Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 23 September 2013,
by Mr Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge,
on the claim presented by the player
Player N, from country A
as Claimant
against the club
Club D, from country B
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute
arisen between the Claimant and the Respondent
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 15 June 2010, Club D, from country B (hereinafter: the Respondent), and Player
N, from country A (hereinafter: the Claimant), concluded an employment contract
(hereinafter: the contract), valid from the date of signature until 15 May 2011.
2.
According to art. 1 par. 3 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive a
monthly remuneration in the amount of USD 7,000.
3.
On 21 May 2012, the Claimant submitted a claim in front of the Dispute
Resolution Chamber (DRC), requesting the payment of outstanding salaries
amounting to USD 49,000 plus interest.
4.
Equally, the Claimant additionally requested that the Respondent would bear all
costs.
5.
In this respect, according to the Claimant, after having complied with his
contractual obligations, the Claimant contacted the Respondent on various
occasions in order to demand the outstanding payments. In this regard, the
Claimant held that the Respondent had only made partial payments of his
monthly salaries. In this context, the Claimant pointed out that the total value of
the contract was of USD 84,000 (corresponding to twelve monthly salaries of
USD 7,000), however, the Respondent allegedly had only paid him the total
amount of USD 35,000 during the term of the contract.
6.
Despite having been invited to do so, the Respondent never replied to the claim of
the Claimant.
II.
Considerations of the DRC judge
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge (hereinafter: the DRC
judge or the judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the matter
at stake. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to
FIFA on 21 May 2012. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the
Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2008;
hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21
par. 2 and 3 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 2 in combination with art. 22
Player N, from country A / Club D, from country B
2/5
lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2012), he is
competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between an country A player and
an country B 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.
4.
Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which regulations 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 Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition
2012 and 2010), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 21 May
2012, 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 latter entered into the substance of the matter by acknowledging
that, on 15 June 2010, the parties had signed an employment contract valid until
15 May 2011.
6.
Subsequently, the Dispute Resolution Chamber judge noted that the Respondent,
for its part, failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant, in spite of
having been invited to do so. In this way, the judge considered that the
Respondent renounced its right to defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of
the Claimant.
7.
Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the DRC
judge concurred that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, he
shall take a decision upon the basis of the documents already on file; in other
words, upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant.
8.
In line with the above, the DRC judge took into consideration that according to
the Claimant, the Respondent had only made partial payments of his monthly
salaries. In this context, the DRC judge took due note that the Claimant pointed
out that although the total value of the contract was of USD 84,000, i.e. twelve
monthly salaries of USD 7,000 each, the Respondent allegedly had only paid him
the total amount of USD 35,000 during the term of the contract. Consequently,
the judge took note that the Claimant asked to be awarded the amount of
USD 49,000 corresponding to the outstanding remuneration.
In this context, the DRC judge took note that according to the contract, the
Respondent was obliged to pay to the Claimant a monthly remuneration of
9.
Player N, from country A / Club D, from country B
3/5
USD 7,000 for the duration of the contract. Considering that the contract was valid
from 15 June 2010 until 15 May 2011, i.e. eleven months, the DRC judge asserted
that in fact the entire value of the contract corresponded to USD 77,000.
10.
Bearing in mind the foregoing, the DRC judge proceeded with the calculation of
the outstanding salaries. Considering the total value of the contract, i.e.
USD 77,000 and taking into account that the Claimant stated having received the
amount of USD 35,000 from the Respondent, the Dispute Resolution Chamber
judge established that the Respondent failed to remit the total amount of
USD 42,000 to the Claimant.
11.
As a consequence, the DRC judge decided that in accordance with the general
legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the
Claimant outstanding salaries in the total amount of USD 42,000.
12.
In addition, taking into account the Claimant´s request as well as the constant
practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the DRC judge decided that the
Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of
USD 42,000 as of 21 May 2012 until the date of effective payment.
13.
Moreover, the DRC judge decided to reject the Claimant´s claim pertaining to costs
taking into account art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules and the Chamber´s
respective longstanding jurisprudence.
14.
Finally, the DRC judge concluded its deliberations in the present dispute by
deciding that the claim of the Claimant is partially accepted and that any further
claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected.
III.
Decision of the DRC judge
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Player N, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club D, has to pay to the Claimant, Player N, within 30 days as
from the date of notification of this decision, the amount of USD 42,000 as well as
5% interest p.a. on said amount as of 21 May 2012 until the date of effective
payment.
3.
If the amount plus interest due in accordance with point 2 are not paid within the
aforementioned deadline, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to
FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.
Player N, from country A / Club D, from country B
4/5
4.
Any further claims lodged by the Claimant, Player N, are rejected.
5.
The Claimant, Player N, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club D, 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 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 DRC judge
Jérôme Valcke
Secretary General
Encl. CAS directives
Player N, from country A / Club D, from country B
5/5