Training Compensation
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 18 December 2012,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member
Philippe Diallo (France), member
on the claim presented by the club,
Club V, from country A
as Claimant
against the club,
Club D, from country S
as Respondent
regarding training compensation in connection with the player
Player C
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to country A Football Association, the Player C, from country A
(hereinafter: the player), born in June 1987, was registered with the Club S,
from country A (hereinafter: the Claimant), from 1 March 1999 until 24 June
2008 as an amateur, and from 25 June 2008 until 12 August 2008 as well as
from 7 April 2009 until 2 July 2009 as a professional.
2.
The country A Football Association also confirmed that the player was
registered with its affiliated Club P on a loan basis from 13 August 2008 until 6
April 2009 as a professional.
3.
The football season in country A for amateurs follows the calendar year, this is,
it starts in January and ends in December of each year. For professionals the
football season in country A starts on 1 July and ends on 30 June of the
following year.
4.
According to the country S Football Association, the player was registered with
its affiliated Club D (hereinafter: the Respondent) on 20 July 2009 as a
professional player.
5.
The country S Football Association also confirmed that the Respondent
belonged to category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year) at the time
the player was registered with the Respondent.
6.
On 14 October 2009, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA requesting
the payment of training compensation from the Respondent. In particular, the
Claimant requested EUR 400,000 plus default interest rate of 5% p.a.
calculated from 21 August 2009.
7.
The Respondent rejected the claim in its reply dated 14 January 2011, stating
that the country A Football Association, at the moment of the transfer,
provided the country S Football Association with a player passport which
disclosed the player’s first registration date with the Claimant being 11 March
2005 and thus not 1 March 1999.
8.
In this respect, the Respondent provided a statement signed by the player,
affirming that he began playing with the Claimant in “early 2005 as an
amateur […] and had absolutely no joins or contracts with Club V (the
Claimant) before joining the club in 2005”. Therefore, according to the
Respondent, no training compensation should be payable, because of “there
having been a misrepresentation by the Claimant of the playing history in
order to increase the level of training compensation”. The Respondent added
Training Compensation for the Player C
(Club V, from country A / Club D, from country S)
2/14
that the player was no longer employed by it at the time of giving the
statement and, thus, owed no obligation to the Respondent.
9.
Moreover, the Respondent pointed out that the player was registered as a
professional with Club P before being registered again for the Claimant and
that, therefore, the chain of registrations for transfer compensation purposes
was broken by the player’s registration with Club P. Hence, the player’s
registration as a professional with the Claimant from 7 April 2009 until 3 July
2009 would be “the only potentially relevant period for payment of training
compensation”. However, the Respondent asserted that the statement of the
player confirmed that during said period of time, he did not receive any
training.
10.
In addition, the Respondent enclosed a copy of the termination agreement of
the employment contract, signed by the Claimant and the player, according to
which “both parties declare that they have nothing to claim mutually by any
concept or matter inherent to the employment contract that would bind both
and by this act is no longer applicable”. The Respondent claimed that, with
this declaration, the Claimant had discharged any right to seek payment of
training compensation. Equally, the Respondent argued that the player was
not registered with the Respondent during or at the end of the player’s
contract, but that said registration took place on a date following the end of
the player’s contract and that, therefore, no training compensation is payable.
11.
Furthermore, the Respondent submitted a copy of the country I passport of the
player and asserted that due to his European Union (EU) citizenship and by
entering a “host” Member State to take up employment, he is entitled to all of
the rights and protections of EU law. In this respect, the Respondent referred
to, and presented, several decisions of the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
12.
The Respondent concluded that, in view of all the above, no training
compensation should be payable, since a) no contract was offered to the
player by the Claimant, according to art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Player (hereinafter: the Regulations);
b) the player and the Claimant mutually “agreed to waive and discharge all
claims, including claims for training compensation”, and c) with regards to art.
5 par. 4 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations: “no training compensation should be
payable or any amount payable should be adjusted as disproportionate given
the circumstances of this case”.
13.
Finally, the Respondent held that, if in any event training compensation is due,
the period of registration of the player to be taken into consideration “should
be the time during 2009, approximately 3 months, […] the earliest date from
Training Compensation for the Player C
(Club V, from country A / Club D, from country S)
3/14
which training compensation could be calculated should be 11 March 2005”
and “it should be based on the average of the training costs relevant to the
Claimant and the Respondent”.
14.
In its response thereto, the Claimant alleged that the special provisions in the
Regulations for the EU/EEA, exclusively apply to transfers within the territory
of the EU/EEA, which are independent of the player’s nationality. In this
respect, the Claimant referred to the CAS jurisprudence (CAS 2009/A/XXXX
Club W v/ Club E), which states that “There is therefore no reason to depart
from the unambiguous wording of art. 6 annex 4 to the FIFA regulations which
is obviously not applicable in the case of a player moving from a country
outside the EU/EEA to a country within the EU/EEA”.
15.
Furthermore, the Claimant pointed out that the Respondent should prove the
alleged disproportion of the claimed training compensation to the effective
costs of the training of the player.
16.
Finally, and regarding the discrepancies of the player passport issued by the
country A Football Association, the Claimant referred to a decision taken by
the Dispute Resolution Chamber on 23 October 2009, which stated that “…the
Chamber […] did not see any valid reason to suppose that the aforementioned
dates of registration, which were confirmed by the Football Association of R,
would be incorrect…The respondent did not provide any evidence at all that
the registration dates mentioned in the player passport provided by the
Football Association of R would be inaccurate”. Therefore, according to the
Claimant, the player’s statement, enclosed to the Respondent’s
correspondence, would not support the allegation of the invalidity of the
passport.
17.
In its duplica, the Respondent made reference to Article 39 of the EU Treaty,
which “accords workers the right to move freely within the territory of
member states in order to accept offers of employment actually made” and
“lays down a general prohibition against discrimination in respect of such
workers as regards employment, remuneration or other conditions of work or
employment”.
18.
Moreover, the Respondent contested the jurisprudence of the Court of
Arbitration for Sport in relation to the freedom of movement, referred to
several decisions of the ECJ and emphasized that in the “Bosman” judgement
it was established that “rules laid down by sport governing bodies, which
would include the Player Regulations with which this case is concerned,
required to be examined […], in accordance with the provisions of Article 39
and the 1968 Regulations”.
Training Compensation for the Player C
(Club V, from country A / Club D, from country S)
4/14
19.
Once again, the Respondent underlined that the player holds the Italian
nationality, therefore being a “Community Citizen”. Hence, he would be
entitled to the rights and protection given to him by Article 39 and the 1968
Regulation.
20.
Moreover, the Respondent deemed that the requirement to pay training
compensation would be considered as a barrier to the employment of the
player and, while referring to the training compensation “regime” in the
country U, stressed that there is “manifest and substantial discrimination”
comparing the circumstances of the player to another player in country U in
respect of whom no compensation would be payable.
21.
Furthermore, the Respondent pointed out that art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations only addresses issues related to the transfer of players within
different Member States and omits issues of an EU citizen being transferred
from outside the EU to a club within the EU, which is why article 39 and the
1968 Regulation should be applicable.
22.
Therefore, either art. 6 of Annexe 4 applies in this case, which would result to
no liability to pay training compensation or otherwise “the DRC must apply
[…] all the relevant provisions of the 2008 regulations on the basis that they
are not consistent with Article 39 and the 1968 Regulation”.
23.
Moreover, the Respondent asserted that the player passport, provided by the
country A Football Association at the moment of registration with the country
S club, confirmed a registration in 2005, which was the documentation
considered by the Respondent, which is why it would be “invidious if the Club
were to be held liable for training compensation in relation to a period not
disclosed to the Respondent on the Player Passport when the Player was first
engaged by the Respondent”.
24.
Finally, the Respondent underlined that it would have never registered such a
young and unproven player, who only played for one season for the
Respondent, knowing that they would have been liable to pay training
compensation. In this respect, two witness statements were submitted, one of
the former manager and one of the secretary of the Respondent.
Training Compensation for the Player C
(Club V, from country A / Club D, from country S)
5/14
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as the
Chamber or DRC) analyzed whether it was competent to deal with the case at
hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to
FIFA on 14 October 2009. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of
the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber, edition
2008 (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf.
art. 21 par. 2 and 3 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 in
combination with art. 22 lit. (d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer
of Players (edition 2012), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal
with the matter at stake relating to training compensation between clubs
belonging to different associations.
3.
Furthermore, 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 (editions 2009, 2010 and 2012), and considering that the present claim
was lodged on 14 October 2009 as well as that the player was registered with
the Respondent on 20 July 2009, the 2008 edition of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players (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. The
members of the Chamber started by acknowledging the facts of the case as
well as the documentation on file.
5.
First of all, the Chamber recalled that the player was born on 6 June 1987 and,
according to a confirmation of the country A Football Association, was
registered with the Claimant as from 1 March 1999 until 24 June 2008 as an
amateur, and from 25 June 2008 until 12 August 2008 as well as from 7 April
2009 until 2 July 2009 as a professional. Equally, the Chamber recalled that the
Respondent however disputed the validity of the information provided by the
country A Football Association, indicating that, at an earlier stage, it was
provided with a different player passport containing other registration details.
Finally, the DRC noted that both player passports indicated that the player was
loaned to Club P between 13 August 2008 and 6 April 2009.
Training Compensation for the Player C
(Club V, from country A / Club D, from country S)
6/14
6.
In continuation, the Chamber took note that the Claimant maintained that it is
entitled to receive training compensation from the Respondent in the amount
of EUR 400,000 plus 5% default interest, indicating that the player was
transferred internationally as a professional from the Claimant to the
Respondent before the end of the season of the player’s 23rd birthday.
7.
Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Respondent rejected the claim of
the Claimant, arguing that the player was a citizen of the EU and therefore the
special provisions for the transfers of players within the EU/EEA, contained in
the Regulations, had not been complied with, as the Claimant did not offer
any contract to the player.
8.
Equally, the members of the Chamber took note that the Respondent invoked
article 39 of the EU Treaty as well as several decisions of the European Court of
Justice (ECJ), in particular the decision “Bosman” of the ECJ.
9.
In this regard, the members of the Chamber noted that the Respondent
pointed out that art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations only addresses issues
related to the transfer of players within different Member States and omits
issues of an EU citizen being transferred from outside the EU/EEA to a club
within the EU/EEA.
10.
In this respect, the Chamber remarked that the nationality of the player is
actually irrelevant with regard to the applicability of art. 6 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations. Said provision is limited to a well-defined geographic scope of the
associations between which the player is being transferred, this is, it is limited
to players moving from one association to another inside the territory of the
EU/EEA. Since country A is neither a member of the European Union (EU), nor
of the European Economic Area (EEA), the Chamber found it evident that art.
6 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations does not apply in the present case as lex
specialis. Hence, the Respondent cannot invoke non-compliance of the
Claimant with art. 6 of Annexe 4 and all arguments presented by the
Respondent in this respect are therefore rejected by the Chamber.
11.
In continuation, the Chamber noted that the Respondent held that the player
and the Claimant had signed a termination agreement waiving its right to
claim anything from the other party, and that the Respondent alleged that the
registration of the player with the Respondent did not take place either during
or at the end of the player’s contract.
12.
In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasize that, according to art. 2
par. 1 lit. ii) of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the transfer of the player can take
place either during or at the end of his contract. Thus, the members of the
Training Compensation for the Player C
(Club V, from country A / Club D, from country S)
7/14
Chamber highlighted the fact that the wording “at the end of the player’s
contract” includes that the relevant transfer of the player can occur after the
expiry, mutual or justified termination of the player’s previous employment
contract, without the training club losing its entitlement to training
compensation.
13.
Likewise, and referring to the assertion of the Respondent that the Claimant
had waived and discharged all claims, including claims for training
compensation, by means of the termination agreement it had signed with the
player, the Chamber pointed out that the pertinent agreement did i) not
explicitly stipulate that the Claimant would waive its entitlement to training
compensation, ii) merely indicated that the Claimant and the player would no
longer have any claim towards each other in relation to the employment
contract previously concluded between them, and iii) that said agreement was
concluded between the Claimant and the player and not between the
Claimant and the Respondent. As such, the Chamber considered that the
Respondent could not derive any rights from the relevant agreement and
deemed that said document could not be considered as a document by means
of which the Claimant had indeed waived its right to claim training
compensation from the Respondent.
14.
Having established the above, the Chamber referred to the rules applicable to
training compensation and stated that, as established in art. 20 of the
Regulations as well as in art. 1 par. 1 of Annexe 4 in combination with art. 2 of
Annexe 4 of the Regulations, training compensation is payable, as a general
rule, for training incurred between the ages of 12 and 21 when a player is
registered for the first time as a professional before the end of the season of
the player’s 23rd birthday or when a professional is transferred between clubs
of two different associations before the end of the season of the player’s 23 rd
birthday. In case the latter occurs, art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations sets forth that training compensation will only be owed to the
player’s former club for the time he was effectively trained by that club.
15.
In this respect, the Chamber recalled that the Respondent deemed that due to
the registration of the player as a professional with the country A club, Club P,
the “chain of registrations for transfer compensation purposes (…) was
broken”. Equally, the Chamber noted that, on this basis, the Respondent
argued that, if training compensation was payable, it would only be payable
for the period of the registration of the player with the Claimant between 7
April 2009 and 2 July 2009.
16.
Hence, the Chamber understood that the Respondent was of the opinion that
the Claimant is not entitled to any training compensation for the period of
Training Compensation for the Player C
(Club V, from country A / Club D, from country S)
8/14
time prior to the period of registration of the player with Club P, implying that
the transfer of the player from the Claimant to Club P constituted a
subsequent transfer of a professional and, consequently, deprived the
Claimant from its potential entitlement to training compensation for the
period of time prior to 7 April 2009.
17.
In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that the player was, between 13
August 2008 and 6 April 2009, registered as a professional with Club P,
however, considered it at the same time vital to underline that the player was
registered on a loan basis with Club P i.e. the player was loaned as a
professional by the Claimant to Club P and not transferred on a definitive basis
to Club P
18.
In view of the above, the Chamber referred to art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations,
which stipulates that professionals may be loaned to another club on the basis
of a written agreement between the professional and the clubs concerned.
Moreover, the last sentence of said article stipulates that any such loan is
subject to the same rules as apply to the transfer of players, including the
provisions on training compensation and the solidarity mechanism.
19.
Having said that, the Chamber, stressed that one of the aims of the last
sentence of art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations is to ensure that training clubs
which register a player on a loan basis also benefit from the solidarity
mechanism and training compensation, provided that the relevant
prerequisites in the pertinent provisions of the Regulations are fulfilled. This
approach is also in line with the Chamber’s well-established jurisprudence that
all clubs which have in actual fact contributed to the training and education of
a player as from the age of 12 until the age of 21 are, in principle, entitled to
training compensation for the timeframe that the player was effectively
trained by them.
20.
In this respect, the Chamber deemed it at this point essential to emphasise
that, as to the liability to pay training compensation, the analogy established
in art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations could not be extended to the case in which
a player is loaned to a club and thus is not being definitively transferred to the
latter club. In other words, the transfer of a player from the club of origin to
the club that accepts the player on loan, as well as the return of the player
from the club that accepted him on loan to the club of origin, do not
constitute a “subsequent transfer” in the sense of art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of
Annexe 4 of the Regulations. The Chamber was eager to point out that it
could not have been the intention of the legislator of the relevant regulatory
provision (i.e. art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulations) to trigger the consequences of
art. 3 par. 1 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations on the occasion of a transfer on a
Training Compensation for the Player C
(Club V, from country A / Club D, from country S)
9/14
loan basis and, thus, potentially deprive the loan of its essential flexibility and,
in connection with the training and education of players, its purpose of
providing young players with the opportunity to gain practical experience in
official matches for another club in order to develop in a positive way.
21.
What is more, and while recalling that art. 3 par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations stipulates that “In the case of subsequent transfers of the
professional, training compensation will only be owed to his former club for
the time he was effectively trained by that club”, the Chamber, once again
referring to its well-established jurisprudence, pointed out that, within the
framework of loans and for the purposes of the rules governing training
compensation, the period of time that the player was registered with Club P
on loan and the period of time that the player was registered with the
Claimant, should be considered as one entire timeframe.
22.
Hence, the Chamber came to the firm conclusion that for the purposes of the
provisions of the Regulations governing training compensation, the loan of a
young player from his club of origin to other clubs does not interrupt the
ongoing training period of the player and the obligation to pay training
compensation arises only in case a player is transferred on a definitive basis,
with the effect that, at that moment, the club which transferred the player on
a loan basis to another club is entitled to training compensation for the entire
period of time during which it effectively trained the player, however,
excluding the period of time of the loan.
23.
Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber reiterated that the loan of the
player from the Claimant to Club P cannot be considered to constitute a
subsequent transfer which would trigger the consequences stipulated in art. 3
par. 1 sent. 3 of Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
24.
Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the
Chamber concurred that it had to reject the Respondent’s argumentation in
relation to the registration of the player with Club P.
25.
On account of the above considerations, the Chamber decided that the
Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in
accordance with art. 20 and Annexe 4 of the Regulations.
26.
Turning its attention to the calculation of the training compensation payable
by the Respondent to the Claimant, the Chamber referred to the FIFA circular
no. 1185 dated 22 April 2009 which provides details for the calculation of
training compensation as well as to art. 5 par. 1 and par. 2 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations, which stipulate that as a general rule, to calculate the training
Training Compensation for the Player C
(Club V, from country A / Club D, from country S)
10/14
compensation due to a player’s former club, it is necessary to take the costs
that would have been incurred by the new club if it had trained the player
itself.
27.
In continuation, the Chamber took into account that according to the
documentation on file, the Respondent belonged to the category II and that
the player, born on 6 June 1987, was, according to a confirmation of the
country A Football Association, registered with the Claimant as from 1 March
1999 until 24 June 2008 as an amateur, and as from 25 June 2008 until 12
August 2008 as well as from 7 April 2009 until 2 July 2009 as a professional.
28.
Consequently, taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the
Chamber pointed out that, on the basis of the above-mentioned registration
details, the Claimant deemed it was entitled to the amount of EUR 400,000.
However, the Chamber noted that the Respondent, basing itself on a
previously issued player passport by the country A Football Association,
challenged this amount indicating that the first registration date of the player
with the Claimant was in March 2005, instead of March 1999, as held by the
Claimant and the second player passport issued by the country A Football
Federation. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber deemed it necessary to
examine the contradictory allegations of the parties regarding the first
registration date of the player with the Claimant.
29.
Accordingly, the members of the Chamber noted that the Respondent held
that, at the moment of the transfer of the player (i.e. July 2009), the country A
Football Federation provided the country S Football Association and thus, the
Respondent, with a player passport which indicated the player’s first
registration date with the Claimant as being 11 March 2005. Moreover, the
Chamber took note that, in contrast, when asked by FIFA to confirm the exact
first registration date of the player with the Claimant, the country A Football
Federation submitted a player passport which disclosed such first registration
date being 1 March 1999.
30.
In this respect, the Chamber, taking into consideration the arguments with
regards to the first registration date of the player set forth by the Respondent,
acknowledged the good faith of the Respondent when assuming that the first
registration date of the player with the Claimant was on 11 March 2005, as the
country A Football Federation had confirmed when issuing the relevant
International Transfer Certificate (ITC). The Chamber considered that there
were valid reasons for the Respondent to assume that the dates disclosed in
the player passport issued by the country A Football Federation at the time of
the transfer, were the correct dates. This is, the members of the Chamber
Training Compensation for the Player C
(Club V, from country A / Club D, from country S)
11/14
agreed on the good faith of the Respondent when interpreting the player
passport sent by the country A Football Federation.
Consequently, the Chamber duly noted that, according to the documentation
on file, it could be established that the player had been registered with the
Respondent on 20 July 2009, that the Respondent belonged to the club
category II (indicative amount of EUR 60,000 per year) and that the Claimant is
only entitled to training compensation for the period as from 11 March 2005
until 12 August 2008. Therefore, and while taking into account that due to
change of the player’s status from amateur to professional in June 2005 and
the subsequent change of the starting and ending dates of the seasons in
country A, the Claimant is entitled to training compensation for 10 months of
the season of the player’s 18th birthday and for the complete seasons of the
player’s 19th, 20th and 21st birthday, whereby, due to the earlier-mentioned
change of the season dates, the season of the player’s 21st birthday only lasted
6 months.
31.
Consequently, and in light of the above-mentioned considerations, the
Chamber decided to partially accept the Claimant’s claim and decided that the
Respondent is liable to pay training compensation to the Claimant in the
amount of EUR 230,000.
32.
Furthermore, for the sake of completeness, the Chamber referred to the
burden of proof contained in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, and
deemed that the Respondent had not provided any compelling evidence which
would support that the amount payable as training compensation was clearly
disproportional to the matter at hand (cf. art. 5 par. 4 of Annexe 4 of the
Regulations)
33.
Moreover, taking into consideration the Claimant’s claim as well as art. 3 par. 2
of Annexe 4 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Respondent has
to pay, in conformity with its longstanding practice, interest at 5% p.a. over
the amount payable as training compensation as of the 31st day of the
registration of the player with the Respondent, i.e. as of 21 August 2009, until
the date of effective payment.
34.
Lastly, the Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules,
according to which, in proceedings before the DRC relating to disputes
regarding training compensation costs in the maximum amount of currency of
country H 25’000 are levied. It is further stipulated that the costs are to be
borne in consideration of the parties’ degree of success in the proceedings and
that, in accordance with Annex A of the Procedural Rules, the costs of the
proceedings are to be levied on the basis of the amount in dispute.
Training Compensation for the Player C
(Club V, from country A / Club D, from country S)
12/14
35.
In respect of the above, the Chamber held that the amount to be taken into
consideration in the present proceedings is EUR 400,000 related to the claim of
the Claimant. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the maximum
amount of costs of the proceedings corresponds to currency of country H
25,000 (cf. table in Annex A).
36.
As a result, and taking into account that the claim of the Claimant has been
partially accepted as well as the complexity of the case, the Chamber
determined the costs of the current proceedings to the amount of currency of
country H 25,000, which shall be borne by the Respondent in the amount of
currency of country H 15,000 and by the Claimant in the amount of currency of
country H 10,000.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Club V, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club D, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from
the date of notification of this decision, the amount of EUR 230,000 plus
default interest of 5% p.a. on said amount as from 21 August 2009 until the
date of effective payment.
3.
In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest is not paid within the
stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to
FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.
4.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
5.
The final amount of costs of the proceedings in the amount of currency of
country H 25,000 are to be paid within 30 days as from the date of
notification of the present decision as follows:
5.1. The amount of currency of country H 15,000 has to be paid by the
Respondent to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to
case no.:
5.2. The amount of currency of country H 10,000 has to be paid by the
Claimant to FIFA. Given that the Claimant has already paid the amount
of currency of country H 5,000 as advance of costs at the start of the
present proceedings, the Claimant has to pay the amount of currency
of country H 5,000 to FIFA to the above-mentioned bank account with
reference to case no.
Training Compensation for the Player C
(Club V, from country A / Club D, from country S)
13/14
6.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of
the account number to which the remittance under point 2. above is to be
made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment
received.
*****
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
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:
Jérôme Valcke
Secretary General
Encl. CAS directives
Training Compensation for the Player C
(Club V, from country A / Club D, from country S)
14/14