Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 November 2015,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
John Bramhall (England), member
Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member
Philippe Diallo (France), member
Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), member
on the claim presented by the player,
A, country B
represented by Mr xxxxxx
as Claimant / Counter-Respondent I
against the club,
B, country S
as Respondent / Counter-Claimant
and the club,
C, country L
as Counter-Respondent II
and the club,
D, country N
represented by Mr xxxxx
as intervening Party
regarding an employment-related dispute
between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 7 January 2013, the player from country B, A (hereinafter: the player), and the
club from S, B (hereinafter: B), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter:
the contract) valid from 1 January 2013 until 30 June 2015.
2.
In accordance with the contract, B has to remit the player the following fixed
remuneration:
i. EUR 500,000 as sign-on fee due before 2 February 2013;
ii. EUR 50,000 as monthly salary due at the end of each month and for the
entire 30 months of the contract.
3.
According to art. 7 of the contract, ‘’the club and the player shall abide by the
federation’s rules and regulations, and the Professional Players Regulations (…)’’.
Art. 13 stipulates that ‘’the player is aware of the club’s internal disciplinary code
in accordance with article (23), chapter (9) of the Professional Player Regulations,
and the two parties abide by it’’. In addition, as per art. 14 of the contract, ‘’in
case the player is found guilty of misconducts, repeating misbehaviors, or
violating the federation or the club’s regulations, the disciplinary sanctions
stipulated in the federation’s regulations including the Professional Player
regulations shall be applicable to him’’.
4.
By means of faxes dated 11 February and 2 May 2013, the player put B in default
of the payment of the sign-on fee (EUR 500,000) as well as salaries that were
allegedly outstanding at the time (EUR 150,000 corresponding to the salaries of
February, March and April 2013). Subsequently, on 14 November 2013, the player
addressed a correspondence to the President of the Commission, in relation to the
outstanding payment of his sign-on fee and his salaries for September, October
and November 2013.
Player A, country B/ Club B, country S/ Club C, country L / Club D country N
Page 2 of 18
5.
On 26 November 2013, the player once again put B in default in writing and
referred to the outstanding payment of the sign-on fee and salaries for August,
September
and
October
2013.
In
particular,
the
player
states
in
his
correspondence that in case B fails to pay the relevant amount within a deadline
of seven days, the contract shall be considered as automatically terminated with
just cause.
6.
On 27 November 2013, B passed a decision to deduct 50% from the player’s salary
of November 2013 for having allegedly left B’s training camp on 24 November
2013 and refused to play in a match on 25 November 2013.
7.
On 5 December 2013, the player granted B a final deadline to pay the outstanding
amount of EUR 635,000 [EUR 500,000 + 4 x EUR 50,000 August to November 2013)
– EUR 65,000] in consideration that since his last correspondence (cf. point I.5.
above) B had only paid the amount of EUR 65,000 and the salary for November
had fallen due. Again, the player stated that should the entire outstanding
amount not be paid by 8 December 2013, the contract would be automatically
terminated with just cause. The player considered the contract as terminated on 8
December 2013.
8.
On 7 December 2013, B passed a decision to deduct 20% from the player’s salary
for November 2013 due to declarations allegedly made to media.
9.
On 9 December 2013, B passed a decision to deduct 20% from the player’s salary
for December 2013 as well as his salary for 5,6 and 8 December 2013 for having
been absent from training on these dates.
10.
On 18 December 2013, B responded to the player’s fax dated 5 December 2013
stating that said correspondence was null and void because the deadline given
was not in line with the regulations of the association of country S which state
that a club has 15 days to respond to a default notice. In addition, B claims that
since it paid the player the amount of EUR 65,000 on 3 December 2013
Player A, country B/ Club B, country S/ Club C, country L / Club D country N
Page 3 of 18
corresponding to the salary for October 2013 and 30% of the salary for November
2013 and considering the two fines imposed on the player, only the salaries for
August and September 2013 remain outstanding. However, these will be paid on
22 December 2013 and the sign-on fee will be paid on 28 February 2014, once the
TV rights have been distributed to the clubs.
11.
On 19 December 2013, B passed a decision according to which 35% of the player’s
salary for December 2013 and his salary for 14, 16, 17 and 18 December 2013
would be deducted for having missed training on these dates. Then, on 22
December 2013, B decided that 25% would be deducted from the player’s salary
for December 2013 in relation to comments apparently made by the player to
country B media. On 28 December 2013, B decided to deduct 50% from the
player’s salary for December 2013 and his salary for 25, 26 and 27 December 2013
on the basis that he had been absent from training on these dates.
12.
Between 12 December 2013 and 20 January 2014, the player and B exchanged
correspondence regarding the player’s visa and the duration of his absence. In this
context, the player requested authorisation on 4 January 2014 in order to travel
to country B and return on 26 January 2014. B, for its part, addressed a
correspondence to the player specifying that the latter was requested to return to
the club on 18 January 2014. On 20 January 2014, B addressed a warning
requesting the player to return within five working days.
13.
On 30 December 2013, the player lodged a claim against B in front of FIFA,
requesting the following:
i. EUR 635,000 as outstanding remuneration, plus 5% interest on the
amount of EUR 435,000 as of 3 February 2013 and as of the day following
the due date of the payment for the salaries of August, September,
October and November 2013.
ii. EUR 900,000 as compensation, plus 5% interest as of the date of the
claim;
Player A, country B/ Club B, country S/ Club C, country L / Club D country N
Page 4 of 18
iii. EUR 3,000,000 as damages caused by B’s decision to prevent him from
leaving country S (amount allegedly due to compensate the fact that the
player missed the opportunity of accepting offers made by other clubs to
hire him);
iv. EUR 500,000 as moral damages caused by B’s decision to prevent him from
leaving country S;
v. Sporting sanctions to be imposed on B.
14.
In this regard, the player explains that B failed to pay his sign-on fee and only
paid the amount of EUR 65,000 on 3 December 2013 after having been put in
default many times. In relation to the latter payment, the player claims that since
it did not refer to a specific debt, it should be deducted from the oldest one, i.e.
the outstanding sign-on fee. On account of B’s failure to pay remuneration in the
amount of EUR 700,000, i.e. the sign-on fee and four monthly salaries (August to
November 2013), the player insists that B clearly breached the contract and that
he therefore had a just cause to terminate the contract.
15.
In addition, the player claims B refused to arrange the necessary authorisation for
him to leave country S. Without such authorisation, the embassy did not grant
him permission to leave the country and he was therefore, at the time of his
claim, ‘’being held captive’’. In this respect, the player makes reference to his
letter dated 17 December 2013 by means of which he allegedly confirmed the
termination of the contract and requested B to provide him with the necessary
documentation to leave the country.
16.
In response to the player’s claim, with regard to the player’s allegation of being
unable to leave country S, B maintains that a written request from the applicant is
a formal requisite and only upon receipt thereof the employer may give the
necessary approval for the visa application. In casu, the player apparently only
made such a request on 4 January 2014 (cf. point I.12. above) and was able to
travel within 72 hours, i.e. on 8 January 2014.
Player A, country B/ Club B, country S/ Club C, country L / Club D country N
Page 5 of 18
17.
B further deems that the player had no just cause to terminate the contract since
the delay in paying his salaries was not longer than 60 or 90 days and the failure
to pay the sign-on fee can never constitute a just cause to terminate a contract. In
this regard B refers, inter alia, to the following circumstances:
i. it paid the player’s salary for October 2013 and 30% for November
2013 on 3 December 2013, i.e. EUR 65,000;
ii. it paid the amount of EUR 50,000 to the player on 22 December
2013 (note: bank receipt on file; not confirmed by the player);
iii. the player was informed that the sign-on fee would be paid by 28
February 2014 (cf. point I.10. above);
iv. the player committed several violations of the contract for which
he was sanctioned for the residual salary for November and the
entire salary for December 2013;
v. B deems that the player terminated the contract by means of his
fax dated 26 November 2013 which it only received on 30
November 2013 and never put B in default prior thereto;
vi. the player was informed that according to the Regulations of the
association of country S, a deadline of 15 days had to be given.
18.
On account of the circumstances at stake, B claims that the outstanding amount is
of EUR 550,000, corresponding to the salary for August 2013 and the sign-on fee.
19.
Moreover, referring to several letters exchanged between the parties regarding
the player’s visa (cf. point I.12. above), B states that the player in fact deemed that
the contract was still in force. However later on, he was induced by the club from
country N, D (hereinafter: D), to breach his contract with B.
20.
As a consequence, on 30 January 2014 B lodged a counterclaim against the player
and D requesting the following:
Player A, country B/ Club B, country S/ Club C, country L / Club D country N
Page 6 of 18
i. EUR 1,500,000, plus the transfer fee paid to the player’s former club borne
by the player and D;
ii. EUR 900,000 as compensation for breach of contract, plus 5% interest as
of the date of the counterclaim;
iii. EUR 3,000,000 to be paid by D for the damages caused by the latter;
iv. EUR 500,000 to be paid by the player as moral damages;
v. a four or six months ban to be imposed on the player.
21.
In his response to B’s counterclaim, the player first holds having always complied
with his contractual obligations, objects to the various sanctions imposed by B,
stating that they were imposed unilaterally and he was not offered the possibility
to exercise his contradictory and defence rights. The player also claims that B had
no legal basis to set-off the outstanding remuneration through the imposition of
these illegal sanctions.
22.
Furthermore, the player maintains that the contract was terminated upon expiry
of the deadline granted in his correspondence of 5 December 2013, i.e. 8
December 2013. Thus, all sanctions imposed after the termination are totally void.
23.
In addition, according to the player, B was warned on several occasions – 11
February, 2 May, 14 November, 26 November and 5 December 2013 – about the
outstanding remuneration and B never refuted the existence of these
communications (cf. points I.4. and I.5. above).
24.
In conclusion, by B’s repeated breach of the contract, the player could no longer
be expected to continue to be bound by the contract and, hence, had a just cause
to terminate it. Therefore, B’s counterclaim should be rejected.
25.
In continuation, the player again made reference to the alleged lack of
authorisation to leave country S. In this regard, the player insists that, contrary to
B’s statement, by means of a letter dated 17 December 2013, he explicitly asked B
‘’to make all diligences in order to my travelling visa be issue and delivered to me
Player A, country B/ Club B, country S/ Club C, country L / Club D country N
Page 7 of 18
as soon as possible’’. In particular, despite such an explicit request, B refused to
issue the necessary documentation for almost a month. Then, when the
authorisation for his departure was granted (on 7 January 2013), it was made
conditional, under intimidation, to his return to country S even though the
contract was already terminated.
26.
The player added that, contrary to B’s allegation, he had never signed an
employment contract with D.
27.
D did not provide its response to the counterclaim lodged by B, in spite of having
been requested to do so.
28.
On 17 February 2014, the player concluded a contract with the club, C
(hereinafter: C), valid as from the date of signature until 31 December 2014, and
for a remuneration of EUR 7,500 for the month of February 2014 and EUR 15,000
for each of the following months. Then, by means of a document signed on 25
April 2014, the parties terminated their employment relationship by mutual
consent.
29.
Upon request to provide its position in relation to the matter at stake, C outlines
that B considered D to be the club to be held as jointly liable for the termination
of the contract. C, for its part, insists not having taken part in the termination of
the contract. On account thereof, Sofia claims that it may not be held severally
and jointly liable for the payment of compensation. Furthermore, C claims that B
breached the contract by failing to pay the player’s entire remuneration and did
not substantiate any of the alleged breaches of the player. Therefore, the
counterclaim lodged by B should be entirely rejected.
30.
Finally, the player informed FIFA that on 26 June 2014, he signed a contract with
the club, K, for a period of one year as from 1 July 2014 until 30 June 2015 and a
total remuneration of USD 750,000.
Player A, country B/ Club B, country S/ Club C, country L / Club D country N
Page 8 of 18
31.
According to TMS, the player signed a new contract with the club, F, valid from 4
February 2015 until 31 December 2015 for a monthly salary of (xxx) 15,000.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as DRC or
Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In
this respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was submitted to
FIFA on 30 December 2013. Consequently, the 2012 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 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 2015), 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 from country B and a club from country
S.
3.
Furthermore, 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, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2012, 2014 and
2015) and considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 30
December 2013, the 2012 edition of said regulations (hereinafter: the
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, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber started
Player A, country B/ Club B, country S/ Club C, country L / Club D country N
Page 9 of 18
by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation
contained in the file.
5.
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.
6.
In this respect, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that it was
undisputed by the parties that they had signed on 7 January 2013 an employment
contract valid as from 1 January 2013 until 30 June 2015, in accordance with
which the player was entitled to a monthly salary of EUR 50,000, as well as a signon fee for an amount of EUR 500,000, payable before 2 February 2013.
7.
The Chamber further observed that the player held that he had unilaterally
terminated the contract with B on 8 December 2013 invoking just cause, and that
he subsequently lodged a claim in front of FIFA against B seeking payment of the
amount of EUR 5,035,000 plus interest, corresponding to the amounts detailed in
points I. 13. above. On the other hand, the Chamber duly noted that B held that
the player had terminated the contract without just cause by not returning to
country S after the expiry of the authorisation on 18 January 2014, and, as a
result, lodged a counter-claim against the player and his alleged new club, D for
the total amount of EUR 5,900,000 plus interest.
8.
As a consequence of the above, the Chamber duly noted that it first had to
examine which is the date to be considered as the date on which the contract was
terminated. Whereas the player held that the relevant date is 8 December 2013, B
held that the termination occurred on 18 January 2014, first because of the fact
that the player’s correspondence dated 5 December 2013 (cf. point I.10. above)
was allegedly null and void and secondly because he did not return to B on 18
January 2014. After having taken into account all the circumstances of the present
matter, in particular the fact that the player provided a copy of a fax report
proving the transmission of his letter of 5 January 2013 to B, the members of the
Player A, country B/ Club B, country S/ Club C, country L / Club D country N
Page 10 of 18
DRC found that the contract must be considered as terminated by the player on 8
December 2013, after having put B in default three times and given a last three
days deadline to B in his correspondence of 5 December 2013 in order to pay its
contractual debts.
9.
In continuation, the Chamber underlined that it had to examine whether or not
the player had had a just cause to terminate the contract with B on 8 December
2013.
10.
In this respect, the members of the Chamber deemed it appropriate to recall the
basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural
Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact
shall carry the respective burden of proof.
11.
In view of the above, the DRC deemed that, in the present case, B carried the
burden of proof of proving the payment of the Claimant’s remuneration or to
have had any valid reasons not to pay the player in accordance with the contract.
12.
In this context, the members of the Chamber first observed that B could only
provide documentary evidence proving a single payment towards the player on 3
December 2013, for an amount of EUR 65,000, which the DRC considered as part
of the sign-on fee as the oldest outstanding debt. Moreover, the Chamber
observed that B explicitly acknowledged that it did not pay the player the sign-on
fee of EUR 500,000 (cf. point I.10. above), which fell due on 2 February 2013, or
his salary for the month of August 2013 (cf. point I.18. above).
13.
Secondly, the Chamber analysed whether B had any valid reasons not to have paid
the player any remuneration due as per the contract. First, the DRC observed that
B stressed that it had not been put in default by the player prior to his departure
from the club (cf. point I.17.v. above). The Chamber outlined that various letters
had been sent to B and that B had recognized that it had, at the very minimum,
been notified of the existence of the existence of an allegedly pending debt by
means of a fax dated 26 November 2013 (cf. point I.17.v. above). Moreover the
Player A, country B/ Club B, country S/ Club C, country L / Club D country N
Page 11 of 18
Chamber underlined that the player was able to prove to have sent reminders to
B on 11 February, 2 May, 26 November 2013 and 5 December 2013). As such, B
had been notified by the player that he was not willing to accept the nonpayment of his salaries. Therefore, the Chamber does not accept the statement of
B that it had never been put in default and found it proven that the player, on
more than one occasion, had clearly stated his disagreement with the nonpayment of his salaries.
14.
In continuation, the Chamber further observed that B recognised that it had not
fully complied with its financial obligations towards the player but, at the same
time, indicated that the delay of payment had never been longer than 60 or 90
days and that failure to pay a sign-on fee is not a valid reason to terminate a
contract.
15.
In this regard, the Chamber highlighted that no such clause establishing a grace
period of 60 or 90 days for the payment of contractual remuneration was inserted
in the employment contract and that the amount of EUR 500,000 had been
outstanding since 2 February 2013 and that thus B had been neglecting its
contractual obligations from the very beginning of the employment relationship.
16.
As to the fines allegedly imposed by B on the player in November and December
2013, the Chamber considered that such fines must be disregarded. The Chamber
emphasised that the player was allegedly fined by B on 6 different occasions
between 27 November 2013 and 28 December 2013, all of them after the player
had sent his first default notice on 26 November 2013 (cf. points I.6., I.8., I.9. and
I.11. above).
17.
Firstly, the Chamber does not find it reasonable and proportionate that a player is
fined for not complying with his contractual obligations, when the club, at that
very moment, is itself seriously in default of its own contractual obligations.
Furthermore, the Chamber deemed that the fines referring to alleged disciplinary
breaches occurred after the date of termination, i.e. 8 December 2013, cannot be
Player A, country B/ Club B, country S/ Club C, country L / Club D country N
Page 12 of 18
taken into account, as the contractual relationship between the parties no longer
existed (cf. point I.11. above). As to the fines imposed on 27 November 2013, 7
December 2013 and 9 December 2013 (cf. points I.6., I.8. and I.9. above), the
Chamber deemed that not only there was no evidence of the alleged disciplinary
violations of the player or of his notification of or participation in such disciplinary
proceedings, but also the amount of the fines imposed on the player are clearly
disproportionate in relation to the alleged violations.
18.
As such, the Chamber determined that the relevant fines should all be
disregarded. In this context, and irrespective of the foregoing consideration, the
Chamber wished to point out that the imposition of a fine, or any other available
financial sanction in general, shall not be used by clubs as a means to set off
outstanding financial obligations towards players. Consequently, the Chamber
decided to reject B’s argument in this connection.
19.
Taking into consideration all previous deliberations as well as the fact that B
transferred the amount of EUR 65,000 to the player on 3 December 2013, the
Chamber concluded that the total amount of EUR 635,000 was outstanding at the
time of the termination of the contract by the player, corresponding to the signon fee and four monthly salaries (August to November 2013).
20.
In this context, the Chamber concluded that B had seriously neglected its
contractual obligations towards the player in a continuous and constant manner,
i.e. B had failed to remunerate the player for a substantial period of time
regarding a significant amount of money. As a consequence, the Chamber
established in accordance with its well established jurisprudence that the player
had terminated the employment contract with just cause on 8 December 2013 and
that, consequently, B is to be held liable for the early termination of the
employment contract with the player.
Player A, country B/ Club B, country S/ Club C, country L / Club D country N
Page 13 of 18
21.
Bearing in mind the previous considerations, the Chamber went on to deal with
the consequences of the early termination of the employment contract with just
cause by the player.
22.
First of all, the members of the Chamber concurred that B must fulfill its
obligations as per employment contract in accordance with the general legal
principle of “pacta sunt servanda”. Consequently, the Chamber decided that B is
liable to pay to the player the remuneration that was outstanding at the time of
the termination i.e. the amount of EUR 635,000, consisting of the monthly salaries
of August to November 2013 (EUR 200,000) as well as EUR 435,000 as the sign-on
fee minus the amount paid by B on 3 December 2013 (EUR 500,000 minus EUR
65,000).
23.
As a result, the Chamber determined that B has to pay the player the amount of
EUR 635,000 as outstanding remuneration. Considering the player’s claim for
interest, the Chamber also ruled that B must pay 5% interest p.a. on the
aforementioned amounts as from the respective due dates.
24.
In continuation, the Chamber decided that, taking into consideration art. 17 par.
1 of the Regulations, the player is entitled to receive from B compensation for
breach of contract in addition to any outstanding remuneration on the basis of
the relevant employment contract.
25.
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
player 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.
Player A, country B/ Club B, country S/ Club C, country L / Club D country N
Page 14 of 18
26.
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.
27.
Having recalled the aforementioned, and in order to evaluate the compensation
to be paid by B, the members of the Chamber took into account the remuneration
due to the player in accordance with the employment contract as well as the time
remaining on the same contract, along with the professional situation of the
player after the early termination occurred. In this respect, the Chamber
concluded that the remaining value of the contract as from its early termination
by the player until the regular expiry of the contract amounts to EUR 900,000 (18
months) and that such amount shall serve as the basis for the final determination
of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
28.
In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by
means of which he would have been enabled to reduce his loss of income.
According to the constant practice of the DRC, such remuneration under a new
employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount
of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general
obligation to mitigate his damages.
29.
The Chamber remarked that the player had found new employment with three
different clubs, where he earned the total amount of EUR 412,780 for the period
between December 2013 and 30 June 2015 (cf. points I.28., I.30. and I.31. above).
30.
Consequently, in accordance with the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution
Chamber and the general obligation of the player to mitigate his damages, the
Player A, country B/ Club B, country S/ Club C, country L / Club D country N
Page 15 of 18
remuneration as indicated in the new employment contracts shall be taken into
account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.
31.
In view of all of the above, the Chamber decided that B must pay the amount of
EUR 487,220 to the player, which is considered by the Chamber to be a reasonable
and justified amount as compensation for breach of contract.
32.
In addition, taking into account the player’s request, the Chamber decided that B
must pay to the player interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of compensation for
breach of contract as of the date on which the claim was lodged, i.e., 30
December 2013, until the date of effective payment.
33.
In conclusion, the DRC decided that B is liable to pay to the player outstanding
remuneration in the amount of EUR 635,000, plus 5% interests p.a. as from due
dates, as well as the amount of EUR 487,220, plus 5% interests p.a. as from the
date of claim, i.e. 30 December 2013, corresponding to compensation for breach
of contract without just cause.
34.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter
by establishing that any further request filed by the player is rejected and that B’
counterclaim is rejected.
*****
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent I, A, is partially accepted.
2. The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, B, is rejected.
3. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent I, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision,
Player A, country B/ Club B, country S/ Club C, country L / Club D country N
Page 16 of 18
outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 635,000 plus 5% interest p.a. until
the date of effective payment as follows:
a. 5% p.a. as of 3 February 2013 on the amount of EUR 435,000;
b. 5% p.a. as of 1 September 2013 on the amount of EUR 50,000;
c. 5% p.a. as of 1 October 2013 on the amount of EUR 50,000;
d. 5% p.a. as of 1 November 2013 on the amount of EUR 50,000;
e. 5% p.a. as of 1 December 2013 on the amount of EUR 50,000.
4. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent I, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision,
compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 487,220 plus 5%
interest p.a. on said amount as from 30 December 2013 until the date of effective
payment.
5. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent I in
accordance with the above-mentioned numbers III.3. and III.4. are not paid by the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant within the stated time limits, the present matter
shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for
consideration and a formal decision.
6. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent I is rejected.
7. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent I is directed to inform the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant immediately and directly of the account number to which the
remittances are to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every
payment received.
*****
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
Player A, country B/ Club B, country S/ Club C, country L / Club D country N
Page 17 of 18
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
Acting Secretary General
Encl. CAS directives
Player A, country B/ Club B, country S/ Club C, country L / Club D country N
Page 18 of 18