Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 September 2015,
by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge,
on the claim presented by the player,
Player A, country B,
as Claimant
against the club,
Club C, country D,
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1. On 6 August 2012, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: the player), and the
club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: the club), signed an employment contract
(hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the date of receipt of a valid International
Transfer Certificate (ITC) until the end of the 2012/2013 season.
2. The contract provides for total remuneration of EUR 10,000 payable in ten monthly
instalments of EUR 1,000, the first of which falls due on 30 August 2012 and the final
one falls due on 31 May 2013.
3. The contract further states that the club shall provide the player “with free use of a car
and all expenses are being paid by [the club] except gas”.
4. On 12 September 2013, the player put the club in default of outstanding remuneration
in the amount of EUR 9,500.
5. On 22 November 2013, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA,
requesting a total of EUR 19,500, without claiming interest, as follows:
a.
b.
c.
Outstanding remuneration: EUR 8,000;
Reimbursement for car expenses: EUR 1,500;
Compensation for emotional distress: EUR 10,000.
6. The player claims to have been owed a total of EUR 10,000 as total remuneration and
that the club failed to remunerate the player from October 2012 until May 2013 and is
therefore owed EUR 8,000 in outstanding salaries. The player notes having never
terminated the employment contract and alleges having provided his services until the
term of the contract.
7. The player claims the club never provided him with a car, and he therefore had to
arrange to buy one himself. He states that even though he paid EUR 10,000 for the car,
he is only claiming EUR 1,500 as the value of the car that was meant to be provided to
him.
8. In spite of having been invited by FIFA to provide its position relating to the claim, the
club did not respond to the claim or make any statement during the course of the
investigation.
II.
Considerations of the DRC judge
1.
First, the DRC judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the matter at
hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 22
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 2 of 5
November 2013. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’
Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2012; hereinafter:
Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 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 (2015 edition) he is
competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related
dispute with an international dimension between a player from country B and a club
from country D.
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, the value of which does not exceed CHF 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 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (2015
edition), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 22 November 2013, the
2012 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: 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 DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the
DRC judge started by acknowledging all the aforementioned facts as well as the
arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties. The DRC judge
emphasised however that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts,
arguments and documentary evidence, which he considered pertinent for the
assessment of the matter at hand.
6.
Subsequently, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent had failed to present its
response to the claim of the Claimant, in spite of having been invited to do so. By not
presenting its position to the claim, the DRC judge was of the opinion that the
Respondent had renounced to its right of defence and had 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 documentation already on file, i.e. on the statements
and documents presented by the Claimant.
8.
In continuation, the DRC judge acknowledged that in accordance with the employment
contract provided by the Claimant, the Respondent was obliged to pay to the Claimant
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 3 of 5
the total amount of EUR 10,000 as well as “free use of a car and all expenses are being
paid by [the club] except gas”.
9.
In this respect, the DRC judge took into consideration that according to the Claimant,
the Respondent had failed to pay his remuneration between October 2012 and May
2013 amounting to a total of EUR 8,000, and had failed to provide the Claimant with
any car allowance. The DRC judge noted that in spite of the Claimant asserting that he
had paid EUR 10,000 to purchase a car, he claims reimbursement of EUR 1,500 in this
regard. Furthermore, the DRC judge acknowledged that the Claimant requested
compensation of EUR 10,000 for moral damages.
10.
Taking into account the documentation presented by the Claimant in support of his
petition, the DRC judge concluded that the Claimant had substantiated his claim
pertaining to outstanding remuneration as well outstanding car allowance with
sufficient documentary evidence.
11.
On account of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC judge established that the
Respondent had failed to remit the Claimant’s monthly remuneration in the total
amount of EUR 8,000 and the car allowance.
12.
Consequently, the DRC judge decided that in accordance with the legal principle of
pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant outstanding
remuneration in the amount of EUR 8,000 and the car allowance in the amount of EUR
1,500, for a total of EUR 9,500.
13.
Subsequently, the DRC judge analysed the request of the Claimant corresponding to
compensation for moral damages in the amount of EUR 10,000. In this regard, the DRC
judge deemed it appropriate to point out that the request for said compensation
presented by the Claimant had no legal or regulatory basis and pointed out that no
corroborating evidence had been submitted that demonstrated or quantified the
damage allegedly suffered.
14.
Finally, the DRC judge concluded his deliberations in the present matter by establishing
that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
III.
Decision of the DRC judge
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date
of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 9,500.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 4 of 5
3.
In the event that the amount due to the Claimant in accordance with the
aforementioned number 2. 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.
4.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
5.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the
account number to which the remittances are 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:
Markus Kattner
Acting Secretary General
Encl: CAS directives
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 5 of 5