Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 30 August 2013,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Jon Newman (USA), member
Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member
on the claim presented by the player,
Player G, from country R
as Claimant
against the club,
Club K, from country A
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute
arisen between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 11 August 2010, Player G, from country R (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the
Club K, from country A (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an employment
contract in two versions, namely in language of country A and in English.
2.
The English version of the contract is valid as from 11 August 2010 until 30 June
2012, i.e. for 1 year and 10 months, and bears the signature of the Claimant only.
3.
Articles 3 and 4 of the English contract establish that the Respondent undertakes to
pay the Claimant, inter alia, the following amounts:
For the 2010/2011 season:
- USD 40,000 as sign-on fee, payable on the date of signature;
- USD 60,000 as remuneration, payable in 10 monthly instalments as from 1
August 2010;
- USD 50,000 payable in April 2011, “when 70% of the held matches completed
during the contract period”.
For the 2011/2012 season:
- USD 60,000 payable in August 2011;
- USD 60,000 as remuneration, payable in 10 monthly instalments as from 1
August 2011;
- USD 50,000 payable in April 2011, “when 70% of the held matches completed
during the contract period”.
For the entire duration of the contract:
- Furnished accommodation;
- Four round-trip air tickets for the player and his family;
- medical insurance.
4.
The language of country A version is valid as from the date of the contract’s
registration with the Professional Football League, i.e. 20 August 2010, until 30
June 2012, i.e. for 1 year and 10 months and is signed by both the Claimant and the
Respondent.
5.
Article 5 of the country A contract stipulates that the Claimant shall be entitled to a
monthly salary of currency of country A 2,500, i.e. approximately USD 3,184. Article
4 of said contract also establishes that “This agreement may be terminated upon
the Football Player’s request […] if the club fails to pay in accordance with art. 5.1
the salary entitlements over 2 months”.
6.
On 5 July 2011, the Claimant, after having put the Respondent in arrears,
terminated the contract with the club in writing, based on the non-compliance of
the latter with its contractual obligations based on both contracts, regarding
outstanding salaries in the amount of USD 48,000, for September 2010, December
Player G, from country R / Club K, from country A
2/13
2010 and January to June 2011, as per the English contract, and currency of country
A 12,780.45 for August 2010, September 2010, November 2010, December 2010 and
January to June 2011.
7.
Also on 5 July 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA, alleging unilateral
breach of contract without just cause by the Respondent and requesting, after
having amended his claim, the payment of the amounts listed below, plus interest
of 5% p.a., as follows:
- USD 48,000 corresponding to his monthly salaries for September 2010,
December 2010 and January to June 2011, as per the English contract (USD
6,000 x 8);
- Currency of country A 12,780.45 corresponding to his monthly salaries for
August 2010, September 2010, December 2010 and June 2011 (Currency of
country A 2,500 x 4), plus his partially paid salaries for November 2010
(Currency of country A 255,45) and January to May 2011 (Currency of country A
505 x 5 = Currency of country A 2,525), as per the country A contract;
- USD 220,000 as compensation for breach of contract, corresponding to his
salaries for the residual period of both contracts or currency of country A
30,000 in case the validity of the English contract is not recognized by the DRC,
corresponding to his salaries for the residual period of the country A contract;
- Currency of country A 20,000 as attorney fees.
8.
In addition, the Claimant requests that sporting sanctions should be imposed on the
Respondent.
9.
In his claim, the Claimant states having signed, on 11 August 2010, two employment
contracts, one in English and the other one in language of country A, both valid for
the 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 seasons, after having been assured that both contracts
had exactly the same content. Equally, he was informed that the original version of
both contracts would be brought to the club’s president for signature and
subsequently to the Association of Football Federations of country A for
registration. A copy of both contracts would later be forwarded to him.
10.
The Claimant claims that, even though he repeatedly requested a signed copy of
the English contract, the Respondent only provided him with a copy of the country
A contract. The Claimant, however, claims having received, in cash, some of the
amounts established in the English contract, such as the sign-on fee of USD 40,000
and most of his salaries until December 2010. In this respect, the Claimant provided
the DRC with a bank statement showing several transfers in the total amount of
USD 25,000 between 20 and 24 August 2010, from the Claimant’s agent, as well as
with a bank statement of the Claimant’s fiancée showing a transfer in the amount
of USD 6,000 from Mr T, the club’s vice-president, on 17 August 2010.
Player G, from country R / Club K, from country A
3/13
11.
According to the Claimant, as from December 2010 the club stopped paying him his
salaries according to the English contract and started paying him only part of the
amount established in the country A contract, i.e. currency of country A 1,995
instead of currency of country A 2,500. As per the Claimant’s bank statement on
file, payments in the amount of currency of country A 1,995 were made on 22
October 2010, 22 November 2011, 13 January 2011, 18 February 2011, 17 March
2011, 19 April 2011 and 24 May 2011, and in the amount of currency of country A
754.55 on 19 October 2010.
12.
On 5 January 2011 and on 3 May 2011, the Respondent informed the Claimant in
writing that it had “no objection to the participation of Player G in tries to other
clubs training camps. In this regard we kindly ask you to apply to ‘Club K on this
player’s transfer issues” and that it “would not object to Player G to attend any
other club as a player or trial during the period until his contract with Club K
expires on 30 June 2012”.
13.
The Claimant further alleges having prematurely terminated his previous
employment contract with Club B in country R, as per which he was entitled to a
global salary of EUR 95,000 for the 2010/2011 season and EUR 100,000 for the
2011/2012 season, in order to sign a contract with Club K. In this context, he points
out that it would be illogical to have terminated such a contract to earn currency of
country A 2,500 per month.
14.
By means of his correspondence dated 6, 16 and 24 May 2011 the Claimant
reminded the Respondent of its arrears towards him as per the English contract in
the amount of USD 6,000 for each of the months of September and December 2010,
and January to May 2011, as well as of the fact that the amount of currency of
country A 2,500 established in the country A contract was to be considered a net
amount, and that no discounts should be made. On 13 June 2011, the Respondent
responded to the Claimant’s reminders stating that it had never failed to pay him
the amount of currency of country A 1,995 as monthly salary – Currency of country
A 430 having been deducted as taxes and USD 75 as social security contribution – as
provided for in the only binding contract signed between the parties, i.e. the
country A contract. Having received no payment or reply after his last reminder of
14 June 2011, the Claimant terminated the contract with the club in writing on 5
July 2011.
15.
In its response, the Respondent states that the only contract signed between it and
the Claimant is the country A contract, the English contract presented by the player
being a counterfeit. In addition, such contract does not bear the stamp and the
signature of the club and therefore cannot be considered as binding.
Player G, from country R / Club K, from country A
4/13
16.
The Respondent further states to have always complied with its obligations towards
the Claimant as per the country A contract. The Claimant, however, as from
December 2010 committed several disciplinary faults, such as arriving late at
training, leaving the club’s premises without authorization and refusing to train
with the reserve team. In spite of the Respondent’s warnings, the Claimant
allegedly did not change his behaviour.
17.
Therefore, the Respondent denies having any outstanding amounts towards the
Claimant.
18.
In his replica, the Claimant points out that the Respondent has not enclosed to its
response any documentation substantiating its allegations. Moreover, the Claimant
maintains his previous arguments related to the existence and validity of the
English contract and encloses to his replica copies of contracts regarding other
players of Club K, following the same pattern as the English version of the contract
presented by the player.
19.
The Claimant strongly denies the accusation of falsification of the contract made by
the Respondent as well as the accusation of having committed disciplinary faults.
20.
The Claimant further forwarded to FIFA a statement of his agent, Ms R, in which
the latter states having “personally assisted and represented the player of the
signature of the employment contract with Club K. The conditions agreed between
the player and the club were those set forth in the English version of the
employment contract. The club assured the player and me that the country A
version of the contract was an exact translation of the English version of the
contract including the same conditions and terms agreed between the parties.
There was no official translator language of country A/English present during the
signature of the contracts”.
21.
In its final position, the Respondent maintained its previous argumentation.
22.
Finally, the Claimant stated having been playing for the country R club, Club M, as
from 1 January 2012 until 30 June 2012, with which he was entitled to a monthly
salary of EUR 3,000, corresponding to approximately currency of country A 3,000.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the DRC analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at
hand. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was submitted
to FIFA on 5 July 2011. Consequently, the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the
Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber
Player G, from country R / Club K, from country A
5/13
(hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21
par. 2 and par. 3 of the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the DRC referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and
confirmed that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations;
edition 2010), it is competent to decide on the present litigation, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension, between a country R
player and an country A club.
3.
Furthermore, the DRC analysed which edition of the 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 (edition 2010) and
considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 5 July 2011, the 2010
edition of said Regulations is applicable to the present matter as to the substance.
4.
The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been
established, the Chamber entered into the matter of examining which document
should be considered as the valid and binding legal document at the basis of the
present employment relationship, as the parties had divergent positions in this
regard.
5.
In this context, the members of the Chamber noted that, on the one hand, the
Claimant insists on the existence of two valid and binding employment contracts
between the parties: an English contract, valid as from 11 August 2010 until 30 June
2012, signed by him only, establishing inter alia remuneration in the amount of USD
60,000 per season, and an country A contract, valid as from 20 August 2010 until 30
June 2012, signed by both the Claimant and the Respondent, stipulating a monthly
salary of currency of country A 2,500. The DRC further noted that the Claimant
claims having been informed, prior to signing both contracts, that they contained
exactly the same stipulations and that a signed copy of the English contract would
be returned to him after its registration at the AFFA. In spite of his alleged requests
in this regard, the Claimant claims never having received a copy of the English
contract signed by the Respondent.
6.
In order to prove his allegations concerning the validity of the English contract, the
Claimant provided FIFA with two bank statements, mentioned in point I.10. above,
which allegedly demonstrate that the Respondent was regularly paying his salaries
according to the English contract until November 2010. The Claimant also provided
a statement of his agent, Ms R (cf. point I.20. above), who claims inter alia having
been present at the moment of the signature of the two contracts, which were
supposed to contain the same stipulations.
Player G, from country R / Club K, from country A
6/13
7.
On the other hand, the DRC noted that the Respondent rejects the Claimant’s
allegations regarding the validity of the English contract and insists that only the
country A contract bears the signature of both parties and should, therefore, be
considered as the only legal document at the basis of their employment
relationship.
8.
At this point, the DRC deemed it appropriate to remind the parties of the legal
principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules,
according to which a party claiming a right from an alleged fact shall carry the
respective burden of proof. In the present case, this means that the Claimant bore
the burden of demonstrating the validity of the English contract for the parties, in
view of the fact that such contract contained the signature of the Claimant only.
9.
In this respect, the DRC started by analyzing the content of the bank statements
provided by the Claimant (cf. point I.10. above). After a careful examination of the
aforementioned documents, the Chamber noted that the payments listed on the
bank statements provided by the Claimant were either concluded by the player’s
agent in favour of the player or by the club’s president in favour of the Claimant’s
fiancée, i.e. no direct payment from the Respondent to the Claimant was displayed
in the documentation provided. In addition, it is not possible to identify from said
bank statements whether the payments concluded actually corresponded to the
Claimant’s salaries as established in the English contract, since the amounts
transferred do not correspond one to one to the amounts stipulated in that
contract. Therefore, the DRC concluded that the aforementioned documentation
was not suitable to prove that the Respondent had ever executed the English
contract, let alone being valid and binding for the parties.
10.
In continuation, the DRC focused its attention on the statement issued by the
player’s agent (cf. point I.20. above). In this regard, the Chamber was also eager to
emphasize that the information contained in a personal statement, not supported
by any additional documentation whatsoever, is of mainly subjective perception
and might be affected by diverse contextual factors; therefore, the credibility of
such type of documentation is rather limited. Consequently, the Chamber deemed
that the statement of the player’s agent mentioned above is also unfit to establish
the validity of the English contract.
11.
Finally, the members of the Chamber noted that the Respondent asserts that the
only valid contract between the parties is the country A contract. In addition, the
DRC noted that the copy of the English contract provided by the Claimant indeed
does not bear the signature of the Respondent.
12.
In this respect, the Dispute Resolution Chamber deemed important to highlight
that, in order to be considered valid and binding, an employment contract should
Player G, from country R / Club K, from country A
7/13
necessarily contain the signature of both the employer and the employee, as the
expression of their mutual agreement to a specific set of terms and conditions upon
which their legal relationship is based.
13.
In view of the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed that the Claimant was not
able to provide substantial evidence of the existence of a valid employment
contract drafted in English between the parties and, consequently, the country A
contract was to be considered the only legal document at the basis of the
contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Respondent. Thus, the
Chamber concluded that it was not possible for the DRC to enter the question of
whether or not the English contract had been violated by either party, since there
was no evidence of its validity and that, consequently, the Claimant’s claims based
on the English contract would not be analyzed. This is, no further reference to the
English contract will be made and any reference to the contract between the
parties will relate to the country A contract.
14.
That having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the
matter. In doing so, the Chamber started to acknowledge the facts of the case as
well as the documents contained in the file.
15.
In this respect, the DRC acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that,
on 11 August 2010, the Claimant and the Respondent signed an employment
contract, valid as from 20 August 2010 until 30 June 2012, according to which the
Claimant was entitled to receive a monthly salary of currency of country A 2,500.
16.
Moreover, the members of the DRC noticed that it was equally undisputed by the
parties that the aforementioned contract was unilaterally terminated by the
Claimant on 5 July 2011 in writing.
17.
The Chamber further acknowledged that the Claimant claims not having received
his salary for the months of August 2010, September 2010, December 2010 and June
2011, and having been paid only part of his salary for November 2010 and for
January to May 2011 in the total amount of currency of country A 12,780.45. The
Claimant states that, in spite of his reminders dated 6, 16 and 24 May 2011, and 14
June 2011, he did not receive any payments from the Respondent and had no other
choice but to unilaterally terminate the employment contract on 5 July 2011. Also
on 5 July 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent for breach of
contract, requesting the payment of currency of country A 12,780.45 in outstanding
salaries and currency of country A 30,000 as compensation, based on the country A
contract, as well as currency of country H 20,000 as attorney fees, plus interest of
5% p.a..
Player G, from country R / Club K, from country A
8/13
18.
Subsequently, the Chamber took note of the main arguments of the Respondent,
according to which it had no outstanding debts towards the Claimant. In this
context, the Respondent explains that the Claimant committed several disciplinary
faults and that, in spite of the club’s warnings, he did not change his behaviour. In
addition, the DRC further noted that in its letter of 13 June 2011, a copy of which
was provided by the Claimant, the Respondent confirms having paid the amount of
currency of country A 1,995 as monthly salary to the player, currency of country A
430 and USD 75 having been deducted from each salary as tax payments and social
security contribution, respectively. Therefore, the Respondent entirely rejected the
claim of the Claimant.
19.
Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed that the underlying
issue in this dispute, considering the claim of the Claimant and the allegations of
the Respondent, was to determine whether the employment contract had been
unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by the Claimant, and which party
was responsible for the early termination of the contractual relationship in
question. The DRC also underlined that, subsequently, if it were found that the
employment contract had been breached by one of the parties without just cause, it
would be necessary to determine the consequences for the party that caused the
unjust breach of the relevant employment contract.
20.
In view of the above, the Chamber noted that the Claimant claims that the
Respondent failed to pay his remuneration either partially or entirely for the
months of August, September, November and December 2010, and for January to
June 2011, in the total amount of currency of country A 12,780.45. In this respect,
the Chamber noted that the Claimant provided copies of his reminders dated 6, 16
and 24 May 2011 and 14 June 2011, referring, inter alia, to the unpaid
remuneration for the aforementioned months.
21.
Subsequently, the Chamber took into account the fact that the Respondent does
not contest having paid the player a monthly salary in the amount of currency of
country A 1,995 and having made discounts regarding tax payments and social
security contribution. In addition, the DRC observed that the Respondent does not
present any documentation in support of its allegations of disciplinary breach on
the part of the Claimant.
22.
In this context, the Chamber referred once again to the basic principle of burden of
proof, as mentioned in point II.8. above, and in this respect it deemed that the
Respondent bore the burden of proof regarding the fulfilment of all payments
mentioned as outstanding by the Claimant, as per the country A contract.
23.
In the present case, the Chamber noted that the Claimant, on the one hand,
provided substantial supporting documentation of the notifications sent to the
Player G, from country R / Club K, from country A
9/13
Respondent prior to the termination of the contract, regarding the existence of
outstanding financial obligations on the part of the club, as well as of the fact that
discounts were being made to his monthly salary.
24.
On the other hand, the DRC noted that the Respondent not only acknowledged
having made discounts to the Claimant’s remuneration, by means of its letter dated
13 June 2011, but also did not provide the DRC with any type of substantial
evidence regarding the alleged payment of the salaries claimed as outstanding by
the Claimant.
25.
In this respect, and always bearing in mind the legal principle of burden of proof
and the wording of art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the DRC considered that
the Respondent failed to provide any type of documentation related to an alleged
obligation to deduct taxes from the amounts payable to the Claimant or of the
actual payment of such amounts to the relevant authorities. In addition, the
Chamber observed that such deductions were not stipulated in the contract. Thus,
the DRC concluded that the aforementioned argument of the Respondent could
not be sustained.
26.
Subsequently, the Chamber then turned its attention to the Respondent’s
argument, according to which the Claimant had committed several disciplinary
faults, as from December 2010, and did not change his behaviour in spite of the
warnings allegedly addressed to him in this regard.
27.
The Chamber, always referring to the principle of burden of proof, wished to point
out that such statement of the Respondent is not supported by any evidence in this
respect and, therefore, cannot be taken into account.
28.
In view of the aforementioned considerations, the Chamber concluded that on the
date of termination, i.e. 5 July 2011, the Claimant’s salaries for August, September,
November and December 2010, and for January to June 2011, in the total amount
of currency of country A 12,780.45, were either partially or entirely outstanding.
Therefore, considering the substantial amounts and the extent of the delays and in
accordance with its longstanding jurisprudence, the Chamber decided that the
Respondent was to be held responsible for the breach of contract without just
cause and that, consequently, the contract was terminated by the Claimant with
just cause on 5 July 2011.
29.
Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber focused its attention on the
consequences of the breach of contract without just cause on the part of the
Respondent. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the
Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent an
Player G, from country R / Club K, from country A
10/13
amount of money as compensation for breach of contract in addition to any
outstanding payments on the basis of the relevant contract.
30.
Prior to establishing the amount of compensation for breach of contract due to the
Claimant by the Respondent, the DRC proceeded with the calculation of the
outstanding monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the employment
contract until the date of termination, i.e. on 5 July 2011.
31.
Taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as the reasons previously
exposed, the DRC concluded that, in accordance with the general legal principle of
pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent must fulfill its obligations as per the country A
employment contract concluded with the Claimant and, consequently, is to be held
liable to pay the outstanding remuneration due to the latter in the total amount of
currency of country A 12,780.45, corresponding to monthly salaries for August 2010,
September 2010, December 2010 and June 2011, as well as to partially missing
salaries for November 2010 and for January to May 2011.
32.
The Chamber further established that an interest rate of 5% p.a. would apply over
the aforementioned amounts, as from 5 July 2011, as per the Claimant’s claim.
33.
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.
34.
In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to
clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contains a provision by
means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of
compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of contract.
In this regard, the Chamber established that no such compensation clause was
included in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.
35.
Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the
monies payable to the player under the terms of the employment contract until 30
June 2012. The Chamber concluded that the amount of currency of country A
30,000 serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
Player G, from country R / Club K, from country A
11/13
36.
In continuation, the Chamber verified 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 able to reduce his loss of income. According to
the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, such remuneration under
a new employment contract shall be taken into account for the calculation of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s
general obligation to mitigate his damages.
37.
In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Claimant signed a new employment
contract with the Club M, from country R, valid as from 1 January 2012 until 30 June
2012, for a monthly salary of EUR 3,000, i.e. approximately currency of country A
3,000.
38.
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 currency of country A 12,000 as compensation, plus interest of
5% p.a. as of 30 August 2013 until the date of effective payment.
39.
For all the above reasons, the DRC decided to partially accept the claim of the
Claimant and to conclude its deliberations in the present matter by establishing
that any further request filed by the Claimant is rejected.
*****
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Player G, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club K, is ordered to pay to the Claimant, Player G, within 30
days as from the date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in
the amount of currency of country A 12,780.45, plus 5% interest p.a. as of 5 July
2011 until the date of effective payment.
3.
The Respondent, Club K, has to pay to the Claimant, Player G, within 30 days as
from the date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract
in the amount of currency of country A 12,000, plus interest of 5% p.a. as of 30
August 2013 until the date of effective payment.
4.
If the aforementioned sums plus interest are not paid within the above-mentioned
time limits, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA
Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and a formal decision.
Player G, from country R / Club K, from country A
12/13
5.
Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Player G, are rejected.
6.
The Claimant, Player G, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club K, 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:
Markus Kattner
Deputy Secretary General
Encl.
CAS directives
Player G, from country R / Club K, from country A
13/13