Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 4 October 2013,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member
Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member
on the claim presented by the player,
Player S, from country G
as Claimant
against the club,
Club K, from country T
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
After having signed a “pre-agreement” on 1 July 2010, Player S from country G
(hereinafter: player or Claimant), and the Club K, from country T (hereinafter:
club or Respondent) signed an “agreement”, on 13 July 2010, covering the 201011 and 2011-12 seasons (hereinafter: agreement).
2.
In accordance with the agreement, the player was entitled to receive the
following remuneration:
o 2010-11 season:
EUR 100,000 on 24 August 2010;
EUR 100,000 payable in 10 monthly instalments of EUR 10,000 as
from August;
EUR 100,000 divided over 34 matches - EUR 2,941 per match. If the
player would sit on the bench he would receive 75% of this
amount.
o 2011-12 season:
EUR 135,000 before the end of July 2011;
EUR 135,000 in 10 monthly instalments of EUR 13,500 as from
August;
EUR 130,000 divided over 34 matches - EUR 3,823 per match. If the
player would sit on the bench he would receive 75% of this
amount.
3.
In addition, the agreement stipulates that a management fee of EUR 40,000
would be payable to the “manager” on the date of signature and before the
“end of July”.
4.
On 22 September 2011, the player lodged a claim against the club in front of FIFA
maintaining that he terminated the employment contract with just cause and
that, therefore, the club is to be held liable to pay compensation in the amount of
EUR 638,500 plus 5% interest as of 23 August 2011.
5.
The player further asks to be awarded payment of the amount of EUR 3,077
relating to the partially outstanding salary for February 2011 and of the amount
of EUR 2,300 in connection with alleged travel and accommodation costs.
6.
In addition, the player asks that the club bears the procedural costs.
Player S, from country G / Club S, from country T
Page 2 of 15
7.
On 24 April 2012, the player extended his claim and asked that the club be
instructed to pay to him the EUR 40,000 “management fee” which, according to
the player, was payable until the end of July 2011. In this respect, the player
presented a written declaration dated 23 April 2012, in which Mr K authorises the
player to include in his labour claim the amount relating to his alleged
commission on the basis of the employment contract between the Claimant and
the Respondent and in which Mr K cedes his alleged right to receive the
commission to the player.
8.
The player explains that as from February 2011 until June 2011 he was registered
with a country U club on a loan basis and that, at his return to the country T club
after the loan, he was told by the club that his services were no longer required
and that he should look for another employer. He adds that his agent was
informed by the club that if the player would not find another club, he would still
receive his contractual receivables, but not be registered with it any longer.
9.
The player points out that his agent was further informed that should the player
not have found other employment until 13 July 2011, he should join the team’s
training camp in country A, which he subsequently did. Upon his arrival together
with his agent, he was refused access to it.
10.
On 20 July 2011, the player put the club in default asking it to admit him to the
team’s training and to pay his February 2011 salary in the amount of EUR 10,000.
He further specifically offered his services to the club. This letter having remained
unanswered, on 2 August 2011, the player sent another default notice to the club
adding the payment of the EUR 135,000 instalment that fell due by the end of
July for the 2011-12 season.
11.
The second default notice having remained without answer, on 11 August 2011,
the player terminated the employment contract. After an exchange of
correspondence between the player and the club following the player’s
termination notice, on 8 September 2011, the player informed the club that his
termination notice of 11 August 2011 became and remains final and binding.
12.
According to the player, the club’s refusal to admit him to the team training and
to have him officially registered with the club as well as the non-payment of his
receivables in the amount of EUR 145,000 constitute a just cause for the player to
terminate the employment contract.
13.
As regards the amount of compensation sought, the player explains that in
accordance with the agreement he was entitled to receive EUR 400,000 for the
2011-12 season, whereas he expected to return to country G in 2012 and that
therefore he would be subjected to country G taxation. Consequently, the player
Player S, from country G / Club S, from country T
Page 3 of 15
submitted that the amount of EUR 638,500 should be paid to him in order to be
equivalent to the aforementioned net amount of EUR 400,000.
14.
In addition, the player held that the breach occurred during the protected period
and that he was unable to find another employer until later in 2011. Furthermore,
according to the player, CAS jurisprudence shows that the specifity of sport would
justify an increase of the amount of compensation with up to six months’ salary.
15.
As regards his salary for February 2011 he explained that the club finally failed to
remit the amount of EUR 3,077, which the club attempted to justify with a fine
that was allegedly imposed upon him, the validity of which he contested.
16.
Furthermore, the player asked that he be reimbursed the amount of EUR 2,300
that he allegedly paid to a country N physician on behalf of the club.
17.
In reply to the player’s claim, the club confirms that the player was contractually
bound to it as from 1 July 2010 until the end of the 2011-12 season and that he
was transferred on a loan basis to the aforementioned country U club as of
January 2011.
18.
The club further acknowledges that for the 2011-12 season the player was to
receive EUR 400,000, but deems that the employment contract did not give him
the exclusive right to train with the first team and to receive the amount of EUR
135,000 in July 2011.
19.
The club further holds that the employment contract does not include any tax
indemnification on behalf of the player.
20.
The club also points out that the country T registration period closed on 5
September 2011, as a result of which the club was not required to proceed with
the ITC request before September 2011.
21.
The club considers that the player asked to be remunerated before the maturity
date and that he failed to join the team in country T without justification when
he was asked to do so.
22.
Furthermore, the club points out that, whereas the coach did not include the
player in the list of players to attend the pre-season training camp in country A,
the player showed up at the hotel in country A.
23.
The club also highlights that no player has ever been granted a right to attend a
pre-season camp to which he was not invited and no employment contract grants
such right.
Player S, from country G / Club S, from country T
Page 4 of 15
24.
In the light of the fact that the player had left the country U club in May 2011 for
medical treatment and did not return to that club afterwards, as a result of which
the player had not trained during a considerable amount of time, the club deems
that the player was not ready to join the club’s team at the training camp before
passing further medical examination. The club adds that it duly informed the
player of this and that it asked the player to return to country T in order to
undergo medical examination and resume training.
25.
According to the club, instead of returning to country T, the player sent
notifications to the club and the club paid EUR 6,923 to the player in good faith.
26.
The club believes that the player had difficulty adapting himself to the city and
the team as from the commencement of the employment relation, which is why
he wanted to join another club after half of the first season. Furthermore, the
club holds that the player unilaterally terminated his employment relation with
the club before the beginning of the 2011-12 season, as he had no intention to be
bound to his contractual obligations.
27.
The club rejects the player’s allegation that it was not willing to make use of the
player’s services, although it had asked the player to return to Club K and start
training, based on his wrong assumption that the club had already hired three
goal keepers.
28.
In this respect, it submitted a copy of its correspondence dated 18 (allegedly) and
26 August 2011 in reply to the player’s notice of termination, in which it explains
to the player that the country U club did not want to have the International
Transfer Certificate (ITC) issued as the player allegedly had to refund money to it
and that he was not invited to the pre-season training camp as he was not yet
officially registered with the club. The club further invited the player to resume
duty and training with the club.
29.
For these reasons, the club rejects the player’s claim and considers that the player
terminated the employment contract without valid reason.
30.
In his replica, the player rejects the club’s position and denies that he was
transferred on a loan basis at his own wish, pointing out that it was rather on the
basis of the foreign player quota in country T. He further stresses that his
entitlement to train with the first team derives from the fact that he is a
professional player. As regards his entitlement to the payment of EUR 135,000 in
July 2011, the player holds that the agreement presented by the club is vague
with respect to the due date for payment and that the consequences of such
vague wording shall be borne by the party that drafted the agreement. With
Player S, from country G / Club S, from country T
Page 5 of 15
respect to the ITC, he points out that the club’s argument is not valid since the
player was not internationally transferred as a new player but rather as a player
returning to his employing club after the end of his loan.
31.
In addition, the player points out that the country U club never raised any claim
against him and allowed him to go to country G for medical treatment of his
injury, after which he could not travel.
32.
Furthermore, the player stresses that the club asked him to return to the club
after almost three months since the employment contract between them had reentered into force at the end of the loan and after the player had given the club
various opportunities to remedy the breach of contract consisting of not allowing
him to train with the first team and the non-payment of his remuneration.
33.
The player further extended his claim to receive the EUR 40,000 “management
fee” that according to the player was payable until the end of July 2011.
34.
In its duplica, the club rejects the additional claim of EUR 40,000 relating to the
“management fee” given that the contract dated 1 July 2010 does not indicate
the involvement of a players’ agent and such claim goes against the FIFA
regulations and has no legal basis.
35.
Furthermore, the club rejects the allegations of the player and mainly maintained
its position. It highlights that the player was not admitted to the training camp,
not because it was not interested in his services, but since he had to undergo
medical tests due to his alleged long term injury and absence from professional
football. It further stresses that it asked the player to return to the club, which he
declined in the light of his allegation that the amounts of EUR 10,000 and EUR
135,000 were still outstanding.
36.
The club adds that it had paid EUR 6,923 to the player, after the deduction of a
fine of EUR 3,077 and that the contract does not stipulate any date of payment
for the amount of EUR 135,000. The club considers that the player showed a hasty
attitude by requesting payment of this amount while he did not resume his duties
with the club. Had he returned to the club, it would have paid the amount of EUR
135,000 to the player for the 2011-12 season.
37.
All in all, the club asks that the player be held liable for the early termination of
the employment contract without just cause and to pay legal expenses as well as
procedural costs. Should this request be rejected, the club asks that the
remuneration earned by the player under his new employment contracts be
deducted from the remuneration relating to the remaining term of the relevant
Player S, from country G / Club S, from country T
Page 6 of 15
employment contract and that the player shall pay its legal expenses as well as the
procedural costs.
38.
On 1 September 2011, the player signed an employment contract with Club P,
from country S, as an “amateur”, valid until 15 December 2011 in accordance with
which he was to receive a monthly allowance of currency of country S 50,000. On
1 January 2012, the player signed an employment contract with the Club L, from
country N, valid until 31 December 2012, in accordance with which the player was
to receive a monthly salary of currency of country N 59,000, a signing-on fee of
currency of country N 450,000 payable in 2 equal instalments of currency of
country N 225,000 on 20 March 2012 and 20 August 2012, respectively, as well as
an apartment up to the amount of currency of country N 8,000.
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 case at
hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA
on 22 September 2011. 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.
2 and par. 3 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 is competent to deal with
the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between a country G player and a country T club.
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 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(editions 2012 and 2010), and considering that the present claim was lodged on
22 September 2011, the 2010 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 the above-mentioned facts as well as the
arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties.
Player S, from country G / Club S, from country T
Page 7 of 15
5.
The Chamber then reviewed the claim of the Claimant, who maintains that he
terminated the employment contract on 11 August 2011 with just cause at the
Respondent’s fault. Therefore, he asks that the Respondent be ordered to pay
compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 638,500 plus interest
at the rate of 5% as of 23 August 2011 as well as the amount of EUR 3,077
relating to the remainder of his February 2011 salary, the amount of EUR 2,300 in
connection with alleged travel and accommodation costs, and a “management
fee” of EUR 40,000.
6.
The members of the Chamber noted that the Respondent, for its part, rejects the
claim of the Claimant and alleges that the Claimant had no just cause to
terminate the employment contract.
7.
In order to be able to establish, first and foremost, as to whether, as claimed by
the Claimant and contested by the Respondent, the player had terminated the
employment contract with just cause, the Chamber proceeded with a more
detailed 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.
8.
In this sense, the members of the Chamber noted from the relevant loan
agreement signed by and between the Claimant, the Respondent and the Club M,
from country U on 22 January 2011 that the Claimant was transferred to said
country U club on a loan basis until 31 May 2011.
9.
Furthermore, the Chamber took into account that the Respondent had not
refuted the Claimant’s allegation that, subsequent to the aforementioned loan
period, he was informed by the Respondent to look for another employer. As
regards the Claimant’s allegation that he was further told to join the club’s
training camp in country A should he not have found other employment by 13
July 2011, the Chamber noted that the Respondent, for its part, alleged that he
was not invited to such training camp but instead instructed to go to country T in
order to resume training there. In this respect, the Chamber noticed that the club
failed to present documentation in support of its position that it had instructed
the Claimant to join the team in country T in the period of time following the
expiry of said loan period until the Claimant’s first default notice of 20 July 2011.
In fact, the documentation presented by the Respondent in support of its position
relating to its alleged instructions to the Claimant to present himself in country T
for the pre-season trainings consists of the Respondent’s correspondence to the
Claimant in reaction to the Claimant’s letter of termination of 11 August 2011.
Player S, from country G / Club S, from country T
Page 8 of 15
10.
In this respect, the Chamber further took into account that the Respondent
admitted that the Claimant had presented himself, albeit allegedly not invited, to
the club in country A.
11.
On account of the above, the members of the Chamber concurred that, apart
from his default notice to the Respondent dated 20 July 2011, by his actions the
Claimant had, in fact, offered his services to the Respondent subsequent to the
expiry of the aforementioned loan period.
12.
The Chamber took further note of the fact that by means of his default notices
dated 20 July 2011 and 2 August 2011, apart from asking to be admitted to the
team, the Claimant asked the Respondent to pay the monies that had allegedly
fallen due in the interim, i.e. his salary for February 2011 and the instalment of
EUR 135,000. The Respondent has not denied having received such letters from
the Claimant, a copy of which was presented by the Claimant along with his
statement of claim.
13.
As regards the Claimant’s salary for February 2011 amounting to EUR 10,000, the
Chamber noted from the file that the Respondent paid the amount of EUR 6,923
to the Claimant on 19 August 2011 only. Consequently, at the time when the
Claimant terminated the employment contract, i.e. on 11 August 2011, the full
amount of EUR 10,000 had been outstanding. In this context, the Chamber
rejected the Respondent’s argument relating to the deduction of a fine
amounting to EUR 3,077 from the aforementioned EUR 10,000, which was
contested by the Claimant, since the Respondent failed to provide any valid
argumentation or documentation relating to the imposition of such alleged fine.
14.
The members of the Chamber then turned their attention to the allegation of the
Respondent, who maintains that the Claimant was not entitled to receive the
instalment of EUR 135,000 in July 2011. It was noted that the club, in this regard,
referred to the aforementioned “pre-agreement” dated 1 July 2010, which does
not include any specific due date for the payment of said amount of EUR 135,000
to the Claimant. However, the “agreement” signed between the parties on 13
July 2010, covering financial employment conditions for both the 2010-11 and the
2011-12 season, does stipulate that the amount of EUR 135,000 is payable by the
Respondent to the Claimant before the end of July for the 2011-12 season. The
Chamber further took into account that the Respondent referred to another
agreement signed by the parties on 24 January 2011 with the purpose to
temporarily “freeze” the player’s registration until the end of the 2010-11 season,
apparently on the occasion of the aforementioned loan of the player to the
country U club. The members of the Chamber noted that in accordance with this
Player S, from country G / Club S, from country T
Page 9 of 15
agreement and apparently with a view to enable the temporary transfer of the
player to the country U club, the “uniform contract registered with the country T
FA”, referred to as dated 13 July 2010, was terminated. This latter agreement,
however, clearly refers to the typical standard country T employment contract
instead of the contract dated 13 July 2010 mentioned under number I./1. above,
which was not made out in the form of said standard country T employment
contract. The same agreement of 24 January 2011 further explicitly sets forth that
the contract signed between the parties on 1 July 2010 shall continue to be in
force.
15.
On account of the above, the Chamber decided to reject the Respondent’s
arguments relating to the non-payment of the amount of EUR 135,000 to the
Claimant and established on the basis of the documents on file that such payment
was due by the Respondent to the Claimant in July 2011, at the start of the 201112 season.
16.
Consequently, the Chamber concluded that at the time of the termination of the
employment relation between the parties by the Claimant on 11 August 2011, the
Claimant’s full salary for February 2011 as well as the instalment of EUR 135,000
had remained outstanding.
17.
Taking into account all of the above, the members of the Chamber concluded that
the Respondent had no longer been interested in the Claimant’s services and had
acted in breach of contract by failing to respect its contractual obligations.
Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Claimant had just cause to terminate
the employment contract with the Respondent on 11 August 2011.
18.
Thus, the Chamber established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the
early termination of the employment contract with just cause by the Claimant on
11 August 2011.
19.
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 focussed its attention on the consequences of such termination. Taking
into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the
Claimant is entitled to receive an amount of money from the Respondent as
compensation for the termination of the contract with just cause in addition to
any outstanding payments on the basis of the relevant employment contract.
20.
The Chamber then reverted to the Claimant’s financial claim, which includes the
aforementioned instalment of EUR 135,000, the amount of EUR 3,077 as the
remainder of his February 2011 salary, the amount of EUR 2,300 relating to
Player S, from country G / Club S, from country T
Page 10 of 15
alleged travel and accommodation costs as well as a “management fee” of EUR
40,000.
21.
Taking into account the documentation remitted by the Claimant to substantiate
his claim as well as the considerations under numbers II./13. and II./15. above, the
Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amount
of EUR 138,077 in connection with the remuneration due to the Claimant in
accordance with the relevant contract, corresponding to the instalment of EUR
135,000 due in July 2011 and the amount of EUR 3,077 as remainder of the salary
of February 2011.
22.
As regards the amount of EUR 2,300 for alleged travel and accommodation costs,
which the Claimant alleges having paid on behalf the Respondent to a country N
physician, the members of the Chamber concluded that the Claimant had failed to
substantiate such claim with the required documentary evidence in accordance
with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, which claim, thus, was rejected by the
Chamber.
23.
In addition, the Chamber decided to reject the Claimant’s claim pertaining to a
“management fee” of EUR 40,000, since no documentary evidence was presented
demonstrating that such amount was payable by the Respondent to either the
Claimant or Mr K.
24.
In continuation, the Chamber focussed its attention on the calculation of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so,
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 Claimant under the existing contract
and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a
maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls
within the protected period.
25.
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
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. The Chamber established that no such compensation clause was included
in the employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.
Player S, from country G / Club S, from country T
Page 11 of 15
26.
As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of
compensation payable by the Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in
application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations.
The Chamber recalled that the said provision provides for a non-exhaustive
enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the
amount of compensation payable. Therefore, other objective criteria may be
taken into account at the discretion of the deciding body.
27.
The members of the Chamber then turned their attention to the remuneration
and other benefits due to the Claimant under the existing contract and/or the
new contract, which criterion 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 Chamber to take into account both the
existing contract and the new contract in the calculation of the amount of
compensation.
28.
In accordance with the employment contract signed by the Claimant and the
Respondent, which was to run for one more season after the breach of contract
occurred, i.e. until 31 May 2012, the Claimant was to receive remuneration
amounting to EUR 232,500 bearing in mind that the lump sum instalment of EUR
135,000 due in July 2011 for the 2011-12 season was included in the calculation of
the outstanding remuneration (cf. point II./21. above). Said amount of EUR
232,500 consists of the amount of EUR 135,000 which was payable in 10 monthly
instalments throughout the 2011-12 season plus the amount of EUR 97,500
relating to per match payments for the same season, which were considered
guaranteed for 75% in accordance with the contractual terms. Consequently, the
Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 232,500 serves as the basis for the
final determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
29.
The Chamber then took due note of the employment situation of the Claimant
after the termination of the employment contract with the Respondent and of
the relevant new employment contracts that he had entered into. It was duly
noted that, on 1 September 2011, the player signed an employment contract with
the Club P, from country S, as an “amateur”, valid until 15 December 2011 in
accordance with which he was to receive a monthly allowance of currency of
country S 50,000. On 1 January 2012, the player signed an employment contract
with the Club L, from country N, valid until 31 December 2012, in accordance with
which the player was to receive a monthly salary of currency of country N 59,000,
a signing-on fee of currency of country N 450,000 payable in 2 equal instalments
of currency of country N 225,000 on 20 March 2012 and 20 August 2012,
respectively, as well as an apartment up to the amount of currency of country N
8,000.
Player S, from country G / Club S, from country T
Page 12 of 15
30.
Hence, the Chamber concluded that on the basis of the aforementioned new
employment contracts the Claimant has received income amounting to
approximately EUR 73,900 as from September 2011 until the end of May 2012.
31.
Consequently, 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, such remuneration
under the new employment contract(s) shall be taken into account in the
calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
32.
In its analysis of the amount of compensation, the Chamber recalled that the
Claimant had requested that the amount to be received as compensation be
increased due to the fact that he would be subjected to country G taxation. The
Chamber unanimously decided that such request could not be taken into
consideration, in the light of the Chamber’s lack of competence regarding taxrelated issues.
33.
Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided to partially accept the
Claimant’s claim and that the Respondent must pay not the entire residual value
of the employment contract, but the amount of EUR 120,000.
34.
In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant
practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Chamber decided
that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount
of compensation as of the date of the present decision, i.e. 4 October 2013 until
the date of effective payment.
35.
Furthermore, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided to reject the Claimant’s
claim pertaining to legal costs in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural
Rules and the Chamber’s respective longstanding jurisprudence in this regard.
36.
The Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by rejecting any
further request(s) filed by the Claimant.
Player S, from country G / Club S, from country T
Page 13 of 15
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Player S, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club K, has to pay to the Claimant outstanding remuneration in
the amount of EUR 138,077 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this
decision.
3.
If the amount of EUR 138,077 is not paid by the Respondent to the Claimant within
said 30 days’ time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due on the amount
of EUR 138,077 as of expiry of the time limit until the date of effective payment.
4.
The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of
notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of
EUR 120,000 plus interest at 5% p.a. as of 4 October 2013 until the date of
effective payment.
5.
If the above-mentioned amounts are not paid by the Respondent to the Claimant
within the aforementioned time limits, the matter will be submitted, upon request,
to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and decision.
6.
Any further request filed by the Claimant is rejected.
Player S, from country G / Club S, from country T
Page 14 of 15
7.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent directly and immediately of
the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the
Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received.
*****
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to art. 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:
Markus Kattner
Deputy Secretary General
Encl.: CAS directives
Player S, from country G / Club S, from country T
Page 15 of 15