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 15 January 2015, 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 14 January 2016.
2.
In accordance with the employment contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to the
Claimant inter alia a fixed-remuneration, payable as follows:
175,000,000 as “Beginning Income”;
45,000,000 as monthly salary due over 10 months.
3.
On 25 June 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 291,000,000 corresponding to:
110,000,0000 as balance of “Beginning Income”;
1,000,000 as balance of salary for February 2015;
180,000,000 as salary from March through June 2015.
4.
By correspondence dated 8 August 2015, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of
payment of the relevant amount of 291,000,000 setting a time limit of 10 days in order
to remedy the default.
5.
In spite of having been invited to do so, the Respondent has not replied to the claim.
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
25 June 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 employment-related
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 25 June 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, the DRC judge acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent
signed an employment contract valid as from 15 January 2015 until 14 January 2016, in
accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent, inter
alia, a “Beginning Income” in the amount of 175,000,000 as well as a monthly salary of
45,000,000 due over 10 months.
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 291,000,000
corresponding to:
110,000,0000 as balance of “Beginning Income”;
1,000,000 as balance of salary for February 2015;
180,000,000 as salary from March through June 2015.
7.
In this context, the DRC judge took particular note of the fact that, on 8 August 2015,
the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the aforementioned amount,
setting a time limit of 10 days in order for the Respondent 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, failed
to present its response to the claim of the Claimant, in spite of having been invited to do
so. In this way, the DRC judge considered that the Respondent renounced its right to
defence and thus accepted the allegations of the Claimant.
10.
Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the DRC judge
concurred that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules he shall take a
decision upon the basis of the documents already on file, in other words, upon the
statements and documents presented by the Claimant.
11.
Having said this, the DRC judge acknowledged that, in accordance with the employment
contract provided by the Claimant, the Respondent was obliged to pay to the Claimant a
fixed-remuneration corresponding to 175,000,000 as “Beginning income” and
45,000,000 as monthly salary payable over 10 months.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 3 of 5
12.
Taking into account the documentation presented by the Claimant in support of his
petition, the DRC judge concluded that the Claimant had substantiated his claim
pertaining to overdue payables with sufficient documentary evidence.
13.
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
291,000,000 corresponding to the balance of “Beginning Income”, balance of salary for
February 2015 and his salary from March to June 2015.
14.
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.
15.
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 291,000,000.
16.
In continuation, taking into account the consideration under number II./14. 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.
17.
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 did not reply to the claim of the Claimant, the DRC judge decided to impose
a fine on the Respondent in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. c) of the Regulations.
Furthermore, taking into consideration the amount due of 291,000,000 equivalent to
19,000, the DRC judge regarded a fine amounting to CHF 2,000 as appropriate and
hence decided to impose said fine on the Respondent.
18.
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 accepted.
2.
The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant overdue payables in the amount of
291,000,000 within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision.
3.
In the event that the amount due to the Claimant is not paid by the Respondent within
the stated time limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of 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.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
Page 4 of 5
4.
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.
5.
The
Respondent
is
ordered
to
pay
a
fine
in
the
amount
of
CHF 2,000. The fine is to be paid within 30 days of notification of the present decision
to FIFA to the following bank account:
UBS Zurich
Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
*****
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