Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge
passed on 13 October 2015,
by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge,
on the claim presented by the player,
Player A, Country B,
as Claimant
against the club,
Club C, Country D
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute
between the parties in connection with overdue payables
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 1 July 2014, the Player of Country B, Player A (hereinafter: Claimant), and the Club
of Country D, Club C (hereinafter: Respondent) signed an employment contract valid
as from the date of signature until 31 December 2014.
2.
In accordance with the employment contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to
the Claimant inter alia a monthly salary of EUR 1,400 by no later than the 25th of the
following month.
3.
By correspondence dated 10 July 2015, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of
payment of the amount of EUR 4,200 setting a time limit of 10 days in order to remedy
the default.
4.
On 18 August 2015, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of
FIFA asking that the Respondent be ordered to pay to him overdue payables in the
amount of EUR 4,200 corresponding to his salary for October, November and December
2014, plus 5% interest p.a., as well as to reimburse the Claimant’s legal costs.
5.
In reply to the claim, the Respondent acknowledged the amount of EUR 4,200 due
to the Claimant. The Respondent further held that considering “the entry of a new
shareholder” into the club, it needed time to proceed to the payment of the relevant
amount.
II.
Considerations of the DRC judge
1.
First of all, the DRC judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the
matter at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted
to FIFA on 18 August 2015. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the
Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2015;
hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the
Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and par. 3 of the Procedural
Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 in conjunction
with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition
2015) he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employmentrelated dispute with an international dimension between a Player of Country B and a
Club of Country D.
3.
Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which regulations should be applicable as to
the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in accordance with
art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 18 August 2015, the 2015
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at
hand as to the substance.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 2 of 5
4.
The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been
established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect,
the DRC judge started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as
the arguments and the documentation on file. However, the DRC judge emphasised
that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and
documentary evidence, which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the
matter at hand.
5.
Having said this, DRC judge acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent
signed an employment contract valid as from 1 July 2014 until 31 December 2014, in
accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent,
inter alia, a monthly salary of EUR 1,400 payable on the 25th of the following month.
6.
The Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, maintaining
that the Respondent has overdue payables towards him in the total amount of EUR
4,200 corresponding to his salary for October, November and December 2014.
7.
In this context, the DRC judge took particular note of the fact that, on 10 July 2015,
the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the aforementioned
amount, setting a time limit of 10 days in order to remedy the default.
8.
Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the Claimant had duly proceeded in
accordance with art. 12bis par. 3 of the Regulations, which stipulates that the
creditor (player or club) must have put the debtor club in default in writing and have
granted a deadline of at least ten days for the debtor club to comply with its financial
obligation(s).
9.
Subsequently, the DRC judge took into account that the Respondent, for its part,
acknowledged the amount of EUR 4,200 as overdue payables and explained that the
“entry of a new shareholder” into the club postponed the payment of the said
amount.
10.
In this regard, the DRC judge considered that the argument raised by the
Respondent cannot be considered a valid reason for the non-payment of the monies
claimed by the Claimant. In order words, the reason brought forward by the
Respondent in its defence does not exempt the Respondent from its obligation to
fulfil its contractual obligations towards the Claimant.
11.
Consequently, the DRC judge decided to reject the argumentation put forward by
the Respondent in its defence.
12.
On account of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC judge established that
the Respondent failed to remit the Claimant’s remuneration in the total amount of
EUR 4,200 corresponding to his salary for October, November and December 2014.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 3 of 5
13.
In addition, the DRC judge established that the Respondent had delayed a due
payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis.
14.
Consequently, the DRC judge decided that, in accordance with the general legal
principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant
overdue payables in the total amount of EUR 4,200.
15.
In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant
practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the DRC judge decided that the
Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR
4,200 as from 18 August 2015 until the date of effective payment.
16.
Furthermore, as regards the claimed reimbursement of legal expenses, the DRC
judge referred to art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as to his long-standing
and well-established jurisprudence, in accordance with which no procedural
compensation shall be awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute Resolution
Chamber. Consequently, the DRC judge decided to reject the Claimant’s request
relating to legal expenses.
17.
Moreover, the DRC judge decided that any further request filed by the Claimant is
rejected.
18.
In continuation, taking into account the consideration under number II./13. above,
the DRC judge referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations which stipulates that
any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a
prima facie contractual basis may be sanctioned in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4
of the Regulations.
19.
The DRC judge established that by virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations he
has competence to impose sanctions on the Respondent. Bearing in mind that the
Respondent duly replied to the claim of the Claimant and in the absence of the
circumstance of repeated offence, the DRC judge decided to impose a warning on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. a) of the Regulations.
20.
In this connection, the DRC judge wished to highlight that a repeated offence will
be considered as an aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty in
accordance with art. 12bis par. 6 of the Regulations.
III.
Decision of the DRC judge
1.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of
notification of this decision, overdue payables in the amount of EUR 4,200, plus
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as from 18 August 2015 until the date of effective
payment.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 4 of 5
3.
In the event that the amount due to the Claimant is not paid by the Respondent
within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to
the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.
4.
Any further request filed by the Claimant is rejected.
5.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the
account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the DRC judge
of every payment received.
6.
A warning is imposed on the Respondent.
*****
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to article 67 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against
before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to
the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain
all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS, a copy of
which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit
for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and
legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives).
The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:
Court of Arbitration for Sport
Avenue de Beaumont 2
1012 Lausanne
Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00
Fax: +41 21 613 50 01
e-mail: [email protected]
www.tas-cas.org
For the DRC judge:
Marco Villiger
Acting Deputy Secretary General
Encl: CAS directives
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 5 of 5