Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 14 September 2018,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thom ps on (England), Chairman
Jérôm e Perlem uter (France), member
Elv is Chetty (Seychelles), member
S tefano S artori (Italy), member
Takuy a Yam azaki (Japan), member
on the matter between the player,
Play er A, from country A
as Claimant / Counter-Respondent
and the club,
Club B, from country D
as Respondent / Counter-Claimant
and the club,
Club C, from country D
as Intervening Party
regarding an employment-related dispute
arisen between the parties
I.
Facts of the cas e
1.
On 25 August 2017, the player, Player A, from country A (hereinafter: Claimant / CounterRespondent), and the club, Club B, from country D (hereinafter: Respondent / CounterClaimant), signed an employment contract, valid as from the date of signature until the
end of the 2018/2019 season (hereinafter: contract).
2.
According to clause 1.1 of the contract, during the 2017/2018 season the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent was entitled to receive the amount of EUR 805,000, divided into 10
monthly instalments of EUR 80,500 net payable as from September 2017 to June 2018.
3.
According to clause 1.2 of the contract, during the 2018/2019 season the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent was to receive EUR 805,000 in 10 monthly instalments of EUR
80,500 net as from August 2018 to May 2019.
4.
On 25 November 2017, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant informed the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent in writing that he was to train with the U-21 team, “because of
[his] undisciplined and unprofessional behaviours. Until a new decision is taken, you will
not be participating in the A-team trainings. Please take the note of the above and
attend all the training sessions according to the U-21 training program. In case you do
not attend any training without getting any written permission from [the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant], a disciplinary process may initiated against you”.
5.
On 30 November 2017, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent wrote to the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant that the contract did not provide for the possibility to send him to the
U-21 team and that, as a consequence, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant breached the
contract. Moreover, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent gave the Respondent / CounterClaimant 72 hours to “proceed to the revocation of the command that imposes him to
train with the U-21 team (…). Please note that in case [the Respondent / CounterClaimant] persists in its conduct, we will have no other choice than to act in the defence
of the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s] rights”.
6.
On 13 December 2017, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent sent an email to the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant, holding that he had been prohibited from joining the
team’s main activities, including training. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent further
requested his immediate reintegration in the A-team, by 19 December 2017 at the latest,
and warned that “in case that reintegration did not occur, the [Claimant / CounterRespondent] would reserve himself in the right to terminate unilaterally the
employment contract in question with just cause”.
7.
On 15 December 2017, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant responded by email and held
that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was, in fact, training with the A-team. As per
the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, “the training plan is made by the head coach of [the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant] und no one can intervene in the strategy of the training
plans (…) Many of the players (that are also A-team players) are training with [the
Player Player A, from country A / Club B, from country D/ Club C, from country D
2/12
Claimant / Counter-Respondent] in the same facilities and at the same time with [the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent]”.
8.
On 18 December 2017, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent replied by stating that he was
not integrated in the A-team’s normal training activities. In fact, as per the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent, “without any medical or legal justification, [the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent] has been discriminated and putted aside [sic], he’s only running
and performing gym work - always apart from the remaining team group and without
any objective purpose!” Moreover, according to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent,
other players who were not selected to play in official matches continued to train with
the rest of the team, contrary to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. Lastly, the Claimant
/ Counter-Respondent extended the deadline until 22 December 2017 for the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant to reintegrate him in all A-team activities, or otherwise
the Claimant / Counter-Respondent would terminate the contract with just cause.
9.
According to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, on 24 and 25 December 2017, he was
again ordered to train alone, being completely excluded by the coach from all team
activities.
10. On 26 December 2017, and after receiving no reply from the Respondent / CounterClaimant to his letter of 18 December 2017, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
unilaterally terminated the employment contract with immediate effect, invoking just
cause.
11. On 5 January 2018, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent lodged a claim against the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant in front of FIFA requesting compensation for breach of
contract in the amount of EUR 1,368,500 plus 5% interest p.a. as of the date of the claim.
12. According to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, between 10 September 2017 and 19
November 2017 he played 10 official matches for the Respondent / Counter-Claimant.
13. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent argued that at first he was relegated to the U-21
team “just with the single objective of separate him from the A team”. The Claimant /
Counter-Respondent added that he is 27 years old and therefore not qualified to play
for that team.
14. Subsequently, as per the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, he was obliged to train alone,
without the assistance of any trainer, and that during this period of time he never
trained with a ball. In particular, according to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, on 5,
6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 December 2017, he was instructed to do solitary training exercises, such
as running and gym exercises, while the main team players were doing the regular
trainings.
15. On 23 March 2018, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant submitted its reply to the claim
and lodged a counterclaim against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. In its submission,
Player Player A, from country A / Club B, from country D/ Club C, from country D
3/12
the Respondent / Counter-Claimant firstly held that it always fulfilled its contractual
obligations towards the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and that there were never any
overdue payables.
16. According to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, on 24 November 2017, after he learned
that he was not selected as a starting-11 player, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
asked the general manager for permission to leave the stadium. After this request was
denied by the manager, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent argued that he was injured
and that he could not take part in the game, even as a substitute. The manager
subsequently learned from the team doctor that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was
actually 100% fit, and informed the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s board of his
behaviour.
17. In support of its defence and counterclaim the Respondent / Counter-Claimant submitted
a series of documents and it highlighted the following elements.
18. On 25 November 2017, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant informed the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent in writing that it “initiated a disciplinary procedure against you (…)
With this request for defence, we hereby give you the opportunity to submit your
defence in writing (…) within two days with the evidences that you deem necessary for
your defence. As soon as you submit your defence, [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant]
will render its decision about the case at hand. In case you do not submit your defence
within the granted deadline, it will be presumed that you waived your right to defend
yourself.”
19. In addition, on the same day, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant notified the Claimant
/ Counter-Respondent that he was to pursue his training with the U-21 team, the purpose
of which, according to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, was for the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent to maintain the discipline within the team.
20. On 27 November 2017, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent submitted his defence in the
aforementioned disciplinary procedure. In his defence, the Claimant / CounterRespondent wrote that he regretted that his behaviour had been interpreted as an act
of indiscipline. He added that over the last days he was “submitted consecutively to
medical treatments with the objective of healing a pubis injury. Notwithstanding the
(…) pains (…) I never refused to comply with instructions of the trainer (…) However, on
24 November 2017, (…) I felt a more intense [pain] than usual (…) For that reason – and
only because of that – I’ve asked to not be included in the match sheet (…) I don’t deny
that I got very annoyed when I realized that my complaints were being misinterpreted
and understood as an excuse for not playing, allegedly for being unhappy for not being
in the team’s starting eleven (…) I never wanted to harm [the Respondent / CounterClaimant].”
21. On 2 December 2017, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant informed the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent in writing that he was reinstated with the A-team.
Player Player A, from country A / Club B, from country D/ Club C, from country D
4/12
22. In this regard, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant highlighted that the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent was once again part of the A-team, but that the he tried “to give
an impression that [he] was training with the U-21 team until the date of termination”.
23. In fact, according to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the photos provided by the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent in support of his allegations were taken at the A-team’s
training facilities, thereby clearly demonstrating that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
was part of the A-team.
24. Given the above, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant argued that the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent “never acted with good faith and (…) terminated the contract
without having just cause”.
25. As a consequence, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant requested to be awarded:
a. compensation in the amount of EUR 1,368,500 corresponding to the residual
value of the contract;
b. compensation in the amount of EUR 283,334 corresponding to the non-amortized
part of the transfer fee of EUR 350,000 it paid to acquire the Claimant / CounterRespondent’s services;
c. it further requested that a sporting ban of six months be imposed on the Claimant
/ Counter-Respondent.
26. In his replica and response to the counterclaim, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
emphasised that he terminated the contract on 26 December 2017 because of the “illegal
prohibition imposed by [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant], that prevented him of
participating in the main team training sessions and to join the other players’ activities
from 25 November to 25 December 2017”.
27. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent argued that he did not invoke unpaid salaries by the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant, as it suggested in its counterclaim. As per the Claimant
/ Counter-Respondent, the payment of salaries by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
could never legitimate the “discrimination that the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent]
[endured] nor the breach of the contract obligations by [the Respondent / CounterClaimant]”.
28. Furthermore, with regard to the alleged disciplinary infractions by the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent and the subsequent disciplinary procedure, the Claimant / CounterRespondent further explained that, on 2 December 2017, the Respondent / CounterClaimant imposed a fine on him in the amount of EUR 53,333.20 “set-off and deducted
from your receivables already stemmed (…)”.
29. In the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s opinion, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s
decision to send him to the U-21 team “was not motivated by any disciplinary
Player Player A, from country A / Club B, from country D/ Club C, from country D
5/12
behaviour”, but rather “a first discrimination act perpetrated against [the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent]”.
30. According to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, even though the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant informed him in writing that he was reinstated to the A-team on 2
December 2017, it “immediately informed [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] verbally
that he was forbidden to train with the main team”. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent
further explained that the training of 5 December 2017 was the first training following
the verbal announcement, and the first time he had to train alone.
31. In other words, as per the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, as of 2 December 2017, he
seized to be part of the A-team. In this context, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
submitted a “letter of testimony” written by a former performance coach on 11 April
2018, a press article, as well as 40 photographs and videos taken between 11 December
and 24 December 2017, in order to prove that he was separated from all A-team
activities, including meals and group discussions, and forced to train alone.
32. Given all of the above, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent concluded that, contrary to
what the Respondent / Counter-Claimant stated in its response, he was separated from
the A-team, and consequently had a just cause to terminate his contract on 26 December
2017.
33. In its rejoinder, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant reiterated that a club has the right
to move a player between the first team and the second team, as in the case at hand by
means of the decision of 25 November 2017. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant further
highlighted that this was a temporary measure.
34. Furthermore, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant held that all the photos provided by
the Claimant / Counter-Respondent were taken at the A-team’s training facilities,
thereby demonstrating that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was part of the A-team.
35. Regarding the “letter of testimony”, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant held that the
performance coach in question “is no more working with [the Respondent / CounterClaimant] and had problems with the new coach and [the Respondent / CounterClaimant] had to mutually terminate his contract”.
36. As regards the fine of EUR 53,333.20 imposed on the Claimant / Counter-Respondent,
the Respondent / Counter-Claimant explained that the fine was cancelled “in order to
motivate [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent]”.
37. In this context, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant held that it attempted to “win back
[the Claimant / Counter-Respondent]”, that it invested an amount EUR 350,000 in order
to acquire the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s services, and that the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant duly paid his salaries.
Player Player A, from country A / Club B, from country D/ Club C, from country D
6/12
38. Finally, according to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the Claimant / CounterRespondent “asked [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant] to let him go which is rejected
by [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant]. Upon the rejection and on the date that the II.
Transfer window of 2017-2018 started, he terminated his contract”.
39. On 19 July 2018, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent signed an employment contract
with the Club C, from country D (hereinafter: the intervening party) valid as from the
date of signature until 31 May 2020. According to clause 3 of the contract, the Claimant
/ Counter-Respondent was entitled to receive EUR 450,000 for the 2018/2019 season,
divided in 10 monthly instalments of EUR 45,000 as from 25 August 2018 until 25 May
2019.
40. The intervening party submitted its comments on the matter at hand arguing that by
the time it signed an employment contract with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, i.e.
on 19 July 2018, seven months had passed since he terminated his contract with the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant.
41. Consequently, as per the intervening party, it had “no knowledge and/or any kind of
involvement in the unilateral termination of [the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s]
contract”.
42. The intervening party added that it had not contacted the Claimant / CounterRespondent during the 2nd transfer and registration period of the 2017/2018 season and
that it had not induced the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to terminate his contract.
43. The intervening party requested that FIFA:
a. decide that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated his contract with just
cause;
b. alternatively, decide that the intervening party “did not induce [the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent] to terminate his contract and therefore no sporting sanctions
applied to [the intervening party] and also [the intervening party] is not jointly liable
for the payment of any possible compensation”.
Player Player A, from country A / Club B, from country D/ Club C, from country D
7/12
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 5 January 2018.
Consequently, the 2018 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’
Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is
applicable to the matter at hand (cf. article 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 2018), 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 player and a
club and with a club as intervening party.
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 (edition 2018), and
considering that the present claim was lodged on 5 January 2018, the 2018 edition of
said regulations (hereinafter: 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 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. In particular, the Chamber recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3
of Annexe 3 of the Regulations, FIFA may use, within the scope of proceedings
pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence
generated or contained in the Transfer Matching System (TMS).
5.
The Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant signed an employment contract on 25 August 2017 valid
until the end of the country D 2018/2019 season. In this regard, the DRC established that
according to the information in the TMS, the country D 2018/2019 season will end on 31
May 2019. Moreover, the DRC noted that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent unilaterally
terminated his contract on 26 December 2017 invoking just cause for allegedly being
excluded from the A-team and forced to train alone. The Chamber further took into
consideration that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, for its part, rejected the Claimant
/ Counter-Respondent’s allegations and held that he terminated the contract without
just cause.
Player Player A, from country A / Club B, from country D/ Club C, from country D
8/12
6.
Having said that, the Chamber established that the primary issue at stake is to determine
as to whether the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had a just cause to terminate the
contract with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant on 26 December 2017. In this respect,
the Chamber deemed it essential to make a brief recollection of the facts as well as the
parties’ main arguments and the documentation on file.
7.
In this context, the Chamber firstly noted that, on 25 November 2017, the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant informed the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to train with the U-21
team, because of alleged undisciplined behaviour the day before. In continuation, the
DRC evoked that, on 2 December 2017, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant reinstated
the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to the A-team. However, the Chamber brought to
mind that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent held that he continued to be excluded
from all of the A-team’s activities and instructed to train alone as from the first training
day following his reinstatement to the A-team, i.e. as from 5 December 2017. The DRC
further recalled that, after sending two default letters on 13 December 2017 and 18
December 2017 respectively, in which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent asked to be
reintegrated in all of the A team’s activities, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
terminated the contract on 26 December 2017.
8.
In this sense, the members of the Chamber agreed that the series of events in the matter
at stake need to be separated in two parts: On the one hand, the period of time between
25 November up until 2 December 2017, during which the Claimant / CounterRespondent was instructed to train with the U-21 team and, on the other hand, the
period of time as of 5 December until 26 December 2017, during which the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent allegedly continued to be excluded from the Respondent / CounterClaimant’s A-team activities and was forced to train alone.
9.
As regards the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s decision to send the Claimant / CounterRespondent to train with the U-21 team, the Chamber took into account that a) the
contract at stake does not include any clause which would prohibit the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant to take such measure; b) the decision to send the Claimant / CounterRespondent to train with the U-21 team was temporary only, as was demonstrated by
the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s written communication to the Claimant / CounterRespondent dated 2 December 2017; and c) it has remained undisputed that the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant continued to pay the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s
salary during this relevant period of time.
10. On account of these circumstances, the Chamber unanimously agreed that the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not act in breach of contract when it sent the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent to train with the U-21 team as of 25 November 2017
until 2 December 2017.
11. The Chamber then focused its attention on the second series of events, i.e. the alleged
exclusion of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent from all of the A-team’s activities,
Player Player A, from country A / Club B, from country D/ Club C, from country D
9/12
including team trainings, team discussions and team meals as from 2 December 2017
until 26 December 2017.
12. In this sense, the DRC recalled that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had sent a first
default notice on 13 December 2017, in which he held that he had been excluded from
all A-team’s activities, requesting his reintegration in the main team by 19 December
2017 at latest. The Chamber further noted that, in its email reply dated 15 December
2017, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant denied that the Claimant / CounterRespondent was excluded from the A-team and insisted that he was training at the Ateam’s facilities, in accordance with the head coach’s training program. Moreover, the
DRC took into account the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s second default letter, dated
18 December 2017, by which he inter alia insisted that he was not reintegrated in the Ateam, but instead told to run and perform gym work by himself, and asked to be
reintegrated in the A-team activities by 22 December 2017, warning that otherwise he
would terminate the contract. Furthermore, the Chamber noted from the
documentation on file that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had not replied to the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s letter of 18 December 2017.
13. In addition, the Chamber took into account the documentation provided by the Claimant
/ Counter-Respondent in support of his allegations, which consisted inter alia of photos
and videos taken of him allegedly doing solitary gym work as well as a written statement
of a former performance coach of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. In this regard,
the members of the Chamber noted that according to the Respondent / CounterClaimant, these images were taken at the A team’s training facilities and thus
demonstrate that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was part of the club’s A team.
14. Having analysed all of the above listed evidence, the DRC made reference to the principle
of the burden of proof stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and determined
that the photos, videos and the written statement provided by the Claimant / CounterRespondent in support of his allegations are not sufficiently convincing due to their
subjective nature. Indeed, the Chamber agreed that the photos and videos do not
unequivocally prove that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant obliged the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent to train alone during the alleged period of time. In addition, the
Chamber deemed that the written statement of an employee of the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant cannot be considered objective evidence. Consequently, the members
of the Chamber were of the opinion that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent did not
manage to prove to the DRC’s satisfaction that he was excluded from all of the A-team’s
activities as from 2 December 2017 and training alone as from 5 December 2017 until 26
December 2017.
15. At this stage, in addition, the DRC recalled and took into account that no remuneration
had been outstanding when the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated the contract
on 26 December 2017.
Player Player A, from country A / Club B, from country D/ Club C, from country D
10/12
16. In light of the above, the Chamber established that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
had no just cause to terminate the contract on 26 December 2017 and decided that,
consequently, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim for compensation must be
rejected.
17. It follows from the conclusion of the preceding paragraph that, taking into consideration
the counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant as well as art. 17 par. 1 of the
Regulations, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is, in principle, entitled to receive from
the Claimant / Counter-Respondent compensation for breach of contract.
18. In this context, the Chamber wished to emphasise that the Claimant / CounterRespondent signed on with another club only six months after terminating his contract.
In other words, the Chamber deemed that such fact indicates that the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent’s decision to terminate the contract was not influenced by the
possibility of signing on with another club.
19. Furthermore, the members of the Chamber deemed of relevance to recall and take into
consideration that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant never replied to the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent’s final default letter of 18 December 2018. In addition, the DRC
emphasised the fact that after the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated the
contract on 26 December 2017, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not react for
more than three months and that it was only after FIFA notified the claim of the Claimant
/ Counter-Respondent to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant that the latter decided to
react by lodging the relevant counterclaim.
20. In particular, if the Respondent / Counter-Claimant would have considered the Claimant
/ Counter-Respondent’s services a valuable asset one would have expected a more
proactive conduct from it in order to try to keep such services or, in the alternative, in
order to be compensated for their loss. Along these lines, the Chamber determined that
the Respondent / Counter-Claimant did not present any evidence to corroborate its
allegation that it refused the alleged request of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to
terminate the contract.
21. In view of the aforementioned objective considerations and facts, the members of the
Chamber were of the unanimous conclusion that the conduct of Respondent / CounterClaimant surrounding the early termination of the contract by the Claimant / CounterRespondent clearly shows that it was not genuinely interested in continuing making use
of his services and did not attribute any value to the player’s services at that moment.
22. Consequently, the members of the DRC considered fair and reasonable not to grant any
compensation for breach of contract to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and,
therefore, decided to reject the Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s claim for compensation
for breach of contract.
Player Player A, from country A / Club B, from country D/ Club C, from country D
11/12
III. Decision of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Player A, is rejected.
2.
It is established that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Player A, has terminated the
employment relationship with the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club B, without just
cause.
3.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s claim for compensation for breach of contract is
rejected.
*****
Note relating to the m otiv ated decision (legal remedy):
According to art. 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 (CAS)
Avenue de Beaumont 2
CH-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 Player A, from country A / Club B, from country D/ Club C, from country D
12/12