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 L, from country U
as Claimant
against the club
Club A, from country G
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute
arisen between the Claimant and the Respondent
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 25 August 2008, Player L, from country U (hereinafter: the Claimant) and the Club A,
from country G, (hereinafter: the Respondent) concluded an employment contract
(hereinafter: the contract) valid until 30 June 2010.
2.
According to clause 4.1. of the contract the Claimant was entitled to a monthly salary in
the amount of EUR 765, payable at the end of each month, twelve months per year.
Additionally, the Claimant was entitled to receive Christmas bonus in the amount of a
monthly salary and Easter and Holiday bonuses in the amount of half of the monthly
salary.
3.
Moreover, the clause 4.4. stipulated that the Claimant shall receive the amount of
EUR 180,000, in four instalments as follows:
1st instalment: EUR 40,000 net payable on 30 December 2008;
2nd instalment: EUR 50,000 net payable on 30 June 2009;
3rd instalment: EUR 40,000 net payable on 30 December 2009;
4th instalment: EUR 50,000 net payable on 30 May 2010.
4.
On 22 July 2011, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA, claiming a total
outstanding amount of EUR 74,590 as follows:
- EUR 4,590 concerning the last six monthly salaries each one in the amount of
EUR 765, plus interest of 5% per year as of 30 May 2010;
- EUR 5,000 as the residual part of the 3th instalment, plus interest of 5% per year as
of 30 December 2009;
- EUR 50,000 corresponding to the total 4th instalment, plus interest of 5% per year as
of 30 May 2010;
- EUR 15,000 as legal fees.
5.
According to the Claimant, the contract was executed until the end of its original term
and, after its end, the Respondent still had not fulfilled all its obligations stipulated in
the contract, since it failed to pay the claimed amounts. In this regard, the Claimant
affirmed having contacted the country G Football Federation (hereinafter: country G
Football Federation) on 20 May 2010, requiring it to urge its affiliated club to pay the
amount of EUR 5,000 concerning the residual sum of the 3th instalment, since, according
to the Claimant, the Respondent paid only EUR 35,000. On 1 June 2010, the Claimant
allegedly contacted the country G Football Federation once again, this time asking it to
urge its affiliate to pay the amount of EUR 50,000 as well as six monthly salaries
concerning the period from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2010. The Claimant enclosed a
copy of the aforementioned communications dated 20 May 2010 and 1 June 2010.
6.
Furthermore, the Claimant enclosed two correspondences that he allegedly received in
reply from the Respondent, dated 28 June 2010 and 23 July 2010. According to the
Claimant, through said correspondences the Respondent denied the existence of any
debts towards the Claimant.
Player L, from country U / Club A, from country G
2/14
7.
The Respondent remitted its position affirming that in fact the contract concluded with
the Claimant for the mentioned period established a monthly salary of EUR 765 gross
(EUR 714.90 net) as well as that “the amount of 180,000€ was stipulated to be paid out in
monthly instalments (regardless of the fact that contract stated only 4 instalments)”. The
Respondent held that, since the Claimant’s contract would have terminated on 30 June
2010, he was obliged to remain with the team until 10 June 2010, i.e. until the
obligations of the team would have concluded and the whole team would have left for
the summer leave. However, the Respondent affirmed that in mid-May the Claimant
requested if he could leave earlier. Thus, according to the Respondent, the Claimant left
with a written permission on 15 May 2010, submitting a copy of the written permission.
8.
In continuation, the Respondent declared having received the Claimant’s letter dated
20 May 2010 and immediately, on 21 May 2010, having replied to the country G Football
Federation, denying such debt. The Respondent enclosed a copy of the aforementioned
correspondence sent to the country G Football Federation. Moreover, the Respondent
confirmed having received the Claimant’s letter dated 1 June 2010 and replied to said
correspondence
via
its
correspondence
dated
23 July 2010.
9.
Regarding the claimed amounts, the Respondent first rejected the Claimant’s claim for
the amount of EUR 5,000 as the residual part of the 3rd instalment, affirming that the
Claimant received the full instalment considering the following payments:
(i) Payment of EUR 7,855 made on 10 September 2009. The Respondent provided a copy
of a bank transfer request of said payment, which under the reason stated: “Player L
Partial Discharge of instalment 30/12/2009” as well as “your transaction was
executed”;
(ii) Payment of EUR 30,000 made on 30 September 2009. The Respondent attached a
copy of a cheque in the player’s favour as well as a bank confirmation regarding the
collection of said amount;
(iii) Payment of EUR 1,000 made on 8 January 2010. The Respondent enclosed a copy of a
bank transfer request of said payment with the notice “your transaction was
executed”;
(iv) Payment of EUR 1,555 made on 11 January 2010 for flight tickets (country G-country
S-country U) for the Claimant and his family, however, the Respondent emphasized
that according to the contract it did not have this obligation. The Respondent
provided a copy of the flight ticket invoice;
On the basis of the above-stated payments, the Respondent held that the Claimant,
having received in total EUR 40,410, had actually received EUR 410 more than what he
was entitled to.
10. In continuation, the Respondent refused the request of the Claimant concerning the
outstanding salaries, for the period between 1 January 2010 and 30 June 2010, and the
4th instalment, arguing that the player has been paid almost in full his remuneration. In
particular, the Respondent alleged that, in January 2010, the Claimant asked to receive
part of the 4th instalment in advance, since he was facing certain financial problems.
Player L, from country U / Club A, from country G
3/14
According to the Respondent, after accepting such request, it accomplished the following
payments:
(i) Payment of EUR 12,110.61 made on 19 January 2010 as an advance payment of the
Claimant’s 4th instalment. The Respondent provided a copy of a bank slip regarding
said payment, which under the reason stated: “Player L partial discharge of
instalment 30/5/10” as well as “your transaction was executed”;
(ii) Payment of EUR 15,000 made on 28 February 2010 as an advance payment of the
Claimant’s 4th instalment. The Respondent attached a copy of a cheque in favour of
the player as well as a bank confirmation regarding the collection of said amount on
1 March 2010;
(iii) Payment of EUR 2,000 made on 4 March 2010 as an advance payment of the
Claimant’s 4th instalment. The Respondent enclosed a copy of a bank transfer request
regarding said payment, which under the reason stated: “partial discharge of
contract” as well as “your transaction was executed”;
(iv) Payment of EUR 10,000 made on 9 April 2010, in cash, as an advance payment of the
Claimant’s 4th instalment. The Respondent provided a copy of the payment’s receipt
signed by the player, which under the reason stated: “partial discharge of instalment
30/5/10”;
(v) Payment of EUR 10,000 made on 4 May 2010, in cash, as an advance payment of the
Claimant’s 4th instalment. The Respondent attached a copy of the payment’s receipt
signed by the player, which under the reason stated: “partial discharge of instalment
30/5/10”;
Thus, the Respondent set forth that taking into account the payments made in advance
regarding the 4th instalment originally due on 30 May 3010 (EUR 12,110.61 + EUR 15,000
+ EUR 2,000 + EUR 10,000 + EUR 10,000, points I.10 i to v), the Respondent considered
that the Claimant already received “EUR 49,114.61” and that he would still be entitled to
“EUR 885.39”. However, the Respondent asserted that since the Claimant received
EUR 410 more (cf. point I.9) regarding the 3rd instalment, the Respondent would have to
deduct such amount from the Claimant’s outstanding amount of “EUR 885.39”, reaching
a result of “EUR 475.39”.
11. Furthermore, the Respondent alleged having also paid the following amounts:
(i) Payment of EUR 2,144.70 made on 19 January 2010 for the settlement of the salaries
regarding November 2009, December 2009 and January 2010. The Respondent
attached a copy of a bank transfer request regarding the mentioned payment, which
under the reason stated: “Player L salaries 11th-12th-1st/10” as well as “your
transaction was executed”;
(ii) Payment of EUR 744.69 made on 19 January 2010 for the settlement of the
Claimant’s Christmas salary. The Respondent enclosed a copy of a bank transfer
request regarding said payment, which under the reason stated: “Player L
E.SAL.CR./2009{EXTRA SALARY FOR CHRISTMAS}” as well as “your transaction was
executed”;
12. Finally, the Respondent accepted owing the Claimant the salaries for the months of
February, March, April and May 2010, i.e. the amount of EUR 2,859.60, considering the
Player L, from country U / Club A, from country G
4/14
monthly salary as EUR 714.90 (net). In addition, the Respondent held that it had
consciously excluded the salary for June 2010, due to the fact that the Claimant left the
club already in mid-May 2010. Hence, the Respondent declared intending to pay to the
Claimant the amount of EUR 3,334.90, consisting of the outstanding salaries amounting
to EUR 2,859.60 as well as the amount of “EUR 475.39” corresponding to the residual
amount of the 4th instalment.
13. The Claimant remitted his comments, insisting in his claim and contradicting the
Respondent’s declarations. According to the Claimant, the Respondent constantly failed
to make the payments on time and thus, the relevant payments presented by the
Respondent corresponded to previous outstanding amounts. In particular, the Claimant
alleged that he did not receive the payment of his salary for the month of January 2010
on 19 January 2010, as alleged by the Respondent. Moreover, the Claimant affirmed that
the bank document presented by the Respondent cannot be accepted as an accomplished
payment, since it represents only a demand from the Respondent addressed to the bank,
as well as it is not logical that the Respondent would execute, a payment which was due
at the end of January 2010, already on 19 January 2010, when it was always late in
complying with its financial obligations. Furthermore, the Claimant affirmed that the
Respondent should submit receipts of salaries with the tax deductions to effectively
prove the relevant payments.
14. Concerning the Respondent’s statement about the non-payment of the salary for the
month of June 2010, the Claimant declared having acted in the correct way and that his
request of leaving earlier as well as the Respondent’s written permission cannot be
interpreted as an anticipated termination of the contract, since said documents do not
bear such a statement. Additionally, the Claimant emphasized that the Respondent itself,
in its letter dated 23 July 2010, considered that the contract lasted until 30 June 2010.
15. Furthermore, the Claimant held that, the contract established that the amount of
EUR 180,000 would have been paid in four instalments and not in monthly instalments as
alleged by the Respondent. However, the Claimant asserted that he had to keep a precise
control of his finances in order to have an overview of the confusing payments made by
the Respondent. In this context, the Claimant alleged that the payments of
EUR 12,110.61, EUR 15,000 and EUR 2,000 (cf. points I.10 i, ii and iii) do not correspond to
the instalment due on 30 June 2010, but to the one due on 30 December 2009. Also he
held and that the document referred to the payment of the amount of EUR 12,110.61
cannot be recognised as an executed payment, since it is only a document addressed to
the bank.
16. Finally, regarding the cash payments for the amounts of EUR 10,000 (cf. point I.10 iv and
v), the Claimant denied having signed such documents with said contents.
17. The Respondent provided its final comments, maintaining firm its previous position.
Additionally, the Respondent emphasized that, in his initial claim, the Claimant alleged
that for the period from 1 January 2010 to 30 May 2010 he did not receive any payments.
However, the Respondent continued, that after the submission of the payment’s
evidence, the Claimant newly declared that said payments corresponded to previous
Player L, from country U / Club A, from country G
5/14
debts. Moreover, the Respondent insisted having paid the amount of EUR 10,000 in cash
on 9 April and again on 4 May 2010, and submitted the original receipts bearing the
signature of the player. In this respect, the Respondent pointed out that said receipts
cannot be contested since they bear the Claimant’s signature as well as “cannot
constitute the payment of anything else apart from the last instalment of his contract”.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or
DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it
took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 22 July 2011, thus after
1 July 2008. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status
Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008; hereinafter: the
Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. article 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. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012) the
Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a
country U player and a country G club.
3.
Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, the DRC confirmed that in accordance with
art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(edition 2012 and 2010), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 22 July
2011, the 2010 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
4.
The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations 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 documentation
contained in the file.
5.
First of all, the Chamber acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that, on
25 August 2008, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded an employment contract
valid until 30 June 2010, as well as that on 15 May 2010, the Respondent authorized the
Claimant to be absent from the team from 15 May 2010 until 30 June 2010.
6.
In this respect, the members of the Chamber took note of the contents of the contract,
which particularly according to clause 4.1 stipulated a monthly salary in favour of the
player of EUR 765, payable at the end of the month during twelve months per year as
well as Christmas bonus in the amount of a monthly salary and Easter and Holiday
bonuses in the amount of half of the monthly salary.
Player L, from country U / Club A, from country G
6/14
7.
Additionally, the DRC remarked that under clause 4.4 of the contract, the player was
entitled to receive the amount of EUR 180,000, payable in four instalments as follows:
1st instalment:
2nd instalment:
3rd instalment:
4th instalment:
8.
EUR 40,000 net payable on 30 December 2008;
EUR 50,000 net payable on 30 June 2009;
EUR 40,000 net payable on 30 December 2009;
EUR 50,000 net payable on 30 May 2010.
At this point the members of the Chamber reviewed the claim of the Claimant, who
asserted that at the end of the contract the Respondent had not fulfilled all obligations
stipulated in the contract and thus, claimed to be entitled to receive outstanding
remuneration in the amount of EUR 74,590 as follows:
- EUR 4,590 concerning the last six monthly salaries each one in the amount of
EUR 765, plus interest of 5% per year as of 30 May 2010;
- EUR 5,000 as the residual part of the 3th instalment, plus interest of 5% per year as
of 30 December 2009;
- EUR 50,000 corresponding to the total 4th instalment, plus interest of 5% per year as
of 30 May 2010;
- EUR 15,000 as legal fees.
9.
On the other hand, the Chamber took note that the Respondent accepted owing only
EUR 3,334.90 to the Claimant.
10.
First of all, the members of the Chamber noted that the Respondent argued that the
parties concluded the contract establishing a monthly salary in the amount of EUR 765
gross, which would be equivalent to EUR 714.90 net, as well as that the amount of
EUR 180,000 would have been paid in monthly instalments even if otherwise stipulated
in the contract.
11.
In this regard, the members of the DRC emphasised that in accordance with the
contract, the Respondent and the Claimant agreed upon a monthly salary in the
amount of EUR 765, without specifying whether said amount corresponded to the net
or to the gross value. In this context, the DRC referred to the legal principle of burden
of proof, according to which the party claiming a right on a basis of an alleged fact
shall carry the burden of proof (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules) and concluded
that the Respondent did not provide any evidence that proved that the amount of
EUR 765 corresponded to the gross value of the monthly salary and hence the amount
of EUR 714.90 to its net value. In view of the aforesaid, the Chamber decided that the
salary owed by the Respondent to the Claimant every month, according to the contract,
amounted to EUR 765.
12.
In the same context, the DRC considered that the Respondent failed to demonstrate
that the amount of EUR 180,000 was to be paid in monthly instalments and thus,
concluded that such amount was to be paid in four instalments (cf. point I.3).
13.
In addition, the DRC remarked that the Respondent stated that, considering the fact
that the contract lasted until 30 June 2010, the player was obliged to remain with the
Player L, from country U / Club A, from country G
7/14
team until 10 June 2010, but that, upon request from the player in mid-May, he left the
club already on 15 May 2010 with a written permission.
14.
Therefore, the DRC took note that in regards with the Claimant’s claim for outstanding
salaries in the amount of EUR 4,590, the Respondent affirmed that it still has to pay to
the Claimant his salaries for the months of February, March, April and May 2010,
i.e. EUR 2,859.60 equivalent to four monthly salaries in the amount EUR 714.90, having
consciously excluded the salary for the month of June 2010 since the Claimant left the
club already in mid-May 2010.
15.
Consequently, concerning the player’s claim for the amount of EUR 5,000, regarding the
residual part of the 3rd instalment, the members of the Chamber took note that the
Respondent rejected said claim declaring having paid the amount of EUR 40,410,
EUR 410 more than it was supposed to. The Chamber noticed that the Respondent
enclosed several documents as evidence of the payment of the afore-mentioned
amount.
16.
Moreover, the DRC noted that the Respondent partially rejected the claim of the
Claimant for the amount of EUR 50,000, regarding the 4th instalment, because it
affirmed having almost paid in full said instalment. The Chamber noticed that according
to the Respondent it paid the amount of EUR “49,114.61” to the Claimant, thus it would
still owe the amount of EUR 885.39 to the Claimant, but since the latter received
EUR 410 more in connection with the payment of the 3rd instalment, the Respondent
asserted still owing the Claimant only the amount of EUR 475.39 (EUR 885.39 –
EUR 410), regarding the 4th instalment. The members of the Chamber acknowledged the
fact that the Respondent provided evidencing documents concerning several payments
corresponding to the payment of the 4th instalment.
17.
In response to the Respondent’s position, the members of the DRC noticed that the
Claimant contested the Respondent’s arguments. In this regard, the DRC remarked that
the Claimant alleged that the Respondent was constantly failing to pay him on time and
that the payments presented by the Respondent corresponded to previous outstanding
amounts. Moreover, the Claimant had challenged the evidence provided by the
Respondent. In particular, the Claimant denied having signed the two receipts
corresponding to the cash payments, both for the amount of EUR 10,000.
18.
In regards to the exclusion of the payment of the salary for the month of June 2010, the
members of the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant asserted having left the club
earlier after having received the Respondent’s permission, which according to the
Claimant cannot be interpreted as an anticipated termination.
19.
Finally, the members of the Chamber took note that in its final comments the
Respondent maintained all its previous positions as well as provided the two original
receipts of cash payments, each in the amount of EUR 10,000.
Player L, from country U / Club A, from country G
8/14
20.
At this point, the DRC realised that it was undisputed by both parties that some
payments remained outstanding, but that, considering the opposite positions of both
parties, it had to analyse the effective amount of the outstanding remuneration.
21.
In this context, the DRC proceeded to analyse the arguments of both parties. First,
regarding the Claimant’s claim in the amount of EUR 5,000 as the residual part of the
3rd instalment, the members of the DRC noticed that the Respondent held having paid
in total the amount of EUR 40,410, i.e. even EUR 410 more than the effective value of
the 3rd instalment amounting to EUR 40,000 (cf. points II.7 and II.15). Accordingly, the
members of the DRC took noted that the Respondent provided the following
documents in order to support its allegation:
(i) A copy of a bank transfer request dated 10 September 2009, regarding the payment
of EUR 7,855, which under the reason stated: “Player L Partial Discharge of
instalment 30/12/2009” as well as “your transaction was executed”;
(ii) A copy of a cheque dated 30 September 2009 in the amount of EUR 30,000, in
favour of the player, as well as a bank confirmation regarding the collection of said
amount;
(iii) A copy of a bank transfer request dated 8 January 2010, regarding the payment of
EUR 1,000, with the notice “your transaction was executed”;
(iv) A copy of a flight ticket invoice dated 11 January 2010 in the amount of EUR 1,555
for flight tickets (country G-country S-country U) for the Claimant and his family,
which according to the Respondent, it did not have the obligation to pay.
22.
At this point, the DRC stated that, considering the instalments established in the
contract (cf. II.7 and II.12) and the several partial payments made by the Respondent
without reference to their concept, it was not possible to establish to which instalment
they corresponded to.
23.
In this context, the members of the DRC recalled the legal principle of burden of proof
(cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules) and concluded that, considering the contents
of the contract, the Respondent had the burden of proof to demonstrate that the 3rd
instalment was paid in full.
24.
Taking into consideration all the above, the Chamber concluded that the only payment
that can be associated as payment of the 3rd instalment is the amount of
EUR 7,855, because under the reason remark of the bank transfer request it was clearly
stated that the payment was a partial discharge for the instalment due on 30 December
2009, i.e. the 3rd instalment, as well as that the transaction was executed.
25.
Concerning the payments of the amounts of EUR 30,000 and EUR 1,000, the members of
the Chamber held that the Respondent had failed to demonstrate that both payments
corresponded to the 3rd instalment, since none of the documents presented a remark
which related the payment to the 3rd instalment. In regards with the payment of
EUR 1,555, the DRC decided that, considering the fact that such payment is relating to
the payment of flight tickets, it also cannot be linked to the 3rd instalment, despite the
Player L, from country U / Club A, from country G
9/14
fact that in accordance with contract the payment of flight tickets was not an obligation
of the Respondent.
26.
Considering all the above deliberations, the members of the DRC concluded that the
Respondent failed to pay to the Claimant the 3rd instalment in its full amount of
EUR 40,000, which was due on 30 September 2009, and thus the Claimant’s is entitled to
receive the amount of EUR 5,000, as claimed, as outstanding remuneration of the 3rd
instalment as claimed.
27.
In continuation, concerning the Claimant’s claim in the amount of EUR 50,000
corresponding to the 4th instalment, the Chamber took note that the Respondent
alleged having paid the Claimant the amount of EUR “49,114.61” (cf. point II.16). In this
respect, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent presented the following
evidence in order to prove the payment of the aforementioned amount:
(i) A copy of a bank slip dated 19 January 2010, regarding the payment of
EUR 12,110.61, which under the reason stated: “Player L partial discharge of
instalment 30/5/10” as well as “your transaction was executed”;
(ii) A copy of a cheque in the player’s favour amounting to EUR 15,000 and dated
28 February 2010, as well as a bank confirmation regarding the collection of said
amount on 1 March 2010;
(iii) A copy of a bank transfer request dated 4 March 2010, regarding the payment of
EUR 2,000, which under the reason stated: “partial discharge of contract” as well as
“your transaction was executed”;
(iv) The original receipt of a cash payment in the amount of EUR 10,000, dated 9 April
2010, signed by the player, which under the reason stated: “partial discharge of
instalment 30/5/10”;
(v) The original receipt of a cash payment in the amount of EUR 10,000, dated 4 May
2010, signed by the player, which under reason stated: “partial discharge of
instalment 30/5/10”.
28.
In view of the foregoing, the DRC recalled the reasoning already explained in point II.11
and recalled the principle of burden of proof. In this context, the Chamber decided that
the only payments that can be associated as payments of the 4th instalment are the
amounts of EUR 12,110.61, EUR 10,000 and EUR 10,000. The members of the Chamber
pointed out that under the reason remark of the bank slip of the amount
EUR 12,110.61, it was clearly stated that said payment was a partial discharge for the
instalment due on 30 May 2010, i.e. the 4th instalment, as well as that the transaction
was executed.
29.
Moreover, in regards with the two payments in the amount EUR 10,000, the DRC took
note that the Claimant contested having signed these receipts of the payment of said
amounts. On the other hand, the members of the DRC took note that the Respondent
provided the original receipts with the signature of the Claimant. In this respect, the
Chamber emphasized that as a general rule it is not the competent body to decide upon
matters of criminal law, such as the alleged falsified signatures, but that such affairs fall
into the jurisdiction of the competent national criminal authority. In continuation the
Player L, from country U / Club A, from country G
10/14
DRC recalled that all documentation shall be considered with free discretion and
therefore, it focused its attention to the receipts as well as other documents containing
the player’s signature. In particular, the members of the DRC considered that on the
original receipts provided by the Respondent it was clearly visible that both receipts
bore the Claimant’s signature as well as that on both receipts there was the remark that
the payment corresponded to a partial discharge for the instalment due on 30 May
2010, i.e. also the 4th instalment. After a thorough analysis of the aforementioned
documents, in particular comparing the relevant signatures, the DRC had no other
option but to conclude that, for a layman, the signatures on the relevant documents
appear to be the same.
30.
Considering the cheque payments amounting to EUR 15,000 as well as the bank transfer
of the amount EUR 2,000, the DRC held that the Respondent had failed to prove that
said payments were related to the 4th instalment, since none of the submitted
documents contained a remark that referred to the payment of the 4th instalment and
thus cannot be considered as such.
31.
After analysing the above-listed considerations, the members of the DRC decided that
the Respondent effectively paid to the Claimant only the amount of EUR 32,110.61
(EUR 12,110.61 + EUR 10,000 + EUR 10,000, cf. points II.25 i, iv and v) concerning the
4th instalment and that, therefore, the Respondent still owes to the Claimant the
amount of EUR 17,889.39, as outstanding remuneration of the 4th instalment.
32.
Furthermore, considering the Claimant’s claim for the outstanding salaries in the
amount of EUR 4,590, the Chamber observed that the Respondent held still owing to
the Claimant the amount of EUR 2,859.60 for the months of February, March, April and
May 2010, corresponding to four monthly salaries in the amount of EUR 714.90
(cf. points II.10 and II.14).
33.
In continuation, the DRC reviewed the argument of the Respondent that, the Claimant
would not be entitled to the monthly salary for the month of June 2010, because the
latter left the team already in mid-May, while his duty with the Respondent would have
lasted at least until 10 June 2010 (cf. point II.13 and II.14). In this respect, the members
of the DRC, first considered that the Respondent itself gave a written permission to the
Claimant in this respect and after a thorough analysis of the written permission dated
15 May 2010, a copy of which was provided by the Respondent (cf. point I.7), it
considered that said written permission did nowhere mention that, due to his earlier
leaving, the Claimant would not be entitled anymore to his monthly salary for the
month of June 2010. On account of the above, the DRC concluded that the Respondent
had the obligation to the pay to the Claimant the monthly salary for the month of June
2010.
34.
On the other hand, the members of the Chamber took note that the Claimant held
being entitled to the last six monthly salaries. In this context, considering that the
contract lasted until 30 June 2010 and that it was stipulated that the monthly salaries
would have been paid at the end of each month, the DRC assumed that the referred last
Player L, from country U / Club A, from country G
11/14
six months mentioned by the Claimant would correspond to the months from January
until June 2010.
35.
In this respect, the members of the DRC took note that the Respondent alleged having
paid the salary of January 2010.
36.
In this respect, the Chamber took note that the Respondent provided the following
documentary evidence:
(i) A copy of a bank transfer request dated 19 January 2010, regarding the payment of
EUR 2,144.70, which under the reason stated: “Player L salaries 11th-12th-1st/10” as
well as “your transaction was executed”, regarding the settlement of the salaries of
November 2009, December 2009 and January 2010;
(ii) A copy of a bank transfer request dated 19 January 2010, regarding the payment of
EUR 744.69, which under the reason stated: “Player L E.SAL.CR./2009{EXTRA SALARY
FOR CHRISTMAS}” as well as “your transaction was executed”, regarding the
settlement of the Claimant’s Christmas salary;
37.
In this context, the members of the Chamber observed that the evidence of the
payment in the amount of EUR 2,144.70, which under the reason stated: “Player L
salaries 11th-12th-1st/10” as well as “your transaction was executed” (cf. point II.36),
clearly referred to the execution of the payment of the Claimant’s salaries for the
months of November and December 2009 as well as January 2010. Regarding the
payment of EUR 744,69, the Chamber considered that the evidence of this payment
mentioned visibly that it concerned the payment of the Christmas bonus stipulated in
the contract.
38.
In this regard, considering that the aforementioned evidence was effectively related
inter alia to the payment of the monthly salary for the month of January 2010, as stated
under the reason remarks, as well as that said document mentioned that the transaction
was executed, the members of the DRC reached the conclusion that the Respondent had
already paid the monthly salary for the month of January 2010 and thus, that the
Claimant has no right to claim said monthly salary.
39.
In view of all the previous considerations, the Chamber held that Claimant is entitled to
receive the amount of EUR 3,825 as outstanding salaries, corresponding to five monthly
salaries concerning the months from February until June 2010, each month in the
amount of EUR 765 (cf. point II.11).
40.
As a consequence the DRC decided that Respondent has to pay the amount of
EUR 26,714.39 to the Claimant, as outstanding remuneration, consisting of EUR 5,000,
concerning the outstanding remuneration of the 3rd instalment (cf. point II.26),
EUR 17,889.39, corresponding to the outstanding remuneration of the 4th instalment
(cf. point II.31) and EUR 3,825, related to the outstanding salaries for the period from
February until June 2010 (cf. point II.39).
41.
Concerning the interests claimed by the Claimant, the DRC noted that the contract did
not provide for any specific interest rate in case of late payment. Consequently, the
Player L, from country U / Club A, from country G
12/14
DRC, in accordance with the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber,
decided to award to the Claimant default interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 5,000, as of 31 December 2009, related to
the outstanding remuneration of the 3rd instalment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 3,060, as of 30 May 2010, as requested by
the Claimant, related to the outstanding salaries for the months from February until
May 2010;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 17,889.39, as of 31 May 2010, related to
the outstanding remuneration of the 4th instalment;
- 5% interest p.a. over the amount of EUR 765, related to the monthly salary for the
month of June 2010, as of 1 July 2010, considering that, according to the contract,
the monthly salaries were to be paid at the end of each month.
42.
In regards with the Claimant’s claim in the amount of EUR 15,000, corresponding to
legal fees, the members of the DRC held that the aforementioned claim shall be
rejected in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as with the
Chamber’s respective longstanding jurisprudence.
43.
In conclusion, taking into account all the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided to partially accept the claim of
the Claimant and at the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant outstanding
remuneration in the amount of EUR 26,714.90 (cf. point II.40), plus the relevant
interests (cf. point II.41).
44.
The DRC concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any
further claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected.
*******
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Player L, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club A, has to pay to the Claimant, Player L, within 30 days as from the
date of notification of this decision, outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR
26,714.39 plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows:
- 5% interest p.a. as of 31 December 2009 over the amount of EUR 5,000;
- 5% interest p.a. as of 30 May 2010 over the amount of EUR 3,060;
- 5% interest p.a. as of 31 May 2010, over the amount of EUR 17,889.39;
- 5% interest p.a. as of 1 July 2010 over the amount of EUR 765.
Player L, from country U / Club A, from country G
13/14
3.
If the above-mentioned amount 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.
4.
Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Player L, are rejected
5.
The
Claimant,
Player
L,
is
directed
to
inform
the
Respondent,
Club A., immediately and directly of the account number 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:
Jérôme Valcke
Secretary General
Encl.: CAS directives
Player L, from country U / Club A, from country G
14/14