
period during which the player was registered with it, until his definitive transfer to the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant on 24 July 2007.
31.
Turning its attention to the calculation of training compensation due to the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the Chamber
referred to art. 5 par. 1 and 2 of the Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which stipulate that,
as a general rule, it is necessary to take into consideration the costs that would have
been incurred by the new club as if it had trained the player itself and thus, it is
calculated based on the training costs of the new club multiplied by the number of
years of training with the former club.
32.
In this respect, the members of the Chamber duly noted that, according to the
documentation on file, the player, born in August 1987, had been registered with the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent from 3 July 2003 until 30 June 2004 as an amateur, from
1 July 2004 until 23 January 2006, from 5 December 2006 until 9 January 2007 and from
11 July 2007 until 23 July 2007, as a professional, and that on 24 July 2007 he was
Training Compensation for the player E
(Club R, from country B / Club Z, from country N)
10
registered as a professional with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, which belonged to
category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year within UEFA).
33.
Additionally, and considering art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, which
stipulates that the amount payable is calculated on a pro rata basis according to the
period of training that the player spent with each club, the Chamber concluded that the
effective period of time to be considered in the matter at stake corresponds to
32 months.
34.
Consequently and taking into account all the above-mentioned elements as well as the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim, the DRC decided that the Claimant/CounterRespondent was entitled to receive training compensation for the training and
education of the player for the period of time as from 3 July 2003 (the season of the
player’s 16th birthday) until 23 January 2006 (the season of the player’s 19th birthday),
5 December 2006 (the season of the player’s 19th birthday) until 9 January 2007 (the
season of the player’s 20th birthday) and as from 11 July 2007 until 23 July 2007 (the
season of the player’s 20th birthday), i.e. for 32 months, in the total amount of
EUR 160,000.
35.
Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim as well as
art. 3 par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the members of the Chamber decided that
the Respondent/Counter-Claimant has to pay interest of 5% p.a. over the amount
payable as training compensation, as of 24 August 2007 until the date of effective
payment.
36.
In continuation, the members of the Chamber proceeded to analyse the counterclaim of
the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for the payment of training compensation for the
period of 10 January 2007 until 10 July 2007, in the amount of EUR 45,000, in
connection with the transfer of the player to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent on 11
July 2007.
37.
In this respect, the DRC referred to its previous considerations (cf. points II.23. to II.30.
above) and reiterated that the transfer of a player from the club of origin to the club
that accepts the player on loan, as well as the return of the player from the club that
accepted him on loan to the club of origin, do not constitute “subsequent transfers” in
the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
38.
Therefore, since the player was still contractually bound to the Claimant/CounterRespondent during the loan period between 10 January 2007 and 10 July 2007, by
having a valid employment contract until 2 January 2009 and no transfer in the sense of
art. 2 par. 1 ii) of Annexe 4 of the Regulations having occurred from the
Training Compensation for the player E
(Club R, from country B / Club Z, from country N)
11
Respondent/Counter-Claimant to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent on 11 July 2007, the
Chamber considered that the prerequisites to claim training compensation are not
fulfilled and, therefore, decided to reject the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s
counterclaim.
39.
In continuation, the DRC referred to art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, according to
which in the proceedings before the Dispute Resolution Chamber relating to disputes
regarding training compensation costs in the maximum amount of currency of country
H 25,000 are levied. The relevant provision further states that the costs are to be borne
in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and that, according
to Annexe A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the proceedings are to be levied on
the basis of the amount in dispute.
40.
In respect of the above, the DRC held that the amount in dispute to be taken into
consideration in the present proceedings amounts to EUR 161,754.44 related to the
claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the
maximum amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country
H 20,000 (cf. table in Annexe A of the Procedural Rules).
41.
Considering that the case at hand did show factual difficulty as well as legal complexity,
the Chamber determined the final amount of costs of the current proceedings to the
amount of currency of country H 15,000.
42.
In this respect, the Chamber took into account that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
paid advance of costs in the amount of currency of country H 5,000 in accordance with
art. 17 of the Procedural Rules.
43.
In view of all of the above, the Chamber concluded that the amount of currency of
country H 15,000 has to be paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to cover the costs
of the present proceedings. Thereof the amount of currency of country H 10,000 has to
be paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant to FIFA and the amount of currency of
country H 5,000 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent.
44.
In conclusion, the DRC decided that the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is
partially accepted and that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is liable to pay the
amount of EUR 160,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as of 24 August 2007 until the date of
effective payment to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent for the training and education
of the player as well as the amount of currency of country H 15,000 as procedural costs.
Training Compensation for the player E
(Club R, from country B / Club Z, from country N)
12
45.
Finally, the Chamber concluded its deliberations by deciding that any further claim of
the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is rejected and that the counterclaim of the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant is rejected.
*****
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Club R, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Club R, is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club Z, has to pay to the Claimant/CounterRespondent, Club R, the amount of EUR 160,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from
24 August 2007 until the date of effective payment, within 30 days as from the date
of notification of the present decision.
4.
If the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the aforementioned
deadline, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary
Committee, for consideration and a formal decision.
5.
Any further claims lodged by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Club R, are rejected.
6.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club Z, is rejected.
7.
The final amount of costs of the proceeding in the amount of currency of country
H 15,000 is to be paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club Z, within 30 days of
notification of the present decision as follows:
7.1 The amount of currency of country H 10,000 to FIFA to the following bank account
with reference to case no. [XX-XXXXX]:
7.2 The amount of currency of country H 5,000 directly to the Claimant/CounterRespondent,Club R.
8.
The Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Club R, is directed to inform the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club Z, immediately and directly of the account number
Training Compensation for the player E
(Club R, from country B / Club Z, from country N)
13
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
Training Compensation for the player E
(Club R, from country B / Club Z, from country N)
14