Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 30 November 2007,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Mario Gallavotti (Italy), Member
Zola Majavu (South Africa), Member
Michele Colucci (Italy), Member
Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), Member
on the claim presented by the futsal club,
X, Xx,
as “Claimant”
against the futsal player,
Y, Yy,
as “Respondent”
regarding a contractual dispute arisen between the parties involved.
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 6 June 2004, the Xx futsal club, X, the Claimant, and the futsal player Y, the
Respondent, signed an employment contract valid for three years, i.e. from 1 July
2004 until 30 June 2007. According to the terms of the said contract, the
Respondent was entitled to receive EUR 40,000 as a yearly salary for the first
season, EUR 45,000 for the second season and EUR 50,000 for the third season.
According to art. 15 of the employment contract, the Respondent was to pay the
amount of EUR 70,000 by way of compensation if he terminates the contract at an
early stage.
2.
According to the Claimant, the Respondent did not present himself at the
Claimant’s training facilities for the start of the season 2005/2006 but instead
signed an employment contract with the Yy club, O. On 11 January 2006, the
Claimant wrote to the Respondent to claim the payment of the penalty clause, i.e.
the amount of EUR 70,000, stipulated in the employment contract the two parties
signed.
3.
Having not received any answer from the Respondent to its aforementioned
letter, on 6 March 2006, the Claimant contacted FIFA and submitted its claim
against the Respondent for the payment of the amount of EUR 70,000 plus legal
interests and expenses. The Claimant alleged that the Respondent had, after the
first season only, prematurely terminated the employment contract signed
between the parties on 6 June 2004 without just case.
4.
On 3 October 2006, the Respondent submitted its reply to the claim of the
Claimant and entirely rejected the allegations made by the Claimant. According to
the Respondent, the Claimant had requested him to seek a new club at the end of
the first season (2004/2005) and, by letter dated 6 June 2005, had released him
from any engagement. The contents of the aforementioned letter mentions that
the Respondent is free of any engagement towards the Claimant. Moreover, the
Respondent informed that the Yy Football Federation had by means of its letter
dated 7 September 2005 authorized his registration for his new club, O.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Chamber analysed whether it was competent to deal with the
matter at stake. In this respect, it referred to art. 18 par. 2 and 3 of the Rules
Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute
Resolution Chamber. The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 6 March 2006,
as a consequence the Chamber concluded that the revised Rules Governing
Futsal Club X, Xx / Futsal Player Y, Yy
2
Procedures (edition 2005) on matters pending before the decision making bodies
of FIFA are applicable to the matter at hand.
2.
With regard to the competence of the Chamber, art. 3 par. 1 of the abovementioned Rules states that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall examine its
jurisdiction in the light of articles 22 to 24 of the Regulations for the Status and
Transfer of Players (edition 2005). In accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination
with art. 22 (b) of the aforementioned Regulations and art. 11 par. 1 in
combination with art. 11 par. 3 of the Annex 6 of the Regulations, the Dispute
Resolution Chamber shall adjudicate on employment-related disputes between a
futsal club and a futsal player that have an international dimension.
3.
As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is the competent body to
decide on the present litigation involving a Xx futsal club and an Yy futsal player
regarding allegedly outstanding compensation for breach of contract in
connection with an employment contract.
4.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber analyzed which edition of the
Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber referred, on the one hand,
to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players
(edition 2005) and, on the other hand, to the fact that the relevant contract at the
basis of the present dispute was signed on 6 June 2004 and the claim was lodged
at FIFA on 6 March 2006. In view of the aforementioned, the Chamber concluded
that the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2005,
hereinafter; the Regulations) are applicable on the case at hand as to the
substance.
5.
Entering into the substance of the matter the members of the Chamber
acknowledged the documentation contained in the file, and in view of the
circumstances of the matter at stake, focused its considerations on the question
whether an unjustified breach of the employment contract signed between the
Claimant and the Respondent occurred and, in the affirmative, which party is
responsible for such breach of contract and to verify and decide concerning the
financial consequences of the possible unjustified breach of the employment
contract.
6.
In this regard, the members of the Chamber started by taking note that the
Claimant accuses the Respondent of having prematurely terminated the
employment contract the two parties signed by not presenting himself at the
Claimant’s training facilities for the start of the season 2005/2006. The Claimant
deems that the Respondent thereby breached the employment contract without
Futsal Club X, Xx / Futsal Player Y, Yy
3
just cause and is liable to pay compensation as per the penalty clause stipulated in
the relevant contract in the amount of EUR 70,000.
7.
On the other hand, the members of the Chamber noted the Respondent’s
objections towards the allegations of the Claimant, while maintaining that it was
in fact the Claimant that advised him to seek a new club at the end of the first
season. Moreover, the Respondent maintains that the Claimant had released him
from any engagement and also renounced to claim any financial compensation in
future. In order to corroborate his statements, the Respondent submitted a
document to the Dispute Resolution Chamber bearing the date 6 June 2005 and
the signatures of the Claimant’s president and secretary.
8.
In this respect, in accordance with the contents of the said letter, it was observed
by the Chamber that the Claimant literally covenanted that the Respondent is free
from any contractual obligations towards the Claimant.
9.
Having duly studied this document, the deciding body reached the conclusion that
this document must be considered as a waiver duly signed by the Claimant. That is,
by signing the said Declaration, which refers to the contractual relationship the
parties entered into, the Claimant waived all rights that it may have towards the
Respondent on the basis of the relevant employment contract in future.
10.
The Chamber could not grasp how the Claimant could have signed this Declaration
should it have been convinced of the alleged fact that the Respondent had
breached the employment contract signed between the parties.
11.
Furthermore, the deciding authority felt strengthen in its appreciation of the
circumstances at the basis of the present dispute by the fact that the Claimant,
after having been provided with the Respondent’s position and in particular the
pertinent document dated 6 June 2005, failed to submit any further
communication in this affair.
12.
On account of all the above, the members of the Chamber unanimously concluded
that the employment contract signed between the Claimant and the Respondent
was terminated by mutual agreement on the occasion of the signing of the letter
dated 6 June 2005.
13.
As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that the claim put
forward by the Claimant has to be rejected.
Futsal Club X, Xx / Futsal Player Y, Yy
4
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, futsal club X, is rejected.
2.
According to art. 61 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes this decision may be appealed
before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be
sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receiving notification of this decision and
has to contain all elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by
the CAS, copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the
expiry of the time limit for the filing of the statement of appeal, the appellant
shall file with the CAS a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to
the appeal (cf. point 4 of the directives).
The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:
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
General Secretary
Encl: CAS directives
Futsal Club X, Xx / Futsal Player Y, Yy
5