Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 20 August 2014,
in the following composition:
Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman
Taku Nomiya (Japan), member
Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member
on the claim presented by the player,
Player B, from country H
as Claimant/Counter-Respondent
against the club,
Club A, from country I
as Respondent/Counter-Claimant
regarding an employment-related dispute
arisen between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
In June 2011, Player B, from country H (hereinafter: the Claimant/CounterRespondent), and Club A, from country I (hereinafter: the Respondent/CounterClaimant or Club A), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid
for seasons 2011/2012, 2012/2013 and 2013/2014.
2.
According to art. 2, 5 and 6 of the contract, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant
undertook to provide the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, inter alia, with the following
benefits:
- EUR 8,000 net as monthly salary;
- EUR 20,000 net as sign-on fee, payable upon signature of the contract;
- EUR 500 as bonus for each league point achieved by the club, in case he
participates in the matches;
- a furnished apartment;
- a car.
3.
Article C3 of the contract establishes that “This agreement is subject to the signing of
a ‘transfer agreement’ between Club A and the player’s current club, Club S”.
4.
On 7 July 2011, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and Club S, from country Z, signed
a transfer agreement for the Claimant/Counter-Respondent.
5.
On 11 November 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent lodged a claim in front of
FIFA against the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for breach of contract, and requested,
after amending his claim, the payment of the total amount of EUR 140,000, plus
interests of 5% p.a. as of 1 November 2011, broken down as follows:
- EUR 60,000 in outstanding salaries for the months of June 2011 (EUR 4,000), and
of July 2011 to January 2012 (7 x EUR 8,000);
- EUR 20,000 as the outstanding sign-on fee;
- EUR 60,000 as compensation for breach of contract;
- legal fees.
6.
The Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims that, after his arrival in country I, he was
provided an apartment and a car. However, he allegedly never received his monthly
salaries or his sign-on fee, in spite of having trained with the Respondent/CounterClaimant on a regular basis.
7.
By means of his letter dated 31 August 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
reminded the Respondent/Counter-Claimant of its arrears in the total amount of EUR
40,000, corresponding to his sign-on fee (EUR 20,000) and to his salaries for June to
August 2011 (EUR 20,000). Having received the aforementioned notification, the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant allegedly excluded the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
Player B, from country H / Club A, from country I
2/13
from the trainings, evicted him and his family from the apartment and requested the
return of the car.
8.
On 5 and 23 September 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent contacted the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant, in writing, requesting an explanation for having taken
said measures. However, the aforementioned correspondence allegedly remained
unanswered and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not pay the Claimant/CounterRespondent the requested amounts. Thus, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent deems
that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant breached the employment contract without
just cause and should be held liable for the payment of his outstanding remuneration,
as well as of compensation.
9.
In its reply, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant claims that the transfer agreement with
the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s former club, Club S (hereinafter: Club S), was
never concluded, since the parties never agreed upon its terms. The
Respondent/Counter-Claimant explained that a signed version of the agreement was
sent by Club A to Club S for approval and signature. Club S signed the agreement, but
also erased some parts of it with a black marker, renumbering the articles, which the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant cannot accept. Consequently, the Respondent/CounterClaimant claims that the two clubs never concluded a final and binding agreement
and, therefore, an ITC was never requested by Club A nor approved by Club S.
10.
As per the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, in view of the failure of the negotiations
with Club S for the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s transfer, Club A informed him
that he had to be dismissed, as per art. C3 of the employment contract. As the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent
requested
to
keep
training
with
the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant until he found a new club, Club A in good faith
allowed him to stay and to make use of its apartment and car.
11.
On 31 August 2011, however, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant was surprised to
receive a letter from the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, in which he requested the
payment of his remuneration as per the employment contract (cf. point I.7. above).
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant allegedly informed the Claimant/CounterRespondent that he was no longer allowed to train with it. On 6 September 2011, the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant received a written request from the Claimant/CounterRespondent to be readmitted to the training (cf. point I.8. above). The
Respondent/Counter-Claimant claims that, by then, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
was aware of the fact that Club A had not requested his ITC from Club S. On 20
September 2011, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant finally requested him to return
the apartment and the car.
12.
According to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, after leaving country I, the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent was transferred from Club S to the Club C, from
Player B, from country H / Club A, from country I
3/13
country J (hereinafter: Club C), and in February 2012, to Club K, from country L
(hereinafter: Club K).
13.
Furthermore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant deems that, should the employment
contract with Club A be considered valid, then 7 July 2011 should be considered as its
start date, since it is the date on which the transfer agreement was signed. Thus, the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent should not be entitled to his salary of June 2011.
Moreover, since he allegedly left country I on 25 September 2011, he should also not
be entitled to his salaries for the period of October 2011 to January 2012.
14.
In view of the previous arguments, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant deems that no
compensation is due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, since there exists no
contractual relationship between them. In case the DRC considers that the contract
between the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is
valid, Club A requests that the amount that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent earned
with Club C and Club K should be deducted from any amount payable to him. Since
the Claimant/Counter-Respondent suffered no damages, he shall also not be entitled
to additional compensation in the amount of EUR 60,000.
15.
Finally, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant requests that the Claimant/CounterRespondent should be held liable to pay Club A the amount of EUR 15,000,
corresponding to the legal fees and the costs incurred by the Respondent/CounterClaimant in connection with his allegedly unlawful claim.
16.
In his replica, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent rejects the Respondent/CounterClaimant’s argument, according to which a transfer agreement between Club S and
Club A was never concluded. According to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the
problem started when the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to pay the transfer
compensation to Club S.
17.
In addition, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims that the fact that the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant never requested his ITC and never registered his
contract – as confirmed by the country I Football Association in response to his inquiry
of 31 August 2011, on file – does not impact the validity of the contract.
18.
Furthermore, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent denies the Respondent/CounterClaimant’s arguments according to which he was allowed, as per his own request, to
train with Club A until he would find new employment. The Claimant/CounterRespondent claims to have arrived in country I in mid-June 2012 and departed only on
25 September 2012, because his visa had expired and the club failed to request its
renewal.
Player B, from country H / Club A, from country I
4/13
19.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent deems that the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant breached the contract without just cause, during the
protected period and should, therefore, be held liable for the payment of
compensation.
20.
In its duplica, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant rejects all the Claimant/CounterRespondent’s arguments and maintains its previous position. In addition, the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant claims that, if the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had
indeed had any employment relationship with Club A, the latter would be entitled to
request the payment of transfer compensation from Club K, which is not the case.
21.
As per the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, a proof that no agreement was reached
between Club A and Club S is that the latter allegedly cancelled the invoice for the
payment of transfer compensation for the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and decided
not pursue its claim for such payment in front of FIFA.
22.
After the closure of investigation, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent remitted new,
unsolicited correspondence to FIFA, by means of which he insisted on his previous
argumentation and further stated that he was allegedly presented to a “large
number of photographers” as the “new significant team addition” and also played
several friendly matches with Club A.
23.
In its final position, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant maintains its previous
argumentation, denies that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent has ever been
presented as a new member of Club A and points out that no evidence in this regard
was presented by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent.
24.
Finally, as to his contractual situation, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent states to
have remained unemployed until January 2012, when he was transferred from Club S
to Club C. However, according to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, this contract was
terminated shortly after its signing, i.e. still in January 2012, in order that the contract
with Club K could be signed. Thus, “there was not transfer between Club S and Club C
[…], but the Claimant registered with Club C […] to be finally able to leave for
country L”.
25.
According to the Transfer Matching System (TMS) and to the information provided by
the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the latter concluded the following contracts:
- Club C (country J): information provided by the player, but transfer cancelled in
TMS.
- Club K (country L), valid as from 20 February 2012 and, according to the player,
terminated in July 2012, for a total remuneration of USD 300,000 net.
- Club Y (country W), valid as from 1 August 2011 until 30 May 2013, for a total
remuneration of USD 125,000 net.
Player B, from country H / Club A, from country I
5/13
- Club P (country G), valid as from 2 September 2013 until 30 June 2015, for a
monthly salary of EUR 818.25, payable 12 times a year, as well as an amount of
EUR 56,800 net, payable in instalments from September 2013 to April 2014.
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 11 November
2011. Consequently, the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the
Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the
Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. article 21 par. 2 and 3 of
the Procedural Rules, in combination with art. 18 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 2014) 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 H player and an country I club.
3.
Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010,
2012 and 2014), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 11 November
2011, the 2010 edition of said regulations (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 this respect, the
Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant signed an employment contract, in June 2011.
5.
According to the employment contract, the parties established, among others, that
the employment would be valid for seasons 2011/2012 to 2013/2014 and that the
Claimant would be entitled to receive, inter alia, a monthly salary of EUR 8,000 net,
EUR 20,000 net as sign-on fee, EUR 500 as match bonus, an apartment and a car. In
addition, art. C3 of the contract (cf. point I.3. above) conditioned the validity of such
employment contract to the signature of a transfer agreement between the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant and the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s former club,
Club S.
Player B, from country H / Club A, from country I
6/13
6.
In his claim, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent maintained that, in fact, an
employment contract with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant as well as a transfer
agreement between the latter and Club S were entered into. Consequently, the
employment contract entered into force and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is to
be held liable for its early termination by having failed to comply with its terms,
including the failure to pay the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s remuneration, to
provide him with training, an apartment and a car.
7.
In this respect, the members of the Chamber took note of the Claimant/CounterRespondent’s default notices dated 31 August 2011, 5 and 23 September 2011
addressed to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, by means of which the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent reminded the Respondent/Counter-Claimant of its
salary arrears towards him, and subsequently questioned it about his exclusion from
training, his eviction from the apartment and his obligation to return the car he had
been granted the use of.
8.
The Chamber also took due note of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s arguments,
according to which no valid and binding employment contract had been concluded
between the parties. In this respect, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant referred to art.
C3 of the employment contract (cf. point I.3. above) and explained that, due to the
fact that it had not agreed with Club S upon the terms of the Claimant/CounterRespondent’s transfer, no agreement was concluded between said clubs and,
consequently, the employment contract did not enter into force. Thus, the Claimant’s
ITC was not requested and the employment contract was not registered with the
country I Football Association.
9.
From the outset, the members of the Chamber highlighted that the fundamental
disagreement
between
the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent
and
the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant – and the central issue to the present dispute – is
whether the employment contract signed between the parties established can be
considered as a valid and binding contract.
10.
In this context, the Chamber first recalled that in order for an employment contract to
be considered as valid and binding, apart from the signature of both the employer
and the employee, it should contain the essentialia negotii of an employment
contract, such as the parties to the contract and their obligations, the duration of the
employment relationship, the remuneration and the signature of both parties. After a
careful study of the employment presented by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the
Chamber concluded that all such essential elements are included in the pertinent
document, in particular, the fact that the contract establishes that the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent is entitled to receive remuneration, including a
monthly salary, in exchange for his services to the club as a player. Therefore, already
Player B, from country H / Club A, from country I
7/13
at this point, the Chamber could conclude that the parties had signed a valid
employment contract, by which they were bound.
11.
The Chamber, however, deemed it important to analyze the Respondent/CounterClaimant’s allegation, according to which the condition of validity stipulated in art. C3
of the contract had not been fulfilled, as the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and Club
S had not come to an agreement as to the terms of the Claimant/CounterRespondent’s transfer. Therefore, the employment contract would not have come into
force. In particular, the DRC took note of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s
allegation according to which it had pre-signed the transfer agreement dated 7 July
2011 for the player and only then, sent it to Club S for their signature. The
Respondent/Counter-Claimant claims that the transfer agreement, in spite of bearing
the signature of both parties, is not valid, since Club S made several changes to the
text of the agreement, to which the Respondent/Counter-Claimant could not agree
to.
12.
At this point, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to emphasize that a party signing a
document of legal importance, as a general rule, does so on its own responsibility and
is consequently liable to bear the possible legal consequences arising from the
execution of such document.
13.
In the present case, the Chamber noted that not only an employment contract,
containing all the essentialia negotii had been signed by the Claimant/CounterRespondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, but even the validity clause of
such contract, namely its art. C3, had been fulfilled, since a transfer agreement for the
player, bearing the signature of both parties had also been concluded on 7 July 2011
and brought to the file as evidence. The fact that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant
might have signed the agreement before the changes were allegedly made by Club S
by no means exempts the Respondent/Counter-Claimant from its obligations
established in and arising from the signature of the employment contract.
14.
Furthermore, the Chamber also noted that the parties even started executing the
employment contract, since it is undisputed by the parties that the Claimant/CounterRespondent had, for a certain period of time, trained with the Respondent/CounterClaimant and that the latter had even provided him with an apartment and a car, as
established in the employment contract.
15.
For the sake of completeness, the DRC also referred to the Respondent/CounterClaimant’s argument, according to which the employment contract signed between
the parties would not have entered into force, since the Claimant’s ITC was not
requested and the contract was never registered by the country I Football Association.
In this regard, and bearing in mind the content of art. 18 par. 4 of the Regulations,
the Chamber considered relevant to recall its jurisprudence in accordance with which
Player B, from country H / Club A, from country I
8/13
the validity of an employment contract cannot be made conditional to the execution
of (administrative) formalities, such as, but not limited to, the registration procedure
in connection with the international transfer of a player, which are of the sole
responsibility of a club and on which a player has no influence. As regards the case at
stake, the club acknowledged that no ITC was requested. Bearing in mind that
according to Annexe 3 of the Regulations an ITC request depends on the new club’s
application to the new association to register a professional, the club is actually in the
position to prevent the occurrence of the condition precedent of receipt of an ITC by
willfully choosing not to proceed with the application for an ITC request. By analogy,
the same applies to the finalisation of documents or procedures related to the
transfer of a player, e.g. the signature of a transfer agreement, the payment of
transfer compensation or the registration of the employment contract at the
association. For these reasons, the members of the Chamber decided to reject the
Respondent’s arguments in this regard.
16.
On account of all of the above, the members of the Chamber concluded that not only
a valid and binding employment contract had been concluded between the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, but that such
contract even started being executed by the parties, as the Claimant/CounterRespondent undisputedly trained with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant and was
provided by the latter, for a certain period of time, with a car and an apartment, as
foreseen in the contract.
17.
Having established that a valid and legally binding employment contract had been in
force between the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/CounterClaimant, the Chamber went on to analyse whether such contract had been breached
and, in the affirmative, which party is to be held liable for it.
18.
To this end, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that the Respondent/CounterClaimant did not contest that it had not performed any of its financial obligations
under the employment contract or that, after receiving the Claimant/CounterRespondent’s reminders referred to in points I.7. and I.8. above, it excluded him from
training and ordered the eviction of the apartment and the return of the car.
19.
Bearing in mind the aforementioned considerations about the validity of the
employment contract concluded between the parties in June 2011, the Chamber
concluded that, in fact, such contract was breached by the Respondent/CounterClaimant. Namely, the Chamber took into account that it remained undisputed by the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant that it failed to comply with its obligations as per the
employment contract and that it did not intend to respect such obligations, as it did
not consider the employment contract to be valid.
Player B, from country H / Club A, from country I
9/13
20.
On account of the above circumstances, the Chamber concluded that such conduct of
the Respondent/Counter-Claimant clearly constitutes a breach of contract and,
accordingly, decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for
the premature termination of the employment contract entered into between the
parties. In conclusion, the Chamber established that the contract was terminated by
the Claimant/Counter-Respondent with just cause, on 25 September 2011, as he left
country I, after having sent the Respondent/Counter-Claimant the reminders referred
to in points I.7. and I.8. above.
21.
Having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination
of the employment contract without just cause, the Chamber focused its attention on
the consequences of such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the
Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive from the
Respondent an amount of money as compensation for breach of contract.
22.
Prior to establishing the amount of compensation for breach of contract due to the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the DRC
proceeded with the calculation of the outstanding monies payable to the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent under the terms of the employment contract until the
date of termination, i.e. on 25 September 2011.
23.
In this regard, the Chamber noted that it remained undisputed by the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant that no remuneration had been paid to the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent for the entire duration of the contract. In this context,
the DRC observed that the sign-on fee of EUR 20,000 net due upon signature of the
contract as well as the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s monthly salaries for June to
August 2011 had remained unpaid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant.
24.
Taking into consideration the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’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/Counter-Claimant must fulfill
its obligations as per the employment contract concluded with the Claimant/CounterRespondent and, consequently, is to be held liable to pay the total amount of EUR
40,000, as outstanding sign-on fee and salaries for June to August 2011. The
Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim for legal fees is to be rejected.
25.
The Chamber further established that an interest rate of 5% p.a. would apply over
the aforementioned amount, as from 1 November 2011, as per the claim of the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent.
26.
In continuation, the Chamber focused 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
Player B, from country H / Club A, from country I
10/13
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/Counter-Respondent 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.
27.
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.
28.
Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber verified as to whether the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent had signed an employment contract with another club
during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been enabled
to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC, such
remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the
calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with
the player’s general obligation to mitigate his damages.
29.
The Chamber noted that, during the period as from 25 September 2011 until 19
February 2012, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had remained unemployed.
Subsequently, the Chamber noted that on 20 February 2012, the Claimant/CounterRespondent had signed an employment contract with another club and that, from
that date and until June 2014, i.e. the original expire date of the employment
contract concluded with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, he had had almost
uninterruptedly professional labour relationships with three different clubs, enabling
him to earn a total income of approximately EUR 272,392 during said period of time.
30.
In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that, for the period as from 25
September 2011 to 19 February 2012, during which the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
remained unemployed, the residual value of the contract signed with the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant was EUR 40,000.
31.
For the period as from 20 February 2012 until June 2014, the Chamber observed that
the Claimant/Counter-Respondent would have been entitled to receive the total
amount of EUR 232,000, had he remained employed with the Respondent/CounterClaimant. This amount is lower than the one he actually received from the clubs he
subsequently signed an employment contract with, mentioned in point II.29. above.
Therefore, the Chamber concluded, in accordance with its well-established
Player B, from country H / Club A, from country I
11/13
jurisprudence, that for said period of time, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was not
entitled to receive any compensation, since he was not only able to mitigate his
damages, but also to guarantee an even higher remuneration than the one he would
have earned with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant.
32.
Based on the foregoing, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant/CounterRespondent is entitled to receive EUR 40,000 as compensation for breach of contract
from the Respondent/Counter-Claimant.
33.
The Chamber further established that an interest rate of 5% p.a. would apply over
the aforementioned amount, as from 1 November 2011, as per the claim of the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent.
34.
Finally, the Chamber concluded that any further claims lodged by the Claimant are
rejected.
35.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by
establishing that, in view of all the aforementioned considerations, the counterclaim
of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had to be entirely rejected.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Player B, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club A, is ordered to pay to the Claimant/CounterRespondent outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 40,000 plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 1 November 2011 until the date of effective payment, within 30 days as
from the date of notification of this decision.
3.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant is ordered to pay to the Claimant/CounterRespondent compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 40,000 plus 5%
interest p.a. as from 1 November 2011 until the date of effective payment, within 30
days as from the date of notification of this decision.
4.
Any further claims of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent are rejected.
5.
In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent plus interest
are not paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant within the stated time limit, the
present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for
consideration and a formal decision.
Player B, from country H / Club A, from country I
12/13
6.
The Claimant/Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent/CounterClaimant 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.
7.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-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 Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Jérôme Valcke
Secretary General
Encl: CAS directives
Player B, from country H / Club A, from country I
13/13