Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 13 October 2016,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member
Wouter Lambrecht (Belgium), member
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
arisen between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1. On 28 February 2014, the Player of Country B Player A (hereinafter: the
Claimant) and the Club of Country D Club C (hereinafter: the Respondent) signed
an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from the date of
signature until 27 November 2014.
2. According to article 7.1 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to a total
salary of USD 234,000 net, payable in nine monthly instalments of USD 26,000
each.
3. On 8 January 2016, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the
Respondent requesting “damages for the improper performance of the
contract”, in the amount of USD 48,000.
4. Firstly, the Claimant declared that his real salary for season 2014 amounted to
USD 300,000 and admitted that he “received the whole salary in net values”.
5. Nevertheless, the Claimant argued that, according to art. 7.1 of the contract, it
was the Respondent’s obligation “to pay all the taxes needed” and stated that,
by means of a letter dated 13 March 2015, he asked the Respondent to issue a
declaration whereby it would be stated that “all the taxes according to the
contract were paid in Country D”, however to no avail.
6. Consequently, the Claimant emphasized that the Respondent’s omission
allegedly prevented him from proving in Country B “in front of the tax office
that he has no tax arrears” and, therefore, he was “obliged by the tax office [in
Country B] to pay income tax”.
7. Furthermore, the Claimant alleged that the income tax in Country B is 16% and,
thus, concluded that he suffered damages in the amount of USD 48,000 because
of the alleged “improper performance of the contract” by the Respondent.
8. The Respondent replied asking the rejection of the claim and emphasized that it
strictly complied with the contract, as the Claimant confirmed that he “received
the whole salary in net value”.
9. Moreover, the Respondent underlined that Country D is the “venue for the
performance of the contract” and that there is no provision in the contract
under which Laws of Country B should apply. In view of the above, the club
considered the claim as “groundless and vexatious”.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
2
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 matter at
hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA
on 8 January 2016. 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 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 2 in
combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (edition 2016), 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 of Country B and a Club of Country D.
3. In continuation, 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 2016), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 8 January
2016, the 2015 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.
5. First, the Chamber noted that the parties entered into an employment contract
valid as from 28 February 2014 until 27 November 2014, according to which the
Respondent committed to pay a salary of USD 234,000 to the Claimant.
6. In addition, the Chamber noted that the Claimant acknowledged that the
Respondent complied with its obligation to pay his entire salary provided in the
contract.
7. In continuation, the DRC took note that the Claimant however argued that,
despite of his request, the Respondent did not provide him with a declaration
that “all taxes according to the contract were paid in Country D”. Therefore he
had to pay taxes in Country B and, thus, he suffered economic damages, which
need to be covered by the Respondent.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
3
8. Furthermore, the Chamber also noted that the Respondent asserted that it
strictly complied with all its obligations arising out of the contract.
9. In this context, the Chamber, after having carefully examined the contract,
pointed out that there is no provision whatsoever contained therein which
would impose an obligation on the Respondent to provide the Claimant with a
declaration that “all the taxes according to the contract were paid in Country
D”.
10. In this regard, the DRC was of the opinion that if the Claimant was in need of
certain documentation in order to prove that he had already paid taxes in
Country D in connection with the contract, it was his responsibility to obtain
such documentation which was not limited, in the Chamber’s view, to a
declaration from the Respondent. Moreover, the DRC recalled that the Claimant
recognised having received his whole salary net.
11. On account of the above, the Chamber considered that the Claimant’s request
clearly lacks any legal or contractual basis.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
4
12. As a consequence thereof, the Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting
the claim of the Claimant in its entirety.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is rejected.
*****
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to article 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
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:
Marco Villiger
Deputy Secretary General
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
5