Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 August 2014,
by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge,
on the claim presented by the player,
Player R, from country T
as Claimant
against the club,
Club A, from country L
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 14 August 2010, Player R, from country T (hereinafter: the Claimant), and Club A, from
country L (hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the
contract) for one year, valid as of the date of signature until 14 August 2011.
2.
The contract provides inter alia that the Respondent is to pay the Claimant the total amount
of USD 45,000 broken down as follows:
- USD 20,000 as a lump-sum payment;
- the remaining amount, i.e. USD 25,000, payable in monthly instalments due by the end of
each month.
3.
On 11 February 2012, the Claimant addressed a complaint to the country L Football
Federation via the the country T Football Federation relating to amounts that the
Respondent had apparently failed to pay, which remained unanswered.
4.
On 26 June 2013, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the Respondent,
requesting the payment of the following amounts:
- USD 10,000 as unpaid salaries;
- EUR 4,000 as legal costs.
5.
According to the Claimant, the club paid the total amount of USD 15,000 in several
instalments. However, the Claimant was entitled to a total remuneration of USD 25,000 as set
forth in the contract.
6.
Therefore, the Claimant deems that the amount of USD 10,000 is outstanding.
7.
The Claimant apparently attempted to settle the dispute amicably with the Respondent but
the latter apparently refused such settlement.
8.
In spite of having been invited to do so, the Respondent did not submit its position
pertaining to the matter at stake.
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 26 June 2013.
Consequently, 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 par. 1 and 2 of the 2012 edition 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 2014) he is competent to
decide on the present litigation, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between a country T player and a country L club.
Player R, from country T / Club A, from country L
2/4
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.
4.
In continuation, the DRC judge analysed 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, 2012 and 2014), and, on the other hand, to the fact that
the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 26 June 2013. The DRC judge concluded that
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.
5.
Subsequently, the DRC judge duly noted that with regard to the fact that the employment
contract at the basis of the dispute was concluded on 14 August 2010, and that the Claimant
had lodged his claim on 26 June 2013, he should examine if the present claim should be
considered as time-barred.
6.
In this respect, the DRC judge referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations, which, in
completion to the general procedural terms outlined in the Procedural Rules, clearly
establishes that the decision-making bodies of FIFA shall not hear any dispute if more than
two years have elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute arose and that the
application of this time limit shall be examined ex officio in each individual case.
7.
In view of the above, the DRC judge deemed it fundamental to underline that in order to
determine whether he could hear the present matter, he should, first and foremost, establish
which is “the event giving rise to the dispute”, i.e. which is the starting point of the time
period of two years as set out under art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations. In this respect, the DRC
judge referred to the claim of the Claimant, according to which the latter requested
outstanding salaries amounting to USD 10,000. In addition, the DRC judge emphasised that
the Claimant would be time-barred to claim any amount that would have fallen due prior to
27 June 2011.
8.
In this respect, the DRC judge underlined that the Claimant did not provide any information,
let alone documentation relating to the due dates of the amounts claimed, although the
Claimant was requested on several occasions to provide the FIFA administration with further
information with regard to his claim.
9.
On account of the foregoing, and considering the complete lack of indication by the Claimant
as to the due date(s) of the claimed amounts, the DRC judge deemed, on the basis of the
entire documentation at his disposal, that he was not in a position to conclude that the
amounts claimed by the Claimant are not time-barred, as per art. 25 par. 5 of the Regulations.
Consequently, referring to the obligation of any party to carry the burden of proof for any
alleged right (art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules), the DRC judge determined that the
Claimant had failed to substantiate his claim by not indicating the due dates of the claimed
amounts. As a result of the foregoing, the DRC judge concluded that, on the basis of the
content of the claim, the relevant claim for outstanding remuneration had to be rejected.
Player R, from country T / Club A, from country L
3/4
10. Finally, the DRC judge decided to reject the Claimant’s claim pertaining to legal costs in
accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the Dispute Resolution Chamber
longstanding jurisprudence in this regard.
11. Therefore, the DRC judge concluded his deliberations by establishing that the claim lodged by
the Claimant is rejected.
III.
Decision of the DRC judge
The claim of the Claimant 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:
Jérôme Valcke
Secretary General
Encl.
CAS directives
Player R, from country T / Club A, from country L
4/4