Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 4 October 2013,
in the following composition:
on the claim presented by the player,
Player H, from country M
as Claimant
against the club,
Club V, from country S
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1. On 1 July 2009, player H from country M (hereinafter: the Claimant or the
player) and the club V from country S (hereinafter: the Respondent or the
club), concluded a “Football Player’s Civil Convention” (hereinafter: the
contract) valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2012.
2. According to the contract, the player was entitled to receive EUR 60,000 for
each season, to be paid in 12 monthly instalments of EUR 5,000 each within
the 15th day of the following month. Moreover, art. 9.6 stated that: “The club
must pay the player for each point the corresponding amount, according to
the Internal Regulations”.
3. Furthemore, art. 16.1 of the contract stipulated that in case the parties could
not settle an arisen dispute in an amicable way “the parties are entitled to
address to bodies with jurisdictional powers of FRF/AJF, in accordance with
the FRF’s / AJF’s Statute and Regulations, or to sent it for settlement by the
common law courts”.
4. In addition, art. 17.1 and 17.2 of the contract stated the following: “The
football regulations applicable to the present agreement are the FIFA’s,
UEFA’s, FRF’s or LPF’s, as appropriate, statutes, regulations and decisions” as
well as “The club and the player must comply with the FIFA’s, UEFA’s,
FRF’s/AJF’s/LPF’s statutes, regulations and decisions, in this order, these being
an integral part of the present convention and which the parties, by their
signature, accept as binding”.
5. Finally, art. 19.1 established that “In case of dispute on the law applicable, the
law prevails of country S”.
6. On 26 October 2010, the player lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the
club, claiming the amount of EUR 129,625, made up of EUR 15,000 as
outstanding remuneration corresponding to the salaries of July, August and
September 2010, EUR 9,625 as outstanding remuneration for bonuses and EUR
105,000 as compensation for breach of contract.
7. According to the player, although he was fulfilling his obligations towards the
club, the latter did not pay him his monthly salaries for the months of July,
August and September 2010, nor did it pay EUR 500 for each point gained by
the club. The player declared that his situation at the club changed in July
2010, when he did not agree to reduce his salary. As a consequence, the club
sent him to the second team.
Player H, from country M / Club V, from country S
Page 2 of 14
8. The player stated that, being a professional, he accepted said decision and
started training with the second team. However, the club failed to pay the
“financial rights for 3 months” and, in violation of the contract, did not
provide him with adequate equipment, nutrition, medical assistance and
recovery training. In this respect, the player referred to various articles of the
contract. Equally, the player indicated that he was not selected to partake in
any official match for the club.
9. On account of the aforesaid, the player requested FIFA to take into
consideration the termination of the contract with just cause and to award
him the compensation requested.
10. On 4 November 2010, the player amended his claim, as follows:
-
EUR 20,000 corresponding to the salaries for July, August, September and
October 2010;
EUR 9,625 as bonuses;
“a financial compensation for termination of the civil convention for just
cause”.
11. In his amended claim, the player stated that in order to avoid disciplinary
action from the club, he would continue to respect the training program of
the club’s second team, until a decision would be taken by FIFA.
12. Moreover, the player attached several bank documents which indicated that
the last payments received from the club were the amounts of 20,955 currency
of country S (hereinafter: COCS) on 3 June 2010 for the salary of May and
COCS 16,039 on 3 November 2010 for the salary of August. In this context, the
player emphasized that the club paid him the salary of June 2010 in cash, but
had not yet paid the salary of July.
13. On 15 January 2011, the club replied to the claim by stating that in July 2010
the player “asked and received from our club an accord for tests to another
team”. Hence, it argues that, during the period of 2 – 12 July 2010 the player
was not at the club and therefore he is not entitled to remuneration for July
2010.
14. Allegedly, when the player returned, the club received a report from its main
coach stating that “the player H does not fulfil the sportive criterions needed
in order to play to the team from the First League – club V”, following which
it sent him to the second team and diminished the player’s salary by 25% as
from 1 August 2010. As to the bonus payments, the club referred to art. 15
par. 1 of the club’s Internal Regulations which indicate that “the match
bonuses and penalties will be based on efficiency and effectiveness of each
Player H, from country M / Club V, from country S
Page 3 of 14
player in the game. The appreciation will be made by the main coach
together with the General Manager of the club”.
15. In his replica dated 31 January 2011, the player indicated that he had no
knowledge of the report of the coach and the decision to reduce his salary by
25%. The player added that the club did not submit evidence that it had
communicated the report and the relevant decision to him. The player also
rejected the club’s allegations in relation to the “accord”, emphasising that he
did not sign said document. In addition, the player submitted an excerpt of
the club’s website dated 30 June 2010 by means of which it was
communicated that the player was transferable.
16. As to the salary reduction, the player referred to various articles of the
contract stressing that the club cannot unilaterally change the remuneration,
that any such decision should be ratified by the Disciplinary Committee of the
Professional Football League of country S (SPFL) and that his right to be heard
was violated as he was never notified about the reduction.
17. Furthermore, the player deemed that the club recognized that it had
outstanding payment towards him; in the 2010/2011 season the club had
merely paid EUR 11,250, consisting of three payments of EUR 3,750. Said
amount covered July and August 2010 and a part of September 2010 and,
therefore, the amount of EUR 18,750 is still outstanding i.e. part of September
2010 as well as October, November and December 2010.
18. On 10 February 2011, the player informed FIFA that he received a fax for a
hearing at the club “in order to act for a trial at the Professional Football
League committees in country S.”
19. On 11 February 2011, the club argued that FIFA is not competent to
adjudicate on the present dispute indicating that the Football Federation of
country S (SFF) has a national independent arbitration tribunal which fulfils
the relevant conditions of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players.
20. Moreover, the club emphasized that according to art. 19.1 and 16.1 of the
contract, the applicable law is law of country S and that there is a valid
arbitration clause. In this respect, the club stressed that the player was
participating with the club’s second team, which competes in the National
Championship “League 3”, organized by the SFF and not by the SPFL. Equally,
the club enclosed a decision taken by the DRC on 16 July 2009 which stated
that the NDRC of the SFF was recognised by FIFA for a certain period of time.
21. Finally, the club declared that in case the DRC would consider itself
competent, it requested that the applicable law shall be the law of country S
Player H, from country M / Club V, from country S
Page 4 of 14
in compliance with article 2 of FIFA’s Procedural Rules and required “a
separate prayer for relief and we require from DRC of FIFA to pronounce a
separate finding in this respect.”
22. On 14 February 2011, the Board of Directors of the club sanctioned the player
with a 25% penalty “of his financial rights for the 2010/2011 season”, due to
his non-appearance at the club as from 17 January 2011. Such decision was
ratified by the Disciplinary Commission of the SPFL on 9 March 2011.
23. On 10 March 2011, the player informed FIFA that the Disciplinary Commission
of the LPF had sanctioned him with “a 25% penalty”.
24. On 7 April 2011, the club reverted to FIFA indicating that it had paid the
amount of EUR 28,860 to the player on 10 March 2011 and that it had thus
fulfilled all its financial obligations. At the same time, the club indicated that
the player was missing from the club since 17 January 2011 and therefore the
player was sanctioned “through the decision no 156/2011”. Furthermore, the
club indicated it would request the relevant competent national body “to find
contract termination, without asking for compensation”.
25. By means of a letter dated 15 February 2012, the “General Secretariat of the
SPFL jurisdictional committees” informed the player on his address in country
R that the club, on 9 February 2012, had lodged a claim against him in front
of the “SPFL Dispute Resolution Commission”. The player was informed that
the meeting “to settle this case is on 28 February 2012” and that “the
presence of the parties is not obligatory, anyway the parties may come to the
meeting to sustain their claim/defense. The proceedings are accomplished
with written submission. (…) please note that all the documents and written
conclusions lodged on the case file must be submitted along with their
certified translations into country S. Player H is kindly asked to provide a fax
number to which can be expedited further documents related to this case.”
26. On 28 February 2012, the “Commission for Solving Disputes” of the LPF
rendered a decision establishing that the player had terminated the contract
without just cause.
27. Following all the above, the club was invited by FIFA to produce all the
documentary evidence to prove that the relevant arbitration bodies in country
S comply with the requirements of art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players. Equally, the club was requested to provide its
position as to the substance of the matter and to provide an English
translation of the payment receipt submitted on 7 April 2011. Nonetheless, no
reply was received from the club.
Player H, from country M / Club V, from country S
Page 5 of 14
28. Upon request of FIFA, the player indicated that he did not sign any contract
with a new club, that he was now 2 years and 8 months without a contract
and that the club “had ruined his career”.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the DRC or the
Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at stake.
In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on
26 October 2010. Consequently, the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the
Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution
Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at
hand (cf. art. 21 of the 2008 and 2012 edition 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 2012) the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall adjudicate on
employment-related disputes between a club and a player that have an
international dimension.
3.
As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber would, in principle, be
competent to decide on the present litigation which involves a player H and a
club V regarding an employment-related dispute.
4.
However, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent contested the
competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of art. 16.1 of the contract
alleging that any dispute that is not solved in an amicable manner has to be
brought exclusively to the “SFF’s sports jurisdiction tribunals”. Thus, in the
Respondent’s view, art. 16.1 clearly excluded the competence of the Dispute
Resolution Chamber to adjudicate on the present matter.
5.
What is more, the Chamber duly noted that the Respondent had lodged a
complaint against the Claimant in front of the SPFL DRC and that said body
already rendered a decision declaring the Claimant free of contract as from 28
February 2012. Furthermore, the Chamber took note that the Respondent
insisted that the SPFL DRC was competent to take such a decision since it is an
arbitration tribunal established in accordance with the requirements contained
in art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players.
Player H, from country M / Club V, from country S
Page 6 of 14
6.
Taking into account all the above, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance
with art. 22 lit. b) of the 2012 edition of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players it is competent to deal with a matter such as the one at
hand, unless an independent arbitration tribunal, guaranteeing fair
proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of players
and clubs, has been established at national level within the framework of the
association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. With regard to the
standards to be imposed on an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing
fair proceedings, the Chamber referred to the FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20
December 2005. Equally, the members of the Chamber referred to the
principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC)
Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008.
7.
In relation to the above, the Chamber also deemed it vital to outline that one
of the basic conditions that needs to be met in order to establish that another
organ than the DRC can settle an employment-related dispute between a club
and a player of an international dimension, is that the jurisdiction of the
relevant arbitration tribunal derives from a clear reference in the employment
contract.
8.
Therefore, while analysing whether it was competent to hear the present
matter, the Dispute Resolution Chamber considered that it should, first and
foremost, analyse whether the employment contract at the basis of the
present dispute actually contained a clear jurisdiction clause.
9.
Having said this, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to art.
16.1 of the employment contract, on the basis of which the Respondent
contested FIFA’s jurisdiction. Said article stipulates that if an amicable
agreement is not possible, “the parties are entitled to address to bodies with
jurisdictional powers of FRF/AJF, in accordance with the FRF’s/AJF’s Statute and
Regulations, or to sent it for settlement by the common law courts”.
10.
In this respect, and regardless of the fact that the relevant employment
contract contains a reference to dispute resolution at national level, the
Chamber pointed out that such wording was unclear in the sense that it
merely refers to “bodies with jurisdictional powers of FRF/AJF” and not to a
specific deciding body in the sense of art. 22 lit. b) of the aforementioned
Regulations, or to any similar arbitration body and, therefore, cannot be
applicable.
11.
In addition, the Chamber emphasised that this lack of clarity is also reflected in
the fact that, from its drafting, it appears that such clause gives the parties the
“right” to bring any potential dispute to the jurisdictional bodies of the SFF
Player H, from country M / Club V, from country S
Page 7 of 14
and/or SPFL or the common law courts, nevertheless, it does not grant an
exclusive jurisdiction to any deciding body as the Respondent alleges. In view
of the foregoing, the Chamber held that art. 16 of the employment contract
cannot be considered as a clear and exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of
the SPFL DRC or the SFF DRC.
12.
In continuation, and for the sake of completeness, the DRC turned its attention
to the principles of fair proceedings and equal representation of players and
clubs and underlined that these principles are fundamental elements to be
fulfilled, in order for a national dispute resolution chamber to be recognised as
such.
13.
On account of the above, the Chamber noted that the Respondent failed to
provide the DRC with any documentary evidence which could prove that the
SFPL DRC meets the requirements established in art. 22 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, despite having been asked
to do so by letter dated 12 July 2013.
14.
What is more, the Chamber duly noted that the Claimant, by lodging his claim
in front of FIFA on 26 October 2010 and by not withdrawing it later on,
signalised that he did not recognise the jurisdiction of any arbitration body in
country S.
15.
On account of all the above and referring to the principle of the burden of
proof contained in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, the Chamber
established that the Respondent’s objection towards the competence of FIFA
to deal with the present matter has to be rejected, and that the Dispute
Resolution Chamber is competent, on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, to consider the present
matter as to the substance.
16.
Subsequently, the Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent asserts that on
the basis of art. 19.1 of the employment contract, the applicable law in the
present dispute should be law of country S. In this respect, the Chamber
wished to point out that art. 17.1 of the contract stipulates that, amongst
others, the FIFA statutes and regulations are applicable to the contract.
Furthermore, art. 17.2 stipulates that the parties must comply “with the FIFA’s,
UEFA’s, FRF’s/AJF’s/LPF’s statutes, regulations and decisions, in this order, (…)”.
The Chamber therefore decided that the FIFA Regulations are the applicable
set of rules when adjudicating on the present matter.
17.
Successively, and entering into the substance, the Chamber analysed which
edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players should be
applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber
Player H, from country M / Club V, from country S
Page 8 of 14
referred, on the one hand, to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2010 and 2012) and, on the other hand,
to the fact that the present claim was lodged on 26 October 2010. The Dispute
Resolution Chamber concluded that the 2010 edition of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to
the matter at hand as to the substance.
18.
The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been
established, the Chamber continued by acknowledging that, on 1 July 2009,
the Claimant and the Respondent had concluded a “Football Player’s Civil
Convention” valid until 30 June 2012 i.e. for 3 years. As to the financial terms
of said employment contract, the Chamber took note that it had been agreed
upon between the parties that the Respondent would remunerate the
Claimant with a monthly salary of EUR 5,000 during the entire duration of the
contract. Furthermore, the Chamber duly noted that according to article 9.6 of
the contract the Respondent would remunerate the Claimant “for each point
the corresponding amount, according to Internal Regulations”.
19.
In this respect, the Chamber further noted that the Claimant argued that in
July 2010, after allegedly refusing a reduction on his salary, he was excluded
from the main team and was sent to train with the second team of the
Respondent. The player further claims that the Respondent only made a partial
payment of his salary of September 2010 and failed to pay his salaries of
October, November and December 2010 as well as the bonuses contained in
art. 9.6 of the contract. Moreover, the Claimant argues that the club breached
the contract and, thus, is seeking from the latter compensation for breach of
contract in accordance with art. 17 of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players.
20.
In continuation, the Chamber observed that on 26 October 2010 the Claimant
lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, which was amended
on 4 November 2010 and 31 January 2011, requesting the payment of EUR
18,750 net corresponding to outstanding salaries of September, October,
November and December 2010, EUR 9,625 net as for bonuses and EUR 105,000
net as compensation for breach of contract.
21.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber noted that, on the other hand,
the Respondent argues that in July 2010 the player asked permission from the
club to be absent from the period between 2 and 12 July 2010 so the player
could go “for tests to another team” and, therefore, the Respondent considers
that the player should not be remunerated during this period. In addition, the
Respondent claims that the decision to send the player to the club’s second
team was taken after the main coach of the Respondent issued a report in
which he deemed that the player did not fulfil the criteria to play for the
Player H, from country M / Club V, from country S
Page 9 of 14
Respondent’s first team. The Respondent further claims that based on the
aforementioned report the player’s salary was reduced with 25%. In respect of
the bonuses, the Respondent based its non-payment on art. 15 of the club’s
Internal Regulations which states in its relevant part that “the match bonuses
and penalties for the players will be based on efficiency and effectiveness of
each player in the game…”.
22.
What is more, the Respondent argues that the player terminated the contract
without just cause by leaving the club on 17 January 2011 and therefore, it had
initiated proceedings against the Claimant in front of the RFPL DRC.
23.
Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed that the
underlying issue in this dispute, considering the claim of the Claimant and the
allegations of the Respondent, was to determine whether the employment
contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by the
player, and which party was responsible for the early termination of the
contractual relationship in question. The DRC also underlined that,
subsequently, if it were found that the employment contract had been
breached by one of the parties without just cause, it would be necessary to
determine the consequences for the party that caused the breach of the
relevant employment contract.
24.
Bearing in mind the previous considerations, the Chamber noted that the
Claimant claims that the Respondent failed to pay part of his salary for
September 2010 and his salaries for October, November and December 2010 in
the total amount of EUR 18,750 as well as bonuses for each point won by the
club in the total amount of EUR 9,625.
25.
In this respect, the Chamber wished to point out that the reduction of the
Claimant’s salary due to the “not fulfilment of the optimal sportive requests”
cannot be upheld. The Chamber considered that the Respondent did not
provide any valid reasons which could have led to take such a decision. The
Chamber emphasised the fact that the argument of poor or unsatisfactory
performance cannot, by any means, be considered as a valid reason to reduce a
player’s salary. In addition, the player argues that this decision was never
notified to him and it only came to his knowledge during the present
proceedings. Moreover, the club did not provide any evidence that could prove
that the player was duly notified of such decision. Hence, the Chamber
considered that by reducing his salary only based on unsatisfactory
performance, the club acted in an abusive manner towards the player and
therefore, decided to reject the Respondent’s argument in this regard.
26.
In continuation, the DRC noted that the Claimant claims having been excluded
from the main squad, as from July 2010. In this respect, the Chamber also
Player H, from country M / Club V, from country S
Page 10 of 14
noted that the Claimant argues that such decision came after he refused to
accept the reduction of his salary. In addition, the members of the Chamber
noted that the Respondent does not dispute the aforementioned allegations
of the Claimant and claims having taken this measure, in view of the player’s
unsatisfactory performance.
27.
At this point, the Chamber analysed the question of whether the player was
entitled to receive EUR 9,625 as bonuses. Firstly, the Chamber emphasizes that
according to art. 9.6 of the contract “the Club must pay the player for each
point the corresponding amount, according to the internal regulations”.
Secondly, art. 15 of the club’s internal regulations establish that for each point
won by the club in official games, each player is entitled to EUR 1,000 net.
Moreover, art. 15.3 of the said regulations establish the amounts that each
player will receive depending on their participation in each relevant match.
28.
The Chamber took note of the Respondent’s position that according to art.
15.1 of the club’s Internal Regulations the match bonuses are decided by the
main coach together with the general manager of the club based on the
efficiency and effectiveness of the player in each game. In this regard, the
Chamber considered that the club’s argument has to be dismissed. According
to the contract, the club must pay the player bonuses in accordance with the
club’s Internal Regulations, and therefore, the club cannot rely on the same
regulations to avoid an obligation to which it consented. Moreover, the club
did not contest the evidence brought by the player regarding its participation
in several matches. Hence, the Chamber decided that the player is entitled to
receive EUR 9,625 for bonuses.
29.
In view of the foregoing and taking into consideration all the relevant facts of
the case, the Chamber decided that the Claimant was entitled to outstanding
salaries and bonuses in the amount of EUR 28,375 at the time the contract was
terminated, i.e. 17 January 2011.
30.
Finally, the Chamber took note of the Respondent’s correspondence dated 7
April 2011 in which the club indicated having paid the total amount due to the
Claimant and enclosed a “proof of payment” for the total amount of EUR
28,860. In this regard, the Chamber observed that the amount paid to the
Claimant by the Respondent in March 2011 was EUR 485 more than the actual
debt it had to the player, i.e. EUR 28,860 – EUR 28,375.
31.
In view of all the foregoing, based on the fact that the Claimant did not
receive his salaries for September to December 2010 and that the salary
reduction was clearly unjustified, the Chamber decided that the Claimant had
terminated the contract with just cause on 17 January 2011 by leaving the club
and that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the
Player H, from country M / Club V, from country S
Page 11 of 14
employment contact with just cause by the Claimant. The Chamber emphasised
that, evidently, the payment of the amount of EUR 28,860 in March 2011 does
not affect the justification of the termination in January 2011.
32.
Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber focused its attention on
the consequences of the early termination of the employment contract with
just cause by the Claimant. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the
Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive from
the Respondent an amount of money as compensation for breach of contract.
33.
In this context, the Chamber outlined that, in accordance with said provision,
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.
34.
In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all
had to clarify whether the pertinent employment contract contained any
clause, by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon a
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 the employment contract at the basis of the matter at
stake.
35.
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 employment contract as well as
the time remaining on the same contract, along with the professional situation
of the Claimant after the early termination occurred.
36.
Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of
the monies payable to the player under the terms of the employment contract
until 30 June 2012. The Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 90,000
serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation
for breach of contract.
37.
In continuation, the Chamber took note of the player’s correspondence dated
9 September 2013 according to which, since the termination of his
employment contract with the Respondent, he has not signed any other
employment contracts with any other club.
Player H, from country M / Club V, from country S
Page 12 of 14
38.
In view of all of the above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must
pay the amount of EUR 89,515 to the Claimant as compensation for breach of
contract without just case, which is considered by the Chamber to be a
reasonable and justified amount as compensation.
39.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present
matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is
rejected.
*****
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, player H, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant, compensation for breach of
contract in the amount of EUR 89,515 within 30 days as from the date of
notification of this decision.
4.
In the event that the amount due to the Claimant in accordance with the
above-mentioned number 3 is not paid by the Respondent within the stated
time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of the expiry of the
aforementioned time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon
request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal
decision.
5.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
6.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly to
the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the
Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received.
*****
Player H, from country M / Club V, from country S
Page 13 of 14
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:
Jérôme Valcke
Secretary General
Encl. CAS directives
Player H, from country M / Club V, from country S
Page 14 of 14