Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 14 August 2013,
by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge,
on the claim presented by the player,
Player S, from country L
as Claimant
against the club,
Club P, from country G
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute
between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 10 September 2010, Player S, from country L (hereinafter: the Claimant),
and Club P, from country G (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an
employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the date of its
signing until 30 June 2011.
2.
In addition, on the same date, the above-mentioned parties signed a private
agreement which extended the salary provisions of the contract.
3.
According to the private agreement, the Claimant was entitled to receive the
following amounts as salary:
- EUR 5,000 upon arrival of the Claimant’s blue card;
- EUR 25,000 distributed in 10 installments of EUR 2,500 each, payable
the last day of each month between September 2010 and June 2011.
4.
The last bullet point of the private agreement states “the player [the Claimant]
will receive a draft check dated 30/06/2011 as guarantee for the above
amount. This check will be returned after the player receives all his payments
as per private agreement”.
5.
On 22 May 2012, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA, indicating that
the Respondent had not paid any of the amounts established in the private
agreement. The Claimant explained that after requesting the relevant
payments three times, he received a response from the Respondent on 16
November 2011, where it asserted that the Claimant had been transferred to
another club at the beginning of January 2011 and held that it had paid every
due amount to him.
6.
In view of the above, the Claimant requested to be awarded with the whole
value of the private agreement, this is, EUR 30,000.
7.
The Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim, stating that it did not owe any
amount to the Claimant, as it had already announced to him in the
abovementioned letter of 16 November 2011. The Respondent based its
arguments on a statement signed by the Claimant on 11 January 2011, by
means of which he stated the following: “I am fully paid off from Club P from
our collaboration and I do not have any other financial claim from the club
[the Respondent] or personally by any other member of the board of directors
of the club”.
Player S, from country L / Club P, from country G
2/6
8.
Furthermore, the Respondent specified that the Claimant was transferred, on a
loan basis, to another country G club in January 2011, which was the reason
why the Claimant signed the abovementioned statement.
9.
In addition, the Respondent indicated that the Claimant had not returned the
promissory note he had received from the Respondent as guarantee of the
private agreement, and so he was acting in bad faith by not returning such
cheque and at the same time requesting that amount.
10.
The Claimant, in his replica, argued that he had not returned the
abovementioned cheque because the private agreement had not been
complied with. According to the Claimant, the private agreement was never
terminated although he acknowledges to have been loaned to another
country G club.
11.
Moreover, the Claimant added that the letter of 11 January 2011 was written
exclusively in the country G language, a language he was not familiar with.
12.
Despite having been invited by FIFA to provide its final position to the
statements of the Claimant, the Respondent did not reply.
II.
Considerations of the DRC judge
1.
First of all, the DRC judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with
the case at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was
submitted to FIFA on 22 May 2012. Consequently, the 2008 edition of the Rules
Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute
Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the
matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the 2008 and 2012 editions of the Procedural
Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and par. 3 of the
Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par.
2 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (edition 2012) he is competent to decide on the present
litigation, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between a country L player and a Greek club.
3.
In particular, and in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 lit. i) of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players, the DRC judge confirmed that he may
adjudicate in the present dispute which value does not exceed currency of
country H 100,000.
Player S, from country L / Club P, from country G
3/6
4.
In continuation, the DRC judge analyzed which edition of the FIFA Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance
of the matter. In this respect, he referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010
and 2012), and, on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was
lodged in front of FIFA on 22 May 2012. The DRC judge concluded that 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.
5.
The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been
established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. In doing
so, he started by acknowledging the abovementioned facts of the case as well
as the documentation contained in the file.
6.
In this respect, the DRC judge acknowledged that the parties to the dispute
had signed a valid employment contract as well as a private agreement on 10
September 2010, in accordance with which the Respondent would pay the
Claimant a total remuneration in the amount of EUR 60,000.
7.
The DRC judge then turned to the complaint of the Claimant, who maintained
that the Respondent had failed to pay him the entire remuneration envisaged
in the private agreement signed by the parties to the dispute, in the total
amount of EUR 30,000.
8.
Equally, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent, in its statement of defence,
denied owing any amount to the Claimant. In particular, the Respondent
referred to a document signed by the Claimant on 11 January 2011, by means
of which he indicated that he was fully paid by the Respondent and that he
did not have any further financial claims against it.
9.
In view of the argumentation put forward by the Respondent, the DRC judge
deemed that, in order to be able to establish whether the Respondent had any
outstanding salaries to be paid to the Claimant, it was crucial to closely
examine the aforementioned document which the Respondent claimed had
settled all debts.
10.
In this respect, the DRC judge first of all acknowledged the translation of the
document in question dated 11 January 2011, in which the Claimant states
that “I am fully paid off from Club P from our collaboration and I do not have
any other financial claim from the club (…)”.
Player S, from country L / Club P, from country G
4/6
11.
Furthermore, the DRC judge noted that the Claimant did not reject the
existence of the above-mentioned document but merely indicated that the
document dated 11 January 2011 was written in the country G language,
invoking that he is not familiar with such language.
12.
To this end, the DRC judge emphasised that a party signing a document of
legal importance without knowledge of its precise contents, as a general rule,
does so on its own responsibility.
13.
By examining the evidence at his disposal, in particular the signature of the
Claimant on the original version of the relevant document, the Claimant’s
acknowledgement as to the existence of such document and the
acknowledgement that he was loaned to a third club in January 2011 and thus
no longer playing for the Respondent, the DRC judge found that he had no
other alternative but to conclude that the Claimant signed a statement on 11
January 2011 declaring himself as fully paid by the Respondent and
renouncing to any future financial claim towards the Respondent.
14.
In view of all of the above, the DRC judge came to the conclusion that the
Respondent does not owe the Claimant any outstanding monies and,
consequently, the Claimant’s claim for outstanding salaries is rejected.
*****
Player S, from country L / Club P, from country G
5/6
III.
Decision of the DRC judge
The claim of the Claimant, Player S, is rejected.
*****
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 DRC judge:
Markus Kattner
Deputy Secretary General
Encl. CAS directives
Player S, from country L / Club P, from country G
6/6