Labour Disputes
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 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 6 January 2008, the player from country B, Player A (hereafter: the player), and
the club from country D, Club C (hereafter: the club), signed a “civil contract”, an
agreement “of unspecified length, with a duration ranging from 06.01.2008 to
30.05.2008”. The agreement states that “the present contract does not generate
employment relations”. An accompanying “Financial Annex” signed between the
parties stipulated that the player will receive EUR 8,000 per month. Additionally
the aforementioned annex stipulated that the club would provide 2 plane tickets
for him and his wife. The agreement also contains a clause (cf. clause 17.2) relating
to the settlement of disputes, which states that the dispute “shall be submitted to
the jurisdiction of the competent sports courts of the Football Federation of
country D and/or Professional Football League of country D.”
2.
On 23 April 2008, the player submitted a claim against the club to FIFA. The player
stated that the agreement between him and the club had been signed after he
had spent a period of time training with the club at their training camp in country
E. Additionally the player alleges to have terminated his existing contract with the
club from country E, Club F, by mutual consent in order to sign with the club from
country D. According to the player, the club had ordered him to stay in country E,
while the rest of the team flew back to country D. The player states that he then
contacted the club via a letter, dated 11 February 2008 but apparently sent on 13
February 2008, to request that the club transfer the required amount of money for
him to purchase the plane tickets, in order to travel to country D, giving a
deadline of 19 February 2008. The player apparently received no reply and thus
terminated the contract apparently via an undated letter.
3.
The player also provided a copy of a correspondence apparently sent by the club
to him, undated (appears to have been sent 17 March 2008). According to said
correspondence, the club states that the player’s previous club, Club F, had not
“released your contract in due time (29 January 2008), therefore not allowing the
issuance of your Green Card from the Portuguese Football Federation, and Club F
did not sign with our club a temporary assignment contract regarding you”. As a
result there was no valid employment contract registered with the Football
Federation of country D. Furthermore, still according to the letter in question, the
club had booked a plane ticket to country D for the player and paid the player
EUR 5,000 as remuneration for his time at the training camp (this is rejected by the
player in his subsequent reply to the club on 18 March 2008).
4.
Therefore, the player requests the outstanding salaries for the entire duration of
the contract (5 months) which amount to EUR 40,000, plus EUR 10,000 for “moral
damages” as well as disciplinary sanctions against the club.
5.
On 19 May 2008, the club provided FIFA with its first position, and rejected the
player’s claims on the following grounds:
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
2/12
-
-
-
-
-
-
the agreement reached between the player and the club was an “accord of
principal” which would only become valid once the player presented himself
in country D.
the club had booked a plane ticket from country E to country D via country G
(the ticket provided has no passenger name or date and appears to be going
in the opposite direction from country G to country E).
The player never presented himself at the airport in country B, or in country
D. As a result the agreement was never registered with the league or the
Football Federation of country D and the International Transfer Certificate
(ITC) for the player never requested.
This refusal to present himself combined with “difficulties the club went
through for his borrowing from Club F from country E” meant that the club
considered the “accord of principle” to be “nul and void”.
The signed document does not have the stamp of the club or a registration
number and is therefore not a valid employment contract. It is “merely an act
of will” between the parties.
Any litigation between a player and a club is to be dealt with by the Football
Federation of country D.
6.
On 3 April 2009 the player provided his response and rejected all of the club’s
arguments:
- The agreement signed between the parties was a valid labour contract and
not merely an “accord of principle”.
- The agreement does not state that it only becomes valid once the player has
presented himself in country D.
- The allegation that the club had provided travel plane tickets in order to
travel to country D is false as he was told to stay in country E. Additionally
the player sent the aforementioned letter of 11 February 2008 requesting
that the club arrange his travel.
- He had terminated his contract by mutual consent with his previous club,
Club F, prior to signing the contract with the club from country D, thus
rejecting the allegation of “problems” associated with “borrowing” the
player from the club from country E.
- The player is not responsible for irregularities of the signed contract (i.e. no
stamp or registration number).
- If the club never registered the player or the agreement with the Football
Federation of country D then the Football Federation of country D is not
competent to deal with the dispute.
7.
On 14 May 2009, the club provided its final position and maintained its previous
stance. The club claimed that the appropriate regulations of The Football
Federation of country D state that “if within 45 days since the execution, the clubs
fail to record the contracts concluded with the players, appendices, addenda or
transfer agreement to the relevant authorities, these document lose their validity
as far as players’ legitimacy or transfer is concerned”. The club did not provide an
original copy of the aforementioned regulations however maintains that
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
3/12
therefore, there exists no legally binding relationship between the parties as a
result of the player’s failure to appear in country D. The club also alleges that the
real reason for the player not appearing in country D was a conflict between him
and the coach.
8.
As requested by FIFA, on 4 September 2009 the Football Federation of country D,
provided copies of its regulations and statutes which governed its national dispute
resolution system, its jurisdiction, composition and procedure.
9.
According to art. 8 of the Agreement between the Football Federation of country
D and the Professional Football League, any disputes involving exclusively the
clubs that take part in the 1st League National Championship competition and
their players, shall be solved solely by the Professional Football League (PFL)
jurisdictional bodies. According to art. 13 the Agreement will be in full force and
effect for the period 10 June 2009 until 30 June 2010.
10.
In accordance with art. 26.1 of the Football Federation of country D’s Regulations
on the Status and Transfer of Football Players (Football Federation of country D
Regulations), disputes at the first instance NDRC of the PFL can be appealed to the
PFL Review Commission. Subsequently decisions of the PFL Review Commission
may be appealed to CAS. Art. 26.2 of the Football Federation of country D
Regulations states that the NDRC has competence to solve “disputes regarding the
construing, enforcement and performance of the contractual clauses in the
contracts executed between clubs and players, as well as regarding the
maintenance of contractual stability.”
11.
According to art. 26.5 of the Football Federation of country D Regulations, the
NDRC of the Football Federation of country D is composed of a chairman and a
deputy chairman who are chosen by consensus by the representatives of players
and of clubs from a list prepared by the Football Federation of country D
Executive Committee, plus three player representatives and three club
representatives. Art 26.6.3 of the Football Federation of country D Regulations
states that the panels shall always include an equal number of members
representing the clubs and the players.
12.
Furthermore, according art. 26.8 of the Football Federation of country D
Regulations, the competence for solving disputes and cases involving “only clubs
that participate in the First National League Championship and their officials,
players and coaches”, shall be determined exclusively by the jurisdictional bodies
of the PFL, i.e. the NDRC of the PFL. The NDRC of the PFL shall be composed of 5
members, two acting as chairman and deputy chairman. The nominal composition
of the NDRC of the PFL and the PFL review Commission is approved by the PFL
Executive Committee, for a one-year mandate. No further information regarding
the composition of the NDRC of the PFL or the PFL review Commission is provided
within the documents.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
4/12
13.
Art. 39.1 of the Football Federation of country D Regulations states that “any case
that has been brought to the Football Federation of country D/PFL/CFA
jurisdictional commissions before these regulations come into force shall be
assessed according to the previous regulations”. Art. 39.2 of the Football
Federation of country D Regulations states that all cases be assessed according to
these regulations with the exception of disputes regarding training compensation,
solidarity mechanism and labour disputes relating to contracts signed before
September 2001. Art. 41 states that the Football Federation of country D
Regulations have been approved by the Football Federation of country D
Executive Committee on 22 June 2009, however no enforcement date is given.
14.
On 10 August 2012, the player confirmed that he had not signed a contract with
any other club between January and May of 2008.
15.
On 10 August 2012, the player again rejected that the NDRC of the Football
Federation of country D is competent, particularly because the procedural rules
provided by the Football Federation of country D came into force after the claim
was submitted by the player. Furthermore, the player insists that the club has
admitted to having never registered the contract in question with the Football
Federation of country D.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter referred to as the DRC or
the Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at
stake. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA
on 25 May 2010. Consequently, the previous edition of the Rules Governing the
Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber
(edition 2008; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at
hand (cf. art. 21 par. 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. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (edition 2012) the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall adjudicate on
employment-related disputes between a club and a player that have an
international dimension.
3.
As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber would, in principle, be the
competent body to decide on the present litigation involving a player from
country B and a club from country D regarding an apparent breach of an
employment contract concluded between the parties. The Chamber did, however,
acknowledge that the matter of competence was contested by one of the parties,
and recognised that it would have to return to the issue for further deliberation at
a later stage of the considerations. Subsequently, the Chamber analysed which
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
5/12
edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players would be
applicable as to the substance of the matter, should the Chamber eventually
conclude that it was the competent body. In this respect, the Chamber noted that
the present claim was lodged on 23 April 2008 and therefore deemed that the
2008 edition of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter:
the Regulations) which came into force on 1 January 2008, is applicable to the
matter at hand as to the substance.
4.
In continuation, the members of the Chamber highlighted that, from the outset,
there does not seem to be any disagreement between the parties as to the fact
that the terms of the agreement were not performed by the Respondent –
specifically, that the Respondent did not pay the Claimant the remuneration
stipulated in the agreement. The Chamber acknowledged that the Respondent
rather contests, first the validity of the agreement signed between the parties,
stating that it was an “accord of principal” or “merely an act of will” rather than
an employment contract; and secondly the competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies
to decide on the matter, on the basis of clause 17.2 of the agreement, alleging
that only the deciding bodies of the Football Federation of country D and/or the
PFL were competent to deal with the present case.
5.
In order to proceed, the Chamber deemed that it must first establish whether the
agreement signed between the Claimant and the Respondent was indeed a valid
employment contract. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the alleged
employment contract stated that, “the present agreement does not generate
employment relations”, however the Chamber also observed that the document
appeared to contain all the essentialia negotii of a valid contract establishing an
employment relationship between the two parties in question. In particular, the
Chamber noted that the document was signed by the relevant parties, it
stipulated a duration of validity, the services, obligations and rights of the parties
were established, and the remuneration in exchange for the Claimant’s services
was also specified. Consequently, the Chamber emphasised that while the
document itself states that it does not generate employment relations between
the parties, the contents therein appear to establish exactly such a relationship.
6.
In this regard, the Chamber, noted, in particular, that the Respondent insisted that
the agreement had not been registered with the league or the Football
Federation of country D and did not bear the stamp of the club. In this respect,
the Chamber recalled the well establish jurisprudence of the Dispute Resolution
Chamber according to which failure to register an employment agreement with a
member association does not render such an agreement invalid. Equally, the
Chamber clarified that a contract does not require to be stamped in order to be
valid, the stamp not being a formal prerequisite.
7.
Therefore the Chamber deemed that the document concluded between the
parties was a valid employment contract.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
6/12
8.
Having established the existence and the validity of the employment contract
concluded between the parties, the Chamber next returned to the matter of
jurisdiction. In particular, the Chamber noted that, on the one hand, the
Respondent declared that the agreement signed between the parties contained a
provision in which it is clearly stipulated that disputes arising from the agreement
should be dealt with by the competent “sports courts” of the Football Federation
of country D or Professional Football League of country D. On the other hand, the
Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant contested the competence of the
deciding bodies of the Football Federation of country D and PFL and insisted on
the fact that FIFA has jurisdiction to deal with the present matter.
9.
Taking into account the above, the Chamber acknowledged the existence of a
clause in the employment contract referring the parties to the relevant bodies of
the Football Federation of country D and PFL for the settlement of disputes.
However, the Chamber pointed out that the arbitration clause in question was not
very clear as to which of the two relevant bodies was to deal with disputes
concerning the Respondent. In continuation, the Chamber emphasised that in
accordance with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players it is competent to deal with a matter such as the one at hand, unless an
independent arbitration tribunal, guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting
the principle of equal representation of players and clubs, has been established at
national level within the framework of the association and/or a collective
bargaining agreement. With regard to the standards to be imposed on an
independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings, the Chamber
referred to the FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20 December 2005. In this regard, the
members of the Chamber further referred to the principles contained in the FIFA
National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations, which came
into force on 1 January 2008.
10.
In this respect, the Chamber turned its attention to the principle of equal
representation of players and clubs and underlined that this principle was one of
the very fundamental elements to be fulfilled, in order for a national dispute
resolution chamber to be recognised as such. Indeed, this prerequisite is
mentioned in the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, in the Circular
no. 1010 as well as in art. 3 par. 1 of the NDRC Regulations, which illustrates the
aforementioned principle as follows: “The NDRC shall be composed of the
following members, who shall serve a four-year renewable mandate: a) a
chairman and a deputy chairman chosen by consensus by the player and club
representatives (…); b) between three and ten player representatives who are
elected or appointed either on proposal of the players’ associations affiliated to
FIFPro, or, where no such associations exist, on the basis of a selection process
agreed by FIFA and FIFPro; c) between three and ten club representatives (…).” In
this respect, the FIFA Circular no. 1010 states the following: “The parties must
have equal influence over the appointment of arbitrators. This means for example
that every party shall have the right to appoint an arbitrator and the two
appointed arbitrators appoint the chairman of the arbitration tribunal (…). Where
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
7/12
arbitrators are to be selected from a predetermined list, every interest group that
is represented must be able to exercise equal influence over the compilation of
the arbitrator list”.
11.
In view of the above, the Chamber went on to examine the documentation
presented by the Football Federation of country D. In this respect, the Chamber
noted that in accordance with art. 13 of the Agreement between the Football
Federation of country D and the PFL, said agreement would come into force on 10
June 2009 – approximately 18 months after the employment agreement between
the parties was concluded, and over a year after the Claimant submitted his claim
for breach of contract. Similarly the Chamber observed that in accordance with
art. 62 of the Statutes of the Football Federation of country D, said Statutes would
only come into force on 1 July 2009. Finally, the Chamber noted that art. 41.1 of
the Football Federation of country D Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players states that said Regulations were only approved by the Football Federation
of country D Executive Committee on 22 June 2009. Consequently, the Chamber
emphasised that none of the Statutes and Regulations provided by the Football
Federation of country D appeared to be applicable to the case at hand.
12.
Nevertheless, for the sake of completeness, the members of the Chamber went on
to consider the content of the documents provided by the Football Federation of
country D in any case. The Chamber first acknowledged the fact that two deciding
bodies, at first instance, appeared to exist in country D at national level, i.e. the
NDRC of the Football Federation of country D and the NDRC of the PFL, and the
Chamber deemed it appropriate to analyse both deciding bodies in relation to the
minimum requirements as stated in art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players.
13.
In continuation, the Chamber analysed the respective jurisdiction of the two
aforesaid deciding bodies and noted that, whereas the NDRC of the Football
Federation of country D is competent inter alia to decide on disputes concerning
“the construing, enforcement and performance of the contractual clauses in the
contracts executed between clubs and players, as well as regarding the
maintenance of contractual stability” (art. 26.2 of the Football Federation of
country D Regulations), the NDRC of the PFL is “exclusively” competent to solve
disputes “involving only clubs that participate in the First League National
Championship, and their officials, players and coaches” (art. 26.8 of the Football
Federation of country D Regulations).
14.
On account of the above, the Chamber was eager to point out that, in view of the
Regulations of the Football Federation of country D, the respective jurisdiction of
these two deciding bodies of country D did not appear to depend on the nature
of the dispute but rather on the participation of the club involved in a possible
dispute in the “First League National Championship” or not. On a side note, the
Chamber was eager to point out that the frame of jurisdiction of the NDRC of the
PFL – contrary to the frame of jurisdiction of the NDRC of the Football Federation
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
8/12
of country D - was not clearly defined by the Football Federation of country D
Regulations, art. 26.8 of the Football Federation of country D Regulations.
15.
The Chamber, observing that the Respondent appears to have been participating
in the “First League National Championship” continuously for a number of years,
extending back long before the contract between the parties was ever signed,
deemed that, of the two bodies, the NDRC of the PFL appears to be the body most
likely to have jurisdiction over the matter, if at all. Consequently, the Chamber
drew its attention to the composition of said body.
16.
The Chamber observed that art. 26.8 in fine of the Football Federation of country
D Regulations stipulates that the NDRC of the PFL – and its appeal body – is
composed of “five members, two of them acting as chairman and deputy
chairman, respectively. The nominal composition of the NDRC of the PFL and the
PFL Review Commission [the appeal body] is approved by the PFL Executive
Committee, for one-year mandate.”
17.
In view of this, the members of the Chamber were of the unanimous opinion that
the NDRC of the PFL did not fulfill one of the conditionae sine qua non stipulated
in art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players - and
illustrated in art. 3 par. 1 of the FIFA NDRC Regulations -, being that the national
independent arbitration tribunal needs to respect the principle of equal
representation between players and clubs. Indeed, the Chamber highlighted that,
since the NDRC of the PFL was composed of five members as follows: one
chairman, one deputy chairman and three members, whose nominations shall be
approved by the Executive Committee of the PFL exclusively, said arbitration
tribunal was not composed of an equal number of players’ and clubs’
representatives or, in light of the documentation provided, did not appear to be.
Furthermore, the members of the NDRC of the PFL were elected for a one year
mandate only. In addition, it shall also be underlined that no players’ trade union
appears to be involved or to have any influence on the nomination of any
members who could possibly act as players’ representatives. In that respect, the
Chamber emphasised that a players’ association apparently exists in country D,
since, according to art. 26.5 of the Football Federation of country D Regulations,
the “Association of Amateur and non-amateur Football Players” proposes the
appointment of members, who will sit as players’ representatives within the NDRC
of the Football Federation of country D.
18.
On account of all the above, taking into consideration that the Claimant does not
appear to have been registered at the Football Federation of country D at any
point, it is undisputed that the relevant ITC was never requested and thus the
relevant Regulations of country D are rather not applicable to the matter at stake,
the Chamber therefore established that the Respondent’s objection towards the
competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected, and that
the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent, on the basis of art. 22 lit. b) of the
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
9/12
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, to consider the present matter
as to the substance.
19.
Its competence Chamber having finally been definitively established, the Chamber
took note of the further arguments brought forward by the Respondent as to the
non-execution of the relevant agreement, and noted the Respondent’s allegation
that the agreement would only become “valid” once the player arrived in Country
D, which he failed to do, despite the Respondent having apparently completed
the necessary travel arrangements on his behalf.
20.
In this regard, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance with the financial
annex of the agreement, the club was obliged to provide flight tickets for the
Claimant to travel from country E to country D. In particular, the Chamber also
deemed that the Respondent, in arguing that it had in fact provided such flight
tickets, appeared to accept that this obligation existed.
21.
However, the Chamber noted that the copy of the tickets provided by the
Respondent contained no passenger name and appeared to be for a flight
departing from country G and arriving in country B. Consequently, the Chamber,
recalling the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of
the Procedural Rules, deemed that the Respondent had not proven that it had, in
fact, arranged the Claimant’s travel to country D as claimed.
22.
Furthermore, the Chamber also emphasised that the Respondent had made no
effort to initiate the registration procedure in order for the Football Federation of
country D to request the relevant ITC from the association of the Claimant’s
former club, a fact that was acknowledged by the Respondent.
23.
This led the Chamber to conclude that the Respondent was liable for the failure to
execute the terms of the employment contract without just cause.
24.
The Chamber next considered the matter of the calculation of the amount of
compensation to be paid by the Respondent for the non-execution, i.e. the breach
of the relevant contract. In doing so, the members of the Chamber firstly
recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, 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
Claimant 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.
25.
In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to
clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contains a provision by
means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
10/12
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, and in any case, such a clause was never invoked by either of the parties.
26.
Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of
the monies payable to the player under the terms of the employment contract and
concluded that the Claimant would have received a total remuneration of EUR
40,000 had the contract been executed until its expiry date.
27.
In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber, 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.
However, in this respect, the Chamber observed that the Claimant did not sign a
new employment contract during the period between January and May 2008.
28.
In continuation, the Chamber also considered it important to point out that,
although the employment contract was fully valid and enforceable, the execution
of the contract actually never started, an element which equally should be taken
into consideration in the calculation of the amount of compensation.
29.
While it had already been established that the Respondent was liable for the nonexecution of the contract, the Chamber also deemed that it had to consider the
actions of the Claimant, which would appear to have at least contributed to the
non-execution of the contract, albeit to a lesser extent.
30.
In this respect, the Chamber emphasised that while the Respondent had made no
payments whatsoever to the Claimant, in accordance with the contract, or
provided the relevant flight tickets to the Claimant, at the same time the Claimant
appeared to have made very little effort to render his services to the Respondent.
The Chamber stated that while the contractual obligation to provide flight tickets
appeared to rest with the Respondent, it would also not have been unreasonable
for a player, with a genuine interest in joining a particular club, to have
proactively sought to organise his own travel arrangements in order to join the
new club as soon as possible.
31.
Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay
the Claimant the amount of EUR 15,000 which was to be considered a reasonable
and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract without just cause in
the matter at hand.
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
11/12
32.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter
by establishing that any further claim filed by the Claimant is rejected.
*****
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the
date of notification of this decision, compensation for breach of contract
amounting to EUR 15,000.
4.
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 until the date of effective payment and the
present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary
Committee for consideration and a formal decision.
5.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
6.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent 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.
*****
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
12/12
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
Player A, Country B / Club C, Country D
13/12