Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 21 September 2017,
in the following composition:
Thom as Grim m (S w itzerland), Deputy Chairman
John Bram hall (England), member
Johan v an Gaalen (S outh Africa), member
Pav el Piv ov arov (Rus s ia), member
Moham ed Al-S aikhan (S audi Arabia), member
on the claim presented by the player,
Play er A, from country A
as Claimant
against the club,
Club B, from country B
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties
I.
Facts of the cas e
1.
On 15 October 2009, the Player A, from country A (hereinafter: Claimant), the
Club B, from country B (hereinafter: Respondent), and Company X (hereinafter:
company X), signed a document titled “Employment contract” (hereinafter:
contract) valid as from 1 January 2010 until 31 December 2010.
2.
The first paragraph of the contract refers to the parties as follows: “Club B, based
in country B … hereinafter simply CLUB, X, with headquarters located in country
X, … , hereafter referred to as COMPANY X, CONTRACTOR; Player A, country A
citizen, … , hereafter referred to as EMPLOYEE:”.
3.
Article 1.1 of the contract determines that “The EMPLOYEE Player A will provide
services as a football player, playing in competitions by the employer that he is
participating”.
4.
According to article 4.1 and 4.2 of the contract, “For the services, the EMPLOYEE
Player A will receive the first year of work the importance of” USD 1,300,000,
payable as follows:
-
USD 300,000, due on 30 January 2010;
USD 300,000, due on 30 April 2010;
USD 300,000, due on 30 July 2010; and
USD 400,000, due on 30 October 2010.
5.
Article 6.2 of the contract determines that “In case will be terminated this present
Agreement and the EMPLOYEE Player A has already received value greater than
the proportion of time worked, the EMPLOYER shall return the excess amount.”
6.
On 20 January 2010, the Claimant and the Respondent signed a document named
“The Contract” (hereinafter: additional contract), valid as from 15 January 2010
until 31 December 2010, according to which the Claimant was entitled to a
remuneration “according to the list of staff Club”.
7.
The additional contract establishes in its article 1.1 that “Club undertakes to
employ the Football Player as a professional football player (non-amateur football
player) of soccer team Club B, to pay wages and to provide with the working
conditions necessary to performance of such work and stipulated by the
legislation of country B, and the Football Player undertakes to perform work as
the football player of Club, using thus all professional skills with the purpose of
achievement by Club high sports results”.
8.
On 9 August 2010, the Claimant notified the Respondent and the company that
he considered the contract as terminated considering the outstanding
remuneration and the fact that on that date no response was received from the
Respondent to the email dated 7 August 2010 “sent by email in care of Ms Z,
Office of the President of the club, over a communication informing the situation
and establishing another new term to contact us”.
Player A, from country A / Club B, from country B
Page 2 of 14
9.
On 9 August 2010, the Respondent notified the Football Federation of country B
and the league that four of its players, including the Claimant, had left the
Respondent in spite of ongoing negotiations between the parties. In particular,
the Respondent stated that the Claimant had left and “orally having warned a
club management”.
10.
On 10 August 2010, the Claimant contacted the Debt Collection Office of country
X, to verify the financial situation of the company.
11.
On 11 August 2010, the Claimant initiated a debt collection request against the
company before the Debt Collection Office of country X.
12.
On 13 August 2010, the company was declared bankrupt.
13.
On 2 December 2010, the Claimant lodged a claim before FIFA against the
Respondent for breach of contract, asking to be awarded USD 700,000 as
outstanding remuneration and USD 400,000 as compensation for breach of
contract.
14.
According to the Claimant, the Respondent failed to pay the remuneration as
established in the contract, having only paid the total amount of USD 200,000 in
two payments of USD 100,000 on 30 January 2010 and on 2 August 2010,
respectively.
15.
Moreover, the Claimant explained that after several meetings with the
Respondent who promised to pay the outstanding remuneration, in July 2010, the
Respondent proposed the termination of the contract, which was refused by the
Claimant.
16.
On 26 July 2010, the Claimant allegedly notified the Respondent and the company
of the outstanding remuneration and the payment of the upcoming instalment
on 30 July 2010, establishing a deadline of 10 days for payment. In this respect,
the Claimant provided a copy of the default notice addressed to the Respondent
and the company, dated 26 July 2010. In particular, the default notice establishes
a deadline of 10 days for payment “under penalty on one side of termination of
employment contract”.
17.
Subsequently, according to the Claimant, on 1 August 2010, the Respondent and
the company again proposed the mutual termination of the contract, which was
rejected by him one more time considering the insufficient conditions.
18.
According to the Claimant, on 2 August 2010, during a meeting with the
president of the Respondent regarding the termination of the contract, he asked
for payment of his receivables, since he was allegedly in financial difficulties. The
Claimant held having received the amount of USD 100,000 on this occasion.
Notwithstanding the above, the Claimant informed having been open to an
amicable solution, establishing a deadline until 9 August 2010, however to no
avail, which was the reason why he terminated the contract in writing on 9
19.
Player A, from country A / Club B, from country B
Page 3 of 14
August 2010. In this respect, the Claimant held having been in contact with the
company for the settlement of the dispute.
20.
In conclusion, the Claimant considers that he had just cause to terminate the
contract on 9 August 2010.
21.
On 17 April 2011, the Claimant filed a claim against the company before the
Bankruptcy office in country X, claiming a total amount of CHF 2,369,036.90
regarding wages, requesting the collocation of such amounts as a first class claim.
22.
The Respondent replied to the claim stating, first of all, that it was not aware of
the date on which the claim was lodged in front of FIFA, but affirmed that the
claim is time-barred considering the date of the termination of the contract, i.e. 9
August 2010 and the date of the Respondent’s reply, i.e. 22 September 2015. In
particular, the Respondent held that the claim is time-barred according to country
B law, which general statute of limitations period for labour disputes may vary
between one month and one year. The Respondent held that the claim is also
time-barred according to Swiss law, since the DRC is neither an ordinary court nor
an arbitration tribunal, and in accordance with the FIFA Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players.
23.
As to the substance of the matter, the Respondent preliminarily explained that
the company was the principal shareholder in “Company W”, which was the
Respondent's principal shareholder until 13 August 2010, date on which the
company was declared bankrupt. In this respect, the Respondent submitted a
witness statement of the Respondent’s sports director from 2007 until 2012, in
which he states inter alia that the participation of the company in the
Respondent’s business was limited to financial/sponsor support and the
contracting and payment of services of foreign specialists (players and coach).
Moreover, the Respondent added that the company was also the Respondent’s
sponsor “at all relevant times”.
24.
According to the Respondent, the Claimant was aware that the company was
liable to pay his remuneration and not the Respondent and, in this respect, it
refers to the above-mentioned bankruptcy documents.
25.
In this regard, the Respondent highlighted that on different occasions in August
2010, the Claimant only contacted the company, thus clearly considering the
company as the debtor, and even contacted the Debt Collection Office to verify
the financial situation of the company and to request outstanding payments
initiating a debt collection request against the company.
26.
Moreover, the Respondent held that, only after being aware of the bankruptcy
proceedings faced by the company, did the Claimant lodge a claim against the
Respondent, including the amounts requested from the company in the first
place, clearly demonstrating that the amounts established in the contract were
payable by the company.
Player A, from country A / Club B, from country B
Page 4 of 14
27.
Furthermore, according to the Respondent, foreign players have a different
labour status than national players and need to obtain a license to work from the
Agency of Foreign Labor Migration Affairs of country B. For that purpose, the
Respondent concluded bilateral agreements with foreign players, including the
player A. In particular, the Respondent stated that “in the Club’s financial
documents, foreign football players, including Player A, were named as
employees paid in accordance with the bilateral contract between foreign players
and the Club”.
28.
In addition, the Respondent explained that the company would request the
Respondent to accept a foreign player, after which the Respondent signed the
“bilateral agreement”, but the company did not involve the Respondent in the
legal and financial terms of the transfers.
29.
Furthermore, the Respondent held that the contract is actually null and void
because it was signed by an unauthorized person on behalf of the Respondent
and because it foresaw the payments in USD, which is against the applicable
national laws. In this regard, the Respondent further held that the contract was
not registered before the Football Federation of country B. Furthermore, all
negotiations with players and even visa proceedings were made by the company.
30.
Therefore, the Respondent alleged that, in spite of the existence of two contracts,
it only made payments in accordance with the “bilateral agreement”, i.e. the
additional agreement, and was not involved in further payments from the
company to the Claimant as “it was agreed and clear to everyone involved that all
salaries other than agreed under the [additional contract] would be arranged for
and paid by [the company]”. Due to currency restrictions, agreements under
which the players were to be paid in foreign currency were made by the company,
which was domiciled outside country B.
31.
All in all, the Respondent sustained that it was neither obliged, nor in a position
to make any payments under a different contract than the “bilateral agreement”,
i.e. the additional contract, considering the following:
-
32.
The Respondent never made any payments under the contract;
The Respondent never made a payment in USD to the Claimant;
The Respondent could not assume obligations to pay in USD, since payments
in foreign currency are forbidden in country B;
The Respondent was never financially able to make the payments
established in the contract;
The Claimant had already claimed the payments established in the contract
from the company and initiated debt enforcement proceedings against the
company.
Moreover, according to the former director of the Respondent, after the company
started facing financial problems, the foreign players, including the Claimant, left
the Respondent without notifying or informing the Respondent, since the
relationship was actually between the company and the players. As a
Player A, from country A / Club B, from country B
Page 5 of 14
consequence, the Respondent decided to terminate the additional agreement in
August 2010 and cease to pay the remuneration, having afterwards informed the
Football Federation of country B that the Claimant had left the Respondent.
33.
Furthermore, the Respondent claimed having never received the default notice
allegedly sent by the Claimant, since it was made to the company. The
Respondent held that it only had access to the relevant documentation upon
review of the company’s bankruptcy file.
34.
The Respondent denied having proposed to amicably settle the matter and held
not being aware of the alleged offer and highlighted that, anyway, the document
was not signed and thus, not binding.
35.
Finally, the Respondent held that the procedural and legal costs should be
imposed on the Claimant.
36.
In his replica, the Claimant insisted on his claim and rejected the argument that
the Respondent has no liability regarding amounts due to him based on the
contract. In this respect, first of all, the Claimant held that the contract does not
establish that the company is the entity responsible to make the payments to the
Claimant. However, even if that was the case, in case of failure, the Respondent is
the only remaining liable party. In addition, the Claimant stated that the
Respondent is the employer and thus, primarily liable to pay the employee and
could not assign such obligation to a third party.
37.
The Respondent submitted its final comments, stating, inter alia, that the
Claimant did not reject the Respondent’s argument that the claim is time-barred,
neither did he provide any evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the claim should
be dismissed due to the statute of limitations.
38.
The Claimant informed FIFA that he remained unemployed until the end of the
relevant contractual period.
39.
The Respondent submitted information regarding the status of the Claimant’s
application to the Bankruptcy Office in country X regarding the company. In this
respect, the Respondent explained the following:
-
-
The insolvency proceedings were formally opened on 28 October 2010 and
have been active since 2011.
On 17 April 2011, the Claimant submitted a claim before the Bankruptcy
Office in country X regarding the company, requesting amounts from the
company, allegedly stating that these amounts covered salaries which
remained unpaid by the company, and requesting the collocation in first class
of the claim based on the employment relationship between him and the
company.
On 23 August 2011, a first creditors’ meeting was held in the company, which
resulted in the election of an extraordinary liquidator and the appointment
of the creditors’ committee.
Player A, from country A / Club B, from country B
Page 6 of 14
-
The final list of creditors’ claims is drawn up in a document called
“Collocation Plan”, the issuance deadline of which can be expanded for years
by the competent court.
The liquidator is still about to scrutinize these claims to confirm that they are
genuine and may be admitted to the insolvency. The Collocation Plan has not
been issued and thus, it is not yet decided whether the claims of the
Claimant are fully or partially admitted or rejected.
II.
Cons iderations of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
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 2 December 2010. 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 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 2016) the Dispute Resolution Chamber would, in principle, be
competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a player and a club.
3.
The Chamber then reverted to the argument of the Respondent, according to
whom the present matter is barred by the statute of limitations. In this regard,
the members of the Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 5 of the aforementioned
Regulations, according to which, inter alia, the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall
not hear any case subject to the said Regulations if more than two years have
elapsed since the event giving rise to the dispute. The present claim having been
lodged in front of the DRC on 2 December 2010 and the event giving rise to the
dispute having occurred in August 2010, the members of the Chamber had to
reject the respective argument of the Respondent and confirmed that the present
petition was lodged in front of the DRC within said two years’ period of time and
is, thus, not barred by the statute of limitations in accordance with art. 25 par. 5
of the aforementioned Regulations.
4.
On account of the above, the Chamber confirmed that it is competent to enter
into the substance of the present matter on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2016).
5.
In continuation, 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 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (edition 2016), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 2
Player A, from country A / Club B, from country B
Page 7 of 14
December 2010, the 2010 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is
applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
6.
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.
7.
In continuation, the members of the DRC took note that the Claimant, the
Respondent and the company concluded the contract, valid from 1 January 2010
until 31 December 2010, in accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to
receive, inter alia, the amount of USD 1,300,000 in four instalments between 30
January 2010 and 30 October 2010. Moreover, the DRC noted that the Claimant
and the Respondent also signed the additional contract, valid from 15 January
2010 until 31 December 2010.
8.
The members of the Chamber noted that the Claimant lodged a claim against the
Respondent for breach of contract requesting to be awarded outstanding
remuneration and compensation for breach of contract.
9.
In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant terminated the
contract on 9 August 2010 in writing, invoking just cause on the basis that he was
allegedly entitled to receive the total amount of USD 900,000 until 9 August 2010,
whereas he had only received the amount of USD 200,000.
10.
In continuation, the Chamber noted that the Respondent, for its part, rejected the
Claimant’s claim arguing inter alia that it was not bound by the contract, which is
at the basis of the Claimant’s claim. In particular, the Respondent held that the
contract is null and void because it was signed by an unauthorized person on
behalf of the Respondent as well as that it was not registered in the Football
Federation of country B.
11.
Moreover, the Chamber took note that the Respondent held that it only made
payments to the Claimant under the additional contract, submitting a copy of pay
sheets for the period as from January 2010 until March 2010 signed by the
Claimant relating to payments made in country B currency, as well as that it could
not assume obligations to pay in USD, since payments in foreign currency are
forbidden under country B’s law.
12.
Additionally, the Chamber noted the Respondent’s argument that the Claimant
was aware that the company was the party liable to pay his remuneration, since
the Claimant had already claimed the payments established in the contract from
the company as well as initiated debt enforcement proceedings against the
company.
Player A, from country A / Club B, from country B
Page 8 of 14
13.
The DRC acknowledged that the Claimant rejected such argumentation and
insisted on his claim, stating that the Respondent is the employer and, thus, the
party responsible for payment of his remuneration. The Claimant further
highlighted that the contract does not establish that the company would be
responsible for payment.
14.
Considering the conflicting position of the parties with respect to their
contractual rights and obligations, the members of the DRC proceeded with a
more detailed examination of the contracts at the basis of the present dispute
and the parties’ respective argumentation.
15.
In this respect, the members of the DRC agreed that the Respondent’s
argumentation that the contract was null and void because it was signed on
behalf of the Respondent by a non-authorized person cannot be upheld, due to
the fact that in accordance with the principle of good faith, bona fide, to be
respected by the parties during the conclusion of contracts, the Claimant was in
good faith authorized to believe that the person signing the relevant agreement
on behalf of the Respondent was legally authorized to sign it on behalf of the
Respondent. The Chamber further highlighted that the relevant signature is
accompanied by the Respondent’s stamp. Equally and in accordance with the
principle of the burden of proof, as set out in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural
Rules, the DRC outlined that the Respondent did not provide documentary
evidence demonstrating that the Claimant was or could have been aware of the
alleged situation outlined by the Respondent at the moment of signing the
pertinent contracts.
16.
In continuation, the DRC equally rejected the Respondent’s argument that the
contract would be null and void because it was not registered at the Football
Federation of country B, making reference to its established jurisprudence that, as
a general rule, the registration of an employment contract at a federation cannot
constitute a condition for its validity. Indeed, as a general rule, the validity of an
employment contract cannot be made conditional upon the execution of
(administrative) formalities, such as, but not limited to, the registration procedure
relating to a player, which falls within the responsibility of a club and/or
association and on which a player has no influence.
17.
Moreover, the DRC deemed that the Respondent’s argument that the contract
would be null and void, since, in contradiction with national law, it included
payments in USD, could not be upheld, considering that the Respondent duly
signed and stamped the contract, thereby accepting its contractual terms.
18.
Consequently, the DRC decided to reject the argumentation put forward by the
Respondent and determined that the contract was valid and binding on both
parties.
19.
In continuation and considering the arguments of the parties, the Chamber
proceeded to determine the party responsible to pay the Claimant’s
remuneration.
Player A, from country A / Club B, from country B
Page 9 of 14
20.
At this point, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant and the Respondent had
signed two different contracts:
(i) The contract dated 15 October 2009 concluded between the Claimant, the
Respondent and the company, which established a remuneration for his
services as a player in the amount of USD 1,300,000 in favour of the
Claimant.
(ii) The additional contract dated 20 January 2010 concluded between the
Claimant and the Respondent, which established that the Claimant was
entitled to a remuneration “according to the list of staff Club”.
21.
In this respect, the members of the Chamber agreed that taking into
consideration both contracts, it could be established that the Claimant and the
Respondent concluded an employment relationship and that the Claimant
undertook to render his services as a player to the Respondent. In particular, the
DRC considered that the parties’ employment relationship was governed by both
contracts and that these contracts include a reciprocal exchange of obligations
between the Claimant and the Respondent. In this regard, the Chamber was
satisfied that, whereas the term “Employer” has not been further defined in the
contract, the Claimant was to render his services as a player to the Respondent, a
club affiliated to the Football Federation of country B, only.
22.
In this context, the DRC further took note that the additional contract does not
establish a remuneration for the Claimant’s services in clear and specific terms. On
the other hand, the Chamber took note that the contract clearly establishes the
remuneration that the Claimant was entitled to receive for his services as a player.
23.
Furthermore, the members of the DRC recalled that art. 1.1 of the additional
contract expressly establishes that the Respondent undertakes to employ the
Claimant and to pay him wages.
24.
On account of the above, the members of the DRC considered that, contrary to
the Respondent’s argument, the Respondent is to be held liable for the payment
of the Claimant’s remuneration for his services as a football player.
25.
In this context, the DRC further recalled the aforementioned legal principle of the
burden of proof and considered that the Respondent had not been able to
corroborate its allegation that the company was the party liable to pay the
remuneration to the Claimant with relevant and conclusive documentation.
26.
On account of the above considerations, the members of the DRC decided to
reject the arguments put forward by the Respondent and determined that the
Respondent is the party liable to pay the Claimant his remuneration established in
the contract.
Player A, from country A / Club B, from country B
Page 10 of 14
27.
Having established the above, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant terminated
the contract in writing on 9 August 2010, alleging that the aggregate amount of
USD 700,000 was still outstanding in spite of having put the Respondent in
default.
28.
In this regard, the members of the DRC took note that it has remained undisputed
that the amount of USD 700,000 claimed by the Claimant on the basis of the
contract was indeed outstanding on 9 August 2010.
29.
Consequently, the DRC established that on the date of the termination of the
contract by the Claimant, i.e. 9 August 2010, the aggregate amount of USD
700,000 was outstanding, corresponding to part of the first instalment of USD
300,000 as well as to the full second and third instalments of USD 300,000 each,
which fell due in accordance with the contract on 30 January 2010, 30 April 2010,
and 30 July 2010, respectively.
30.
On account of the above, the Chamber established that the Respondent, without
any valid reason, failed to remit to the Claimant the instalments that became due
on 30 January, 30 April and 30 July 2010 in the total amount of USD 700,000.
Consequently, the Chamber concurred that the Respondent had seriously
neglected its financial contractual obligations towards the Claimant over a
substantial amount of time. Bearing in mind the Respondent’s allegation that it
had not received a default notice from the Claimant, in spite of the Claimant
having submitted a copy of a default notice dated 26 July 2010, in light of said
important delay in payment of such substantial part of the Claimant’s
remuneration, the members of the Chamber deemed that the Claimant could in
good faith believe that, in spite of a hypothetical notice informing about its
default, the Respondent would have persisted in the non-compliance with the
financial terms of the contract.
31.
On account of the above and taking into consideration the Chamber’s
longstanding jurisprudence in this respect, the Chamber decided that the
Claimant had just cause to unilaterally terminate the contract on 9 August 2010
and that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the
contract with just cause by the Claimant.
32.
As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta
sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the
Claimant the amount which was outstanding under the contract at the moment
of the termination, i.e. USD 700,000, as established in point II./29. above.
33.
In continuation, having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for
the early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant,
the Chamber decided that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations,
the Respondent is liable to pay compensation to the Claimant.
34.
In this context, the Chamber outlined that, in accordance with said provision, the
amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise
Player A, from country A / Club B, from country B
Page 11 of 14
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 under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining
on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years.
35.
In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to
clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained 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 any of the contracts.
36.
Subsequently, and in order to evaluate the compensation to be paid by the
Respondent, the members of the Chamber took into account the remuneration
due to the Claimant in accordance with the contract as well as the time remaining
on the same contract, along with the professional situation of the Claimant after
the early termination occurred. In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that at
the time of the termination of the employment contract on 9 August 2010, the
contract would still run until 31 December 2010. Consequently, taking into
account the financial terms of the contract, the Chamber concluded that the
remaining value of the contract as from its early termination by the Claimant until
the regular expiry of the contract amounts to USD 400,000 and that such amount
shall serve as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation
for breach of contract.
37.
In continuation, the Chamber took due note of the employment situation of the
Claimant after the termination of the contract at the basis of the case at stake.
Bearing in mind art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations and in accordance with the
constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber as well as the general
obligation of the player to mitigate his damages, remuneration under a new
employment contract(s) shall be taken into account in the calculation of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract.
38.
In this regard, the members of the Chamber noted that the Claimant had not
signed any new employment contract within the period of time between the
termination of the contract and its original date of expiry and, thus, had not been
able to mitigate damages.
39.
In view of all of the above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay
the amount of USD 400,000 to the Claimant as compensation for breach of
contract.
III.
Decis ion of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
Player A, from country A / Club B, from country B
Page 12 of 14
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Club B, has to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in
the amount of USD 700,000, w ithin 30 day s as from the date of notification of
this decision.
4.
The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant compensation for breach of contract
in the amount of USD 400,000, w ithin 30 day s as from the date of notification
of this decision.
5.
In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant in accordance with the abovementioned numbers 3. and 4. are not paid by the Respondent within the stated
time limits, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the
aforementioned time limits and the present matter shall be submitted, upon
request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal
decision.
6.
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
Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received.
*****
Note relating to the m otiv ated decis ion (legal remedy):
Player A, from country A / Club B, from country B
Page 13 of 14
According to article 58 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:
Omar Ongaro
Football Regulatory Director
Encl. CAS directives
Player A, from country A / Club B, from country B
Page 14 of 14