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 M, from country A
as Claimant/Counter-Respondent
against the club,
Club L, from country G
as Respondent/Counter-Claimant
and the club,
Club T, from country A
as Intervening Party
regarding an employment-related dispute
arisen between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 19 May 2008, Player M, from country A (hereinafter: player or
Claimant/Counter-Respondent), and Club L, from country G (hereinafter: Club L
or Respondent/Counter-Claimant), concluded an employment contract
(hereinafter: contract) valid “for one year”.
2.
Clause 7 a) of the contract states that: “If the CLUB delays any of the payment
indicated in this contract for more than 60 […] consecutive days, the player
shall have the right and option to terminate the contract and the Club will
have to indemnify the player with an amount of the entire contract of the
current as an indemnity. In order to exercise this right and option, the player
shall first send a written notification to the Club by fax or by hand, and if the
club does not pay the due amount within 10 […] days after receiving the
notification, the player shall be free to terminate the contract with the
indicated consequences for the Club”.
3.
Clause 7 d) of the contract stipulates that “In all cases the Player is entitled to
go directly to FIFA bodies (Dispute Resolution Chamber or any other replacing
it) in order to solve the claim, asking his freedom and the agreed indemnity”.
In addition, clause 11 of the contract states that “any dispute relating to this
agreement or its termination, should be referred by either party to the FIFA
bodies and to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Lausanne
accordingly”.
4.
The contract provides for a total remuneration of EUR 170,000 net payable by
Club L to the player in ten equal instalments of EUR 17,000 each at the end of
each month starting in September 2008 and ending in June 2009. In addition,
the parties agreed on the following bonuses, all payable within ten days of the
relevant accomplishments:
EUR 10,000 net if the player participates at least five minutes in more than
twenty League games,
EUR 30,000 net if the club is not relegated to the second division at the end
of the season,
EUR 10,000 net if the club is, at the end of the season, in a better position in
the final League standings than in 10th position,
EUR 20,000 net if the club participates in the country G Cup Final,
EUR 30,000 net if the club would participate in the UEFA CUP in the
following season.
Furthermore, the parties agreed that the player should receive a fully
furnished apartment for himself and his family as well as five return air tickets
for the player to country A.
Player M, from country A / Club L, from country G /
Club T, from country A
Page 2 of 14
5.
On 1 December 2008, the player put Club L in default of payment of the total
amount of EUR 51,000 for salaries as from September until November 2008
plus EUR 3,680 for outstanding remuneration related to the previous season.
Furthermore, the player requested Club L to provide him with a copy of all the
receipts issued in connection with his salaries and to regularise his visa
situation.
6.
On 10 December 2008, the player sent a second default notice, with essentially
the same content, with the addition of a request for the air tickets stipulated
in the contract and a warning that, in the event that the club would fail to
comply with its obligations, he would terminate the contract.
7.
The very same day, i.e. 10 December 2008, Club L responded to the player’s
correspondence dated 1 December 2008 stating that the player had received
all the remuneration that he was entitled to in relation to the previous
sporting season as well as the salaries for September and October 2008. Club L
added that the salary for November 2008 would be paid to him in December
2008.
8.
On 12 December 2008, the player terminated the contract and a day later,
after receiving a reply from Club L, the player reiterated his position and
informed Club L that he would consider the contract as terminated upon club’s
responsibility.
9.
On 23 December 2008, the player lodged a complaint against Club L before
FIFA maintaining that Club L is to be held liable for breach of contract and
compensation for breach of contract and he requested to be awarded the
amount of EUR 209,908 plus 5% interest per year as set out below:
EUR 3,680 corresponding to the previous contract allegedly dated 14 July
2007 and valid for the 2007/08 season;
EUR 1,200 corresponding to the penalty the player allegedly had to pay
since Club L failed to regularise his visa for the entire duration of the
contract;
EUR 170,000 corresponding to the total contractual remuneration payable
in ten equal instalments;
EUR 30,000 corresponding to bonuses included in the contract;
EUR 5,028 corresponding to air tickets to travel back to country A.
10.
In its statement of defence, Club L rejected all claims of the player and stated
that it paid the total amount of EUR 37,640, in cash, to the player as set out
below:
a) Outstanding amount corresponding to the 2007/08 season, i.e. EUR 3,640,
on 16 September 2008;
Player M, from country A / Club L, from country G /
Club T, from country A
Page 3 of 14
b) EUR 34,000 corresponding to the monthly salaries of September and
October 2008 as follows:
EUR 17,000 on 16 September 2008;
EUR 15,000 on 21 October 2008;
EUR 1,000 on 4 November 2008;
EUR 1,000 on 11 November 2008.
11.
Consequently, according to Club L, it had only failed to pay the salary of
November 2008, which was payable on 30 November 2008. However, since the
player had sent reminders regarding the amount in dispute, the club offered
him to collect his money at the club’s office on 15 December 2008.
Nevertheless, instead of collecting his money, the player allegedly decided to
leave Club L without valid reason. At this point, Club L underlined that the
player had never complained about late payments in the previous season.
12.
In addition, on the one hand, Club L stated that the player had terminated the
contract on 13 December 2008 and left country G permanently; on the other
hand it explained that, on 18 December 2008, the club decided to terminate
the contract due to the player’s unjustified absence and abandonment of
work. Moreover, on 22 December 2008, the club allegedly requested the
termination of the contract before the “First Instance Dispute Resolution
Chamber of the country G Football Federation” due to the player’s default. On
12 January 2009, said deciding body rendered a decision stating that “the
employment contract dated 25/8/2008 by and between the litigants is
terminated on 24/12/2008 by virtue of the termination of the [club] at the
[player’s] default”.
13.
With regard to the deciding body of the country G Football Federation, Club L
stated that “the establishment of an independent arbitration tribunal at
national level [would be] undisputed”. According to Club L, the legal
framework of the above-mentioned decision was based on the Statutes of the
country G Football Federation (edition 2008), the Regulations for the Status
and Transfer of Players (edition 2008) and the Regulations for the proceedings
before the Dispute Resolution Committee of First and Second Instance (edition
2002).
14.
Finally, Club L added that it “was forced to proceed to this petition, since the
country G Football Federation could not allow us sign another foreign player
as a replacement for the [player], without having a final decision from its
committees adjudicating accordingly”.
15.
According to Club L, it is evidenced that the player had terminated the
contract without just cause. In this respect, Club L sustained that the player
had not received his salary for a few days only, which would not constitute a
Player M, from country A / Club L, from country G /
Club T, from country A
Page 4 of 14
breach of contract entitling the player to terminate the contract. Moreover, in
line with art. 7 of the contract, the player would have been entitled to
terminate the contract in case of a delay of 60 days only.
16.
On 25 August 2010, Club L lodged a counterclaim against the player
requesting that the player be ordered to pay the amount of EUR 45,000 “as
compensation for the unilateral breach of contract by the player without just
cause, reflecting the great sporting damage [the club] suffered as the [player]
was the starter striker of [the club] as well as the time remaining for the expiry
of the pertinent employment contract” less the amount of EUR 17,000
corresponding to the November 2008 salary, plus 5% interest and the
reimbursement of the costs of proceedings.
17.
In his reply to the counterclaim of Club L, the player stated that in order for a
submission to a national tribunal to be valid, it has to be included in the
employment contract. In the present matter, the employment contract does
not make reference to a national tribunal, but to the FIFA deciding bodies.
Furthermore, the player pointed out that he had not made any submission to
the national tribunal, the reason why the tribunal – independent of its
composition – cannot be considered as competent. The decision had been
passed in the absence of the player. This is, according to the player, his right to
defence has not been granted.
18.
With regard the alleged payment of the claimed amounts, the player
questioned the authenticity of the receipts presented by Club L alleging that
he has not signed them. The player also underlined that Club L did not hand
over a copy of these receipts to him before Club L presented them in its
statement of defence. Furthermore, the player considered it odd that the club
would have paid the salaries of September and October in advance, one and
two weeks respectively, and not on the 30th of the month. The player asked
that the club provide not only the originals of the receipts in dispute, but also
the ones of the previous season in order to be able to compare them.
19.
Concerning the amount claimed as compensation by Club L, the player first of
all highlighted that Club L has failed to provide evidence of the sporting
damage suffered, although it carries the burden of proof. Moreover, the
player held that Club L did not claim damages against him before the national
tribunal, on the contrary, when the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) was
finally issued by the country G Football Federation on 19 August 2009, it was
certified that the player had duly fulfilled all his obligations towards his former
club, i.e. Club L. According to the player, Club L violated the principle of
prohibition of “venire contra factum propium”.
Player M, from country A / Club L, from country G /
Club T, from country A
Page 5 of 14
20.
With regard to his contractual situation following the termination of the
contract with Club L, the player maintained that, due to injury, he could not
join another club before July 2009.
21.
Despite having been invited by FIFA to do so, Club T, from country A
(hereinafter: Intervening Party), did not submit any comments with regard to
the present matter.
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 matter
at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to
FIFA on 23 December 2008. Consequently, the Rules governing the procedures
of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition
2008; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf.
art. 21 par. 1 and par. 2 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 and par.
2 in combination with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (edition 2012) the Dispute Resolution Chamber would, in
principle, be competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between an
country A player and a country G club and involving an country A club.
3.
However, the Chamber noted that, on 12 January 2009, the “First Instance
Dispute Resolution Chamber of the country G Football Federation” passed a
decision on the basis of a claim that was lodged in front of it by the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant against the Claimant/Counter-Respondent for
breach of contract and, therefore, the Chamber first had to establish as to
whether it could adjudicate the present matter in the light of the principle of
res iudicata.
4.
In this context, the members of the Chamber took into account that the
employment contract at the basis of the present matter contains a clear
jurisdiction clause in favour of FIFA’s deciding bodies and that the parties have
not contested FIFA’s jurisdiction to deal with the present matter. In addition,
the Chamber took into consideration that according to the decision passed by
the “First Instance Dispute Resolution Chamber of the country G Football
Federation”, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent “of unknown residency” could
not be informed about Club L’ claim and consequently, he was neither present
Player M, from country A / Club L, from country G /
Club T, from country A
Page 6 of 14
nor represented at the hearing of said deciding body of the country G Football
Federation. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the player’s right to be
heard had not been safeguarded.
5.
For these reasons, the members of the Chamber agreed to disregard the
decision passed by the “First Instance Dispute Resolution Chamber of the
country G Football Federation” on 12 January 2009 and decided that the DRC
is competent to adjudicate the present matter.
6.
Having established its competence to deal with the present matter, 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 (2014), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 23 December 2008, the 2008
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the
matter at hand as to the substance.
7.
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 started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts
as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties.
However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will
refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it
considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
8.
In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that, on 19 May 2008, the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant signed
an employment contract valid “for one year”.
9.
The Claimant/Counter-Respondent, on the one hand, maintains that the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for breach of contract, as
Club L had failed to comply with its financial obligations since September 2008,
as a result of which he terminated the employment contract on 12 December
2008. Consequently, according to the player, the Respondent/CounterClaimant is to be held liable for the early termination of the employment
contract and, thus, to payment of compensation in addition to allegedly
outstanding remuneration.
10.
The Chamber further noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant rejected
the claim and held that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated the
employment contract without just cause, on the basis of which it lodged a
counterclaim against the Claimant/Counter-Respondent asking to be awarded
compensation for breach of contract.
Player M, from country A / Club L, from country G /
Club T, from country A
Page 7 of 14
11.
Considering the diverging position of the parties, the members of the
Chamber highlighted that the central issue in this dispute was to determine as
whether the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had terminated the employment
contract on 12 December 2008 with or without just cause as well as to decide
on the consequences thereof.
12.
Subsequently, the Chamber proceeded with an analysis of the circumstances
surrounding the present matter, the parties’ arguments as well the
documentation on file, bearing in mind art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules,
in accordance with which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged
fact shall carry the burden of proof.
13.
In this respect, the members of the Chamber recalled that clause 7 a) of the
employment contract sets forth a termination procedure, in accordance with
which the player was entitled to terminate the employment contract, in the
event that Club L was in delay of any payment for more than 60 consecutive
days, after previously having put Club L in default in writing. In this context, it
was duly noted that the ten monthly instalments of EUR 17,000 each fell due
by the end of the month as from September 2008 until June 2009.
14.
In continuation, the Chamber noted that, after having put the club in default,
on 1 and 10 December 2008, of payment of his salaries for September and
November 2008 as well as air tickets and the amount of EUR 3,680
corresponding to remuneration for the previous season, the Claimant/CounterRespondent terminated the employment contract in writing on 12 December
2008.
15.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, for its part, held that it duly paid the
player’s remuneration for the previous season as well as the September and
October 2008 instalments and, in support of its position, presented various
receipts bearing the player’s signature and demonstrating the amounts paid by
Club L to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent relating to the amount claimed for
previous season as well as the September and October 2008 instalments. The
Chamber noted that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent denied that he signed
these receipts and that he questioned the authenticity of these receipts.
16.
At this stage, the DRC considered it appropriate to remark that, as a general
rule, FIFA’s deciding bodies are not competent to decide upon matters of
criminal law, such as allegedly falsified signatures or documents, and that such
affairs fall within the jurisdiction of the competent national criminal authority.
Player M, from country A / Club L, from country G /
Club T, from country A
Page 8 of 14
17.
In continuation, the members of the Chamber pointed out that the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant submitted the originals of the various receipts,
which appear to be genuine.
18.
As a result, the members of the Chamber rejected the Claimant/CounterRespondent’s allegations and concurred that the Respondent/CounterClaimant corroborated its position with regard to the payments remitted to
the player with sufficient documentary evidence.
19.
What is more, as regards the November 2008 instalment, though, the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant acknowledged that it had not yet been
remitted to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent by the time the latter
terminated the employment contract.
20.
On account of the above, the Chamber concluded that at the time when the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated the employment contract, i.e. 12
December 2008, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s remuneration for one
month only, that is, the month of November 2008, had not been paid.
21.
Furthermore, the preceding consideration, in particular the fact that solely the
November 2008 instalment had remained outstanding at the time when the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated the employment contract, led the
Chamber to conclude that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had not complied
with the termination procedure outlined in art. 7 of the employment contract.
22.
Taking into account all of the above, the Chamber decided that the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent had no just cause to terminate the employment
contract on 12 December 2008. Hence, the members of the Chamber decided
that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is to be held liable for the early
termination of the employment contract without just cause.
23.
In continuation, prior to establishing the consequences of the termination of
the employment contract without just cause by the Claimant/CounterRespondent in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber
held that it had to address the issue of any unpaid remuneration at the
moment the employment contract was terminated by the Claimant/CounterRespondent.
24.
In this regard, the members of the Chamber recalled that, as claimed by the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent and acknowledged by Club L, the player’s
remuneration for November 2008 had remained unpaid.
Player M, from country A / Club L, from country G /
Club T, from country A
Page 9 of 14
25.
The members of the Chamber further took into account that the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant had no valid reasons justifying such the nonpayment of the November 2008 instalment. Consequently, the Chamber
decided that, in virtue of the principle pacta sunt servanda, the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant is liable to pay to the Claimant/CounterRespondent the amount of EUR 17,000 that had remained outstanding in
accordance with the employment contract on the day on which the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated the employment contract without
just cause. Moreover, the Chamber decided that the Claimant/CounterRespondent is entitled to receive the amount of EUR 6,580 for services
rendered in December 2008 until the termination of the contractual relation.
26.
The members of the Chamber then turned their attention to the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim relating to flight tickets to country A
and decided to reject such claim, since the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is
liable for the early termination of the employment contract without just cause.
27.
Furthermore, as regards the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim relating to a
EUR 30,000 bonus, which was not further specified, in the absence of any
documentary evidence demonstrating that the contractual conditions related
to Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s entitlement to the bonus of EUR 30,000 in
accordance with the employment contract were fulfilled (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of
the Procedural Rules) and bearing in mind that the Claimant/CounterRespondent rendered his services to Club L until mid-December 2008 only, the
Chamber decided to reject the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim
pertaining to said amount. Likewise, in the absence of any documentary
evidence, the Chamber decided to reject the claim of the Claimant/CounterRespondent relating to costs allegedly incurred in connection with his visa.
28.
Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is
entitled to receive outstanding remuneration totalling EUR 23,580 from the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant.
In
addition, bearing
in mind
the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s claim, the Chamber decided to award the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the amount of
EUR 23,580 as of the day on which the claim was lodged in front of FIFA, i.e. 23
December 2008.
29.
Furthermore, the Chamber decided to reject any further claim lodged by the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent.
30.
Having established the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the
question of the consequences of the termination of the employment contract
by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent without just cause on 12 December 2008.
Player M, from country A / Club L, from country G /
Club T, from country A
Page 10 of 14
31.
In doing so, the DRC established that, taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1
of the Regulations, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is liable to pay
compensation to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for the termination of the
employment contract without just cause. Furthermore, in accordance with the
unambiguous contents of art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations, the Chamber
established that the player’s new club, i.e. the Intervening Party, shall be
jointly and severally liable for the payment of compensation. In this respect,
the Chamber was eager to point out that the joint liability of the player’s new
club is independent from the question as to whether the new club has
committed an inducement to contractual breach or any other kind of
involvement by the new club. This conclusion is in line with the wellestablished jurisprudence of the Chamber that was repeatedly confirmed by
the CAS.
32.
In continuation, the members of the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in
accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the 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 player
under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on
the existing contract up to a maximum of five years as well as the fees and
expenses paid or incurred by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant (amortised
over the term of the contract) and whether the contractual breach falls within
a protected period.
33.
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 which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of
compensation payable by either contractual party in the event of breach of
contract. Upon careful examination of said contract, the members of the
Chamber assured themselves that this was not the case in the matter at stake.
34.
The Chamber further recalled that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had
claimed compensation of, inter alia, EUR 45,000 as well as the time remaining
on the relevant employment contract.
35.
With regard to the calculation of the amount of compensation due by the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the Chamber firstly turned its attention to the
remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract
and/or any new contract(s), a criterion which was considered by the Chamber
to be essential. The members of the Chamber deemed it important to
emphasise that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows the
Player M, from country A / Club L, from country G /
Club T, from country A
Page 11 of 14
Chamber to take into account both the existing contract and any new
contract(s) in the calculation of the amount of compensation.
36.
In accordance with the player’s employment contract with Club L, which was to
run for 6 months and 19 days more at the moment when the breach of
contract occurred, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was to receive the
amount of EUR 112,420, i.e. EUR 10,420 for the remaining time of the month
of December 2008 as well as EUR 102,000 as from January until June 2009. The
Chamber further noted that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent had not signed
any new employment contract during the original period of validity of the
relevant employment contract with Club L.
37.
In continuation, and referring to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules,
although bearing in mind that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had not
specifically included any of these costs in its claim, the Chamber established
that it had no indications at its disposal regarding possible fees and expenses
paid or incurred by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant for the acquisition of
the player’s services and that therefore it could not further consider that
criterion in the specific case at hand, whereas according to art. 17 par. 1 of the
Regulations such fees and expenses may be included as one of the criteria to
be taken into account in the calculation of the compensation.
38.
For all these reasons, the Chamber decided that the Claimant/CounterRespondent, Player M, has to pay the amount of EUR 112,420 to the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the Club L, as compensation for the breach of
contract without just cause. In this respect, the Dispute Resolution Chamber
also decided that the Intervening Party, the Club T, is jointly and severally
liable for the payment of the above-mentioned amount of compensation to
Club L (cf. art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations).
39.
In addition, taking into account the request of the Respondent/CounterClaimant, the Chamber decided that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent must
pay to the Respondent/Counter-Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of
compensation as of the date on which the counterclaim was lodged, i.e. 25
August 2010, until the date of effective payment.
40.
Furthermore, as regards the claimed legal expenses, the Chamber referred to
art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as to its long-standing and wellestablished jurisprudence, in accordance with which no procedural
compensation shall be awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute
Resolution Chamber. Consequently, the Chamber decided to reject the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s request relating to legal expenses.
Player M, from country A / Club L, from country G /
Club T, from country A
Page 12 of 14
41.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present
matter by establishing that any further request filed by the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant is rejected.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Player M, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club L, has to pay to the Claimant/CounterRespondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision,
outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 23,580 plus interest at 5%
p.a. as of 23 December 2008 until the date of effective payment.
3.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is rejected.
4.
The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club L, is partially
accepted.
5.
The Claimant/Counter-Respondent has to pay to the Respondent/CounterClaimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision,
compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 112,420 plus
interest at 5% p.a. as of 25 August 2010 until the date of effective payment.
6.
The Intervening Party, Club T, is jointly and severally liable for the payment of
the amount of compensation for breach of contract (cf. point 5 above).
7.
Any further claim lodged by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is rejected.
8.
If the aforementioned sums plus interest are not paid within the
aforementioned deadlines, the present matter shall be submitted, upon
request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and decision.
9.
The
Claimant/Counter-Respondent
is
directed
to
inform
the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant 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.
10.
The Respondent/Counter-Claimant is directed to inform the Claimant/CounterRespondent and the Intervening Party 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.
*****
Player M, from country A / Club L, from country G /
Club T, from country A
Page 13 of 14
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to article 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 M, from country A / Club L, from country G /
Club T, from country A
Page 14 of 14