Labour Disputes
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 player
Player C, from country A
as Claimant
against the club
Club F, from country C
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute
arisen between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 4 August 2010, Player C, from country A (hereinafter: player or Claimant)
and Club F, from country C (hereinafter: club or Respondent), signed an
employment contract and an “Agreement” valid as of the date of signature
until 31 May 2012 (hereinafter: contract & agreement).
2.
According to the contract, the club agreed to pay to the player:
From 30 August 2010 until 31 May 2011 – EUR 67,500 in ten monthly
equal instalments of EUR 6,750;
From 30 August 2011 until 31 May 2012 – EUR 67,500 in ten monthly
equal instalments of EUR 6,750.
3.
According to art. 1 of the agreement “The parties agree that the Player will
assign and the player assigns with the present agreement all his image rights
for commercial exploitation to the Club for the season 2010-2011 and 20112012 in consideration of the following amounts”
A signing-on fee of EUR 50,000;
From 30 August 2010 until 31 May 2011 – EUR 17,500 in ten monthly
equal instalments of EUR 1,750;
From 30 August 2011 until 31 May 2012 – EUR 67,500 in ten monthly
equal instalments of EUR 6,750.
Besides the abovementioned amounts, bonuses and flight tickets are also
included in the agreement.
4.
Furthermore, art. 17 of the contract states that “if the player shall be guilty of
serious misconduct or the Disciplinary Rules of the Club or the terms and
conditions of this Agreement, the Club may, on giving notice to the player by
recorded delivery letter, stating the full reasons for the action taken, terminate
this Agreement. Such action shall be subject to the player´s right of appeal as
follows: to the Dispute Resolution Chamber established to the country C
Football Association; to any tribunal or labour Court in country C; to FIFA and
its competent departments”.
5.
On 21 March 2011, the player lodged a claim against the club before FIFA
claiming that, on 2 December 2010, the club had terminated the contract
without just cause and should be thus held liable for the payment of
compensation.
Player C, from country A / Club F, from country C
2/14
6.
The player claims to have always acted in compliance with his contractual
obligations, however, during the month of November 2010, and after the
alleged resignation of the club´s head coach, the player claims to have been
disregarded by the newly appointed coach, whom from a purely sporting point
of view, did not count on his services.
7.
Shortly after, on 2 December 2010, and allegedly in compliance with art. 17 of
the contract, the player was formally notified by the club of its decision to
unilaterally terminate the contract.
8.
As a result of the club´s apparent unilateral termination without just cause, the
player claims to have seeked explanations from the club whilst requesting the
latter permission to rejoin training.
9.
On 6 December 2010, and in reply to his aforementioned request, the player
was provided with a second termination letter which stated the following
“further to our letter dated 2nd December 2010 regarding the termination of
the contract and/or agreement, and in reply to your oral request, we advise
you that you are not obliged to follow the team´s training schedule”.
10.
In light of the above, the player firmly believes that the club´s decision to
unilaterally terminate the contract on the basis of art. 17 is truly unfounded
and unsubstantiated. According to the player, the club invoked art. 17 of the
contract in a very general manner, failing to indicate whether the former had
actually incurred in any type of breach of the club´s disciplinary rules.
11.
Moreover, the player acknowledges to have received his monthly salaries for
August, September and October 2010, as well as EUR 20,250 of the
corresponding EUR 50,000 which were due upon the signing of the agreement.
12.
On the basis of the above-mentioned facts, and as a result of the club´s alleged
unilateral termination of the contract without just cause, the player is
requesting to be awarded the total amount of EUR 229,500, plus interests:
a.
Amounts requested under the contract:
- EUR 47,250 corresponding to the amounts due as from 30 November
2010 until 31 May 2011 (6,750 x 7);
- EUR 67,500 corresponding to the amounts due as from 30 August
2011 until 31 May 2012 (6,750 x 10).
Player C, from country A / Club F, from country C
3/14
b.
Amounts requested under the agreement:
- EUR 29,750 corresponding to the remaining amount of the signing-
on fee (50,000-20,250);
- EUR 17,500 corresponding to the amounts due as from 30 August
2010 until 31 May 2011 (1,750 x 10);
- EUR 67,500 corresponding to the amounts due as from 30 August
2011 until 31 May 2012 (6,750 x 10).
13.
In its reply, the club rejects the player´s allegations and principally claims that
FIFA has no competence or jurisdiction in the matter at hand. The club claims
that according to art. 17 of the contract, the parties had clearly agreed that
the player “had to submit any of his claim against the termination of the
contracts to the DRC of the country C Football Federation”.
14.
Upon FIFA’s request to provide the pertinent regulations as well as the
procedural rules, the country C Football Federation provided a copy of the
“Regulations for the registration and transfer of football players” (edition
2005; hereinafter: the Regulations of the country C Football Federation), which
entered into force on 15 June 2005.
a) With regard to the jurisdiction of the Dispute Resolution Committee
(hereinafter: the Committee):
According to art. 22.11 of the Regulations of the country C Football
Federation, the Committee is competent to “adjudicate and/or resolve
any financial or other disputes which may arise: a) between clubs and
non-amateur players […]”.
b) as to the composition:
Art. 22.1 par. 1 and par. 3 of the Regulations of the country C Football
Federation establishes that the Committee consists of five members
(Chairman, Vice-Chairman and three members). The Chairman, ViceChairman and one of the three members are elected by the Executive
Committee of the country C Football Federation, whereas the two
remaining members are nominated by the country C Football Players’
Association
c) finally, with respect to the possibility of an appeal:
Concerning the possibility of an appeal against a decision taken by the
Committee, art. 22.10 stipulates that “any decision of the [Committee]
may be appealed to the Disciplinary Authority of the country C Football
Federation. The Disciplinary Authority shall finally decide on the appeals
referred thereto”.
Player C, from country A / Club F, from country C
4/14
15.
Moreover, the club maintains that according to FIFA´s jurisprudence, FIFA has
“no jurisdiction to try any case and/or any dispute which arises out of an image
rights contract”.
16.
Notwithstanding the claim of lack of competence of the DRC, the club also
submitted a statement as to the substance of the dispute, maintaining that on
2 December 2010, it had effectively terminated the contract and the image
rights agreement with just cause. According to the club, the player had caused
serious troubles with the team´s head coach, which allegedly led the latter,
apparently in accordance with the club´s internal regulations, to submit the
case to the club´s board.
17.
In this respect, and as a result of the player´s alleged gross violation of art. 17
of the contract, the club´s board decided to put an end to the employment
relation with immediate effect, whilst claiming to have fully complied with its
contractual obligations towards the player.
18.
Upon FIFA´s request, the player for his part insists that FIFA has jurisdiction to
deal with the present matter and indicates that on 13 January 2011, he
concluded an employment contract with the Club D, from country G, valid as
from the date of signature until 26 November 2011, with a monthly
remuneration of currency of country G 1,665,915. Moreover, the player
indicates that on 15 January 2012, he concluded an employment contract with
Club D, from country G, valid as from the date of signature until 31 December
2012, with a monthly remuneration of USD 8,000.
*****
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Chamber analysed whether it was competent to deal with the
matter at stake. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 21 par. 1 and 2 of
the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (editions 2008 and 2012; hereinafter: Procedural
Rules). The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 21 March 2011, thus, after
the 2008 edition entered into force on 1 July 2008, but before the 2012 edition
came into force. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the 2008 edition
of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
Player C, from country A / Club F, from country C
5/14
2.
With regard to the competence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, art. 3 par.
1 of the Procedural Rules states that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall
examine its jurisdiction in the light of art. 22 to 24 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012). In accordance with art. 24 par. 1
in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the aforementioned Regulations, the
Dispute Resolution Chamber would, in principle, be competent to deal with
the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between an country A player and a country C club.
3.
However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent contested the
competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of art. 17 of the
employment contract according to which the parties had clearly agreed that
the player “had to submit any of his claim against the termination of the
contracts to the DRC of the country C Football Federation”. Equally, the
Chamber took into account that the Respondent also contested FIFA´s
competence with regards to the agreement signed by the parties on 4 August
2010 (cf. point I./3 above). According to the Respondent, “FIFA has no
jurisdiction to try any case and/or any dispute which arises out of an image
rights contract”.
4.
In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Claimant rejected such position and
insisted on the fact that FIFA has jurisdiction to deal with the present matter.
5.
Taking into account the above, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance
with art. 22 lit. b) of the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players it is competent to deal with a matter such as the one at
hand, unless an independent arbitration tribunal, guaranteeing fair
proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of players
and clubs, has been established at national level within the framework of the
association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. With regard to the
standards to be imposed on an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing
fair proceedings, the Chamber referred to the FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20
December 2005. In this regard, the members of the Chamber further referred
to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber
(NDRC) Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008.
6.
While analysing whether it was competent to hear the present matter, the
Dispute Resolution Chamber deemed it first and foremost of utmost
importance to highlight that the employment contract does not contain a
specific jurisdiction clause, since art. 17 of the employment contract stipulated
the following: “if the [Claimant] shall be guilty of serious misconduct or the
Disciplinary Rules of the Club or the terms and conditions of this Agreement,
the [Respondent] may, on giving notice to the [Claimant] by recorded delivery
Player C, from country A / Club F, from country C
6/14
letter, stating the full reasons for the action taken, terminate this Agreement.
Such action shall be subject to the [Claimant´s] right of appeal as follows: to
the Dispute Resolution Chamber established to the country C Football
Association; to any tribunal or labour Court in country C; to FIFA and its
competent departments”.
7.
Hence, art. 17 of the employment contract does not contain an exclusive
arbitration clause in favour of the Dispute Resolution Chamber of the country
C Football Federation. To the contrary, art. 17 of the employment contract
grants the Claimant the explicit right to refer a potential dispute to FIFA. In
view of the foregoing, the Chamber held that the parties to the present
dispute had explicitly agreed that the Claimant could lodge his claim in front
of FIFA. Therefore, the DRC considered that it was competent to adjudicate on
the present employment-related dispute between the Claimant and the
Respondent.
8.
However, for the sake of completeness, the members of the Chamber wished
to stress that, even if the contract at the basis of the present dispute would
have included such arbitration clause in favour of national dispute resolution,
the Respondent was unable to prove that, in fact, the Dispute Resolution
Committee of the country C Football Federation meets the minimum
procedural standards for independent arbitration tribunals as laid down in art.
22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, in FIFA
Circular no. 1010 as well as in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber
(NDRC) Standard Regulations.
9.
In this respect, general principle of equal representation of players and clubs,
and underlined that the DRC referred to the this principle was one of the very
fundamental elements to be fulfilled, in order for a national dispute resolution
chamber to be recognised as such.
10.
Indeed, this prerequisite is not only mentioned in the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players, but also in FIFA Circular no. 1010 as well as in
art. 3 par. 1 of the NDRC Regulations, which illustrates the aforementioned
principle as follows: “The NDRC shall be composed of the following members,
who shall serve a four-year renewable mandate: a) a chairman and a deputy
chairman chosen by consensus by the player and club representatives […]; b)
between three and ten player representatives who are elected or appointed
either on proposal of the players’ associations affiliated to FIFPro, or, where no
such associations exist, on the basis of a selection process agreed by FIFA and
FIFPro; c) between three and ten club representatives […].” In this respect, the
FIFA Circular no. 1010 states the following: “The parties must have equal
influence over the appointment of arbitrators. This means for example that
every party shall have the right to appoint an arbitrator and the two
appointed arbitrators appoint the chairman of the arbitration tribunal […].
Player C, from country A / Club F, from country C
7/14
Where arbitrators are to be selected from a predetermined list, every interest
group that is represented must be able to exercise equal influence over the
compilation of the arbitrator list.”
11.
The members of the Chamber concurred that the country C “Regulations for
the registration and transfer of football players” (edition 2005), in accordance
with which, inter alia, the chairman, vice-chairman as well as one member are
elected by the Executive Committee of the country C Football Federation, and
two members are elected by the country C Football Players’ Association, do not
meet the aforementioned principle of equal representation.
12.
In view of all the above, the Chamber established that the Respondent’s
objection towards the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has
to be rejected, and that the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent, on the
basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players,
to consider the present matter as to the substance.
13.
In continuation, with regards to the claimed payments in connection to the
alleged image rights agreement signed by the parties, the Chamber also had
to verify whether it was competent to deal with this specific affair or not for
formal reasons. In fact it would be possible that this part of the claim could not
be considered due to the lack of competence as the Chamber has no
competence to deal with disputes related to image rights.
14.
While analysing whether it was competent to hear this part of the claim, the
Chamber, without entering into any discussion regarding the actual wording
of art. 1 of the agreement, which undoubtedly defines the agreement as an
image rights agreement, wished to highlight that said agreement contained
further elements which led to believe that it was not in fact an image rights
agreement but rather a separate agreement to the employment contract.
15.
As a general rule, if there are separate agreements, the DRC tends to consider
the agreement on image rights as such and does not have the competence to
deal with it. However, such conclusion might be different if specific elements
of the separate agreement suggest that it was in fact meant to be part of the
actual employment relation. In the case at hand, such elements appear to exist,
in particular, the agreement contains inter alia a signing-on fee, bonuses and
flights tickets, which are typical for employment contracts and not for image
rights agreements. Consequently, the Chamber decided not to consider the
image rights agreement as such, but determined that said agreement was in
fact an additional agreement to the employment contract instead.
16.
In view of all the above, the Chamber established that the image rights
agreement is to be considered.
Player C, from country A / Club F, from country C
8/14
17.
In continuation, the Chamber analysed which edition of the FIFA Regulations
should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the
Chamber confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010 and 2012) and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 21 March 2011, the 2010
edition of said Regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
18.
The competence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber and the applicable
regulations having been established, the Chamber acknowledged that it was
undisputed by the parties that they had signed an employment contract as
well as an agreement, both dated 4 August 2010, in accordance with which the
player was entitled to receive, inter alia, the total amount of EUR 270,000 for
the period of time between August 2010 and May 2012.
19.
In continuation, the Chamber also took note that it is uncontested by the
Respondent that the contractual relationship between the parties to the
present dispute was terminated by the Respondent on 2 December 2010, at
the moment when the Respondent had submitted its termination letter to the
Claimant.
20.
In this regard, the Chamber took due note that the Claimant argued that the
Respondent had unilaterally terminated the contractual relationship without
just cause pointing out inter alia that the Respondent was in delay of payment
of his salary for November 2010 under the employment contract, whilst under
the agreement, it was still owing him his salary for August, September,
October and November 2010 as well as part of his signing-on fee. Equally, the
Claimant pointed out that the Respondent, in the termination letter, had not
specified any reason whatsoever which would potentially justify the
termination of the employment contract and the agreement. On the other
hand, the Respondent was of the opinion that the relevant employment
contract and agreement had been terminated with just cause, in particular,
alleging that the player had misbehaved and caused serious troubles with the
team´s head coach. The Respondent further held that it duly terminated the
contractual relationship in accordance with art. 17 of the employment contact
and that, consequently, the player had no right to any damages.
21.
In view of the above, the Chamber subsequently went on to deliberate as to
whether the player´s alleged serious misconduct, which is invoked by the
Respondent in its defence, can be considered as a just cause for the
Respondent to prematurely terminate the employment relationship.
Player C, from country A / Club F, from country C
9/14
22.
In this context, whilst referring to 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, the Chamber deemed it fit to highlight that
the Respondent had not presented any documentary evidence corroborating
its allegations regarding this particular point.
23.
Notwithstanding the foregoing consideration, the Chamber pointed out that
the player´s alleged misconduct could not constitute, per se, a valid reason for
the termination of an employment contract. Only a breach or misconduct
which is of certain severity would justify the termination of a contract without
prior warning. 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 assure the employee´s fulfilment of his contractual duties, such
measures must be taken before terminating an employment contract. A
premature termination of an employment contract can always only be an
ultima ratio.
24.
In view of all the above, the Chamber was of the opinion that the Respondent
did not have just cause to prematurely terminate the employment contract
and the agreement with the Claimant, since there would have been more
lenient measures to be taken (i.e., among others, a suspension or a fine), in
order to sanction the alleged misconduct, which was apparently at the basis of
the termination of the employment relationship by the Respondent.
25.
Overall, the Chamber decided that there was no just cause to unilaterally
terminate the employment relationship between the Claimant and the
Respondent and that, therefore, the Respondent had breached the
employment contract and agreement without just cause.
26.
Having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early
termination of the employment contract and the agreement without just
cause, the Chamber focussed its attention on the consequences of such
termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the
Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent
an amount of money as compensation for breach of contract in addition to
any outstanding payments on the basis of the relevant employment contract
and the agreement.
Player C, from country A / Club F, from country C
10/14
27.
First of all, the Chamber reverted to the Claimant´s financial claim, which
includes outstanding remuneration of EUR 6,750 relating to his monthly salary
for November 2010 under the contract, EUR 7,000 relating to his monthly
salary from August to November 2010 under the agreement and EUR 29,750
relating to the remaining part of the signing-on fee reflected in the
agreement.
28.
In this respect, the members of the Chamber recalled that the Respondent had
failed to demonstrate that it had paid such remuneration.
29.
Consequently, taking into account the documentation remitted by the
Claimant to substantiate his claim, the lack of documentary evidence provided
by the Respondent as well as the fact that both the employment contract and
the agreement were considered terminated as of 2 December 2010, the
Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay the Claimant, the
amount of EUR 43,500 relating to payments due to the Claimant as from
August 2010 up to November 2010.
30.
In continuation, the Chamber focussed 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.
31.
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.
32.
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
Player C, from country A / Club F, from country C
11/14
Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a nonexhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when
calculating the amount of compensation payable.
33.
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 both the employment contract and the agreement until 31
May 2012, taking into account that the player´s remuneration up until
November 2010 is included in the calculation of the outstanding remuneration
(cf. no. II./29. above). Consequently the Chamber concluded that the amount
of EUR 186,000 (i.e. salary as from December 2010 until May 2012) serves as the
basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of
contract.
34.
In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed
an employment contract(s) 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(s) 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 13 January 2011, the Claimant found employment with the Club D,
from country G. In accordance with the pertinent employment contract, which
has been made available by the Claimant, valid until 26 November 2011, the
Claimant was entitled to receive a monthly salary of currency of country G
1,665,915 (approx. EUR 2,803). Equally, on 15 January 2012, the Claimant
concluded an employment contract with Club S, from country E, valid until 31
December 2012, according to which he was entitled to a monthly
remuneration of USD 8,000 (approx. EUR 6,447).
36.
Consequently, the Chamber established that the value of the new employment
contracts concluded between the Claimant, Club D and Club S for the period as
from December 2010 until and including May 2012 amounted to EUR 63,068.
37.
In this respect and bearing in mind 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 122,932 to the Claimant, which was
to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for
breach of contract in the present matter.
Player C, from country A / Club F, from country C
12/14
38.
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 43,500 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest p.a. on
said amount as of 21 March 2011 and EUR 122,932 as compensation for breach
of contract plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 7 June 2013.
39.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present
matter by establishing that any further claim filed by the Claimant is rejected.
*****
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Player C, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Club F, 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 43,500 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 21 March 2011 until
the date of effective payment.
4.
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 amounting
to EUR 122,932 plus 5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 7 June 2013 until
the date of effective payment.
5.
In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant in accordance with the
above-mentioned numbers 3. and 4. are not paid by the Respondent within
the stated time limits, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to
the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.
6.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
Player C, from country A / Club F, from country C
13/14
7.
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.
*****
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to art. 67 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed
against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal
must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this
decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the
directives issued by the CAS, a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10
days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the
appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the
appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives).
The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:
Court of Arbitration for Sport
Avenue de Beaumont 2
1012 Lausanne
Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00 / Fax: +41 21 613 50 01
e-mail: [email protected]
www.tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Jérôme Valcke
Secretary General
Encl: CAS directives
Player C, from country A / Club F, from country C
14/14