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 H, from country U
as Claimant
against the club,
Club P, from country I
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute
between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On an unspecified date, Player H, from country U (hereinafter: player or
Claimant), and Club P, from country I (hereinafter: club or Respondent), signed
an employment contract valid for two sporting seasons.
2.
On 9 May 2012, the parties signed an “Account settlement affidavit”
(hereinafter: agreement) by means of which the club recognized that “after
subtraction of, the legal deductions, the probable fines imposed by disciplinary
committee or other competent legal bodies, also calculation and deduction of
previous payments paid to player up to the above-mentioned date (…)”, it still
owed the player the net amount of USD 52,593.
3.
On 1 March 2013, the player lodged a claim against the club before FIFA
maintaining that the club had failed to comply with the financial obligation
deriving from the above-mentioned agreement.
4.
The player claims to have formally notified the club of its pending obligation
but unfortunately to no avail.
5.
In light of the aforementioned, the player is requesting to be awarded the
stipulated net amount of USD 52,593.
6.
In spite of having been invited by FIFA to do so, the club did not present any
reply to the player´s claim.
*****
Player H, from country U / Club P, country I
2
II.
Considerations of the DRC judge
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge analysed whether he
was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, the DRC judge
took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 1 March 2013.
Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the 2012 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 2012 edition of the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 of the Procedural Rules
and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 lit. i. in
combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (edition 2012) the DRC judge is competent to deal with the matter at
stake, which concerns an employment–related dispute with an international
dimension between an country U player and an country I club.
3.
In continuation, the DRC judge analysed which edition of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the substance of
the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1
and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012)
and considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 1 March
2013, the 2012 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 DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been
established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. The DRC
judge started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts of the case as well
as the documentation contained in the file.
5.
In this respect, the DRC judge acknowledged that the parties had signed an
employment contract on an unspecified date and an “Account settlement
affidavit” on 9 May 2012, by means of which the Respondent recognised that it
still owed the Claimant the net amount of USD 52,593.
6.
In continuation, the DRC judge noted that the Claimant alleged that the
Respondent had failed to pay the amount recognised by the latter in the abovementioned agreement. Consequently, the Claimant asked to be awarded the
total net amount of USD 52,593.
Player H, from country U / Club P, country I
3
7.
Subsequently, the DRC judge observed that the Respondent, for its part, in spite
of having been invited to do so, failed to present its response to the claim of the
Claimant. In this way, the DRC judge deemed that the Respondent renounced to
its right of defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of the Claimant.
8.
As a result, the DRC judge established that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of
the Procedural Rules, he shall take a decision upon the basis of the documents
on file, in other words, upon the statements and documents presented by the
Claimant.
9.
In view of all the above, the DRC judge concluded that it could be established
that the Respondent had failed to pay to the Claimant the amount of USD
52,593 as recognised by the parties in the agreement dated 9 May 2012.
10.
As a consequence of the foregoing consideration, and in accordance with the
general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the DRC judge decided that the
Respondent must fulfil its obligations as per the agreement and is to be held
liable to pay the outstanding amount of USD 52,593 to the Claimant.
*****
III.
Decision of the DRC judge
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Player H, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club P, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the
date of notification of this decision, the amount of USD 52,593.
3.
In the event that the amount due to the Claimant is not paid by the Respondent
within the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of
expiry of the aforementioned time limit and the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration
and a formal decision.
Player H, from country U / Club P, country I
4
4.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of
the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the
DRC judge 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 DRC judge:
Markus Kattner
Deputy Secretary General
Encl. CAS directives
Player H, from country U / Club P, country I
5