Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 18 December 2014,
in the following composition:
Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman
Philippe Piat (France), member
Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member
on the claim presented by the player,
Player A, Country B,
as Claimant / Counter-Respondent
against the club,
Club C, Country D
as Respondent/Counter-Claimant
and the club,
Club E, Country B
as Intervening Party
regarding an employment-related dispute
arisen between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The Player A from Country B, (hereinafter: the Claimant/Counter-Respondent), and
Club C from country D (hereinafter: the Respondent/Counter-Claimant), concluded an
undated employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as from 5 August 2010
until 31 May 2012.
2.
Clause 2 of the contract provides for the payment of the following amounts to the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent:
Net minimum salary;
for the period between 1 August 2010 and 31 May 2011:
- EUR 30,000 as advance payment payable on 15 August 2010;
- EUR 50,000 to be paid in 10 monthly instalments of EUR 5,000 each between
August and May;
for the period between 1 June 2011 and 31 May 2012:
- EUR 40,000 as advance payment payable on 15 August 2011;
- EUR 60,000 to be paid in 10 monthly instalments of EUR 6,000 each between
August and May;
“Special Provisions”
EUR 50,000 as championship premium in case the club becomes champion in “this
season’’.
Finally, clause 2 states that “the total amount of the minimum salaries within the term
of the contract that has been written in the net monthly salary section of the contract,
the other payments of the contract that have been undertaken by the Club and the
way of payment, have been included within the Salary of the Football Player”.
3.
On 26 April 2011, the parties signed an “annex agreement” (hereinafter: the annexe)
referring to the contract and stipulating inter alia a bonus of “50.000” for “entrance
in the Super League”.
Player A, Country B/ Club C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 2 of 16
4.
On 26 July 2011, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant sent an e-mail to the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent enclosing a proposal for a termination agreement,
offering the payment of compensation to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in the
amount of EUR 70,000.
5. On
27
July
2011,
the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent
replied
to
the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant via fax stating that he wished to fulfil the contract and
put the Respondent/Counter-Claimant in default for the payment of EUR 50,000 as
the championship premium allegedly due on 15 June 2011 and 50,000 as the bonus
for the promotion to the Super League in Country D. In this regard, the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent requested the payment of said amounts until 12
August 2012. Moreover, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent stated that he would only
accept the termination of the contract in case the Respondent/Counter-Claimant paid
him compensation in the amount of EUR 140,000.
6.
On 13 August 2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated the contract in
writing with immediate effect, making reference to the outstanding bonus amounting
to EUR 50,000, which was allegedly due on 15 June 2011.
7.
On 25 May 2012, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent lodged a complaint before FIFA
requesting the payment of the amount of EUR 188,200 and 50,000 plus 5% interest
p.a. as from the due dates, as follows:
EUR 90,000 and 50,000 as outstanding remuneration made up of:
-
EUR 50,000 corresponding to the championship premium allegedly due
on 15 June 2011;
-
EUR 40,000 corresponding to the advance payment due for the second
season and allegedly due by 1 August 2011;
-
50,000 corresponding to the bonus for the entrance in the Super League
allegedly due on 8 June 2011;
EUR 58,200 as compensation made up of:
-
EUR 36,000 corresponding to 6 remaining monthly salaries (August 2011
until January 2012);
Player A, Country B/ Club C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 3 of 16
-
EUR 22,200 corresponding to 4 remaining monthly salaries (February until
May 2012) minus the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s new salary, i.e.
EUR 24,000 minus EUR 1,800.
Additionally, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent claimed an additional penalty, the
amount of which should be determined by the DRC.
8.
In
this
respect,
the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent
explains
that
the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant qualified for the Super League in Country D on the last
match of the 2010/11 season, on 29 May 2011. During the summer break, the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent then heard different rumours, according to which the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant would not count on him for the following season.
9.
Subsequently, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent explains that he started the preseason training with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on 25 June 2011 and, very
soon after the start of training, he was allegedly told by the Respondent/CounterClaimant that it would not need him anymore and that he could search for another
club. Equally, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was not invited to travel with the
team to a training camp in Country F (cf. point I.11. below). Without information
about his situation at the club, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent decided to travel by
himself to Country F and was informed by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant that he
was not allowed to train with the team. Thereupon, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
returned to Country D and trained as from 20 July 2011 with a group of players who
were no longer part of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s plans for the new season.
Based on the foregoing, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent deems that the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant breached the contract without just cause by not
providing him with professional training in order to maintain and improve his
performance.
10. As a result of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s behaviour, the Claimant/CounterRespondent deemed that it was no longer reasonable for him to stay with the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant and that he could not expect to receive his outstanding
Player A, Country B/ Club C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 4 of 16
remuneration as long as he would not agree to the premature termination of the
contract. Thus, he terminated the contract on 13 August 2011 (cf. point I.6. above).
11. In its reply, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant confirmed that the Claimant/CounterRespondent could not join the training camp in Country F, due to the decision of the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s technical director who deemed it more suitable for
him to continue training at the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s facilities due to his
allegedly insufficient performance. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant also confirmed
that the parties had negotiated a possible premature termination of the contract.
However, no agreement could be reached.
12. With regard to the outstanding remuneration claimed by the Claimant/CounterRespondent, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant stated not to have any debts toward
him. To the contrary, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant claims that according to its
records it had paid the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the amount of 14,728.94 in
excess. In this regard, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant provided copies of bank
statements relating to payments
made to the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent
throughout the 2010/2011 season. Equally, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant provided
a document bearing the signature of both the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant, in relation to a payment of EUR 52,000 on 12 August
2012 with the indication ‘’total premium for rising super league that is accepted by
sides’’.
13. Consequently, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant rejected the Claimant/CounterRespondent’s claim and lodged a counterclaim against him, as it deems that the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent had no just cause to unilaterally terminate the contract.
In particular, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant requested the reimbursement of the
amount of 14,728.94 allegedly paid in excess as well as EUR 150,000 as compensation
for the unjustified termination. Furthermore, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant
requested sporting sanctions to be imposed on the Claimant/Counter-Respondent.
14. In his replica, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent maintains having never received the
alleged payment in the amount of EUR 52,000 on 12 August 2011, and claims that his
Player A, Country B/ Club C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 5 of 16
signature on the receipt provided by the club must have been forged. Moreover, the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent points out that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did
not contest the existence of the further outstanding amounts, neither the amount of
50,000 due as promotion bonus according to the annexe, nor the amount of EUR
40,000 allegedly due on 1 August 2011. On account of the foregoing, the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent emphasises that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant has
failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to corroborate its allegation of
having fulfilled its financial obligations. In addition, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
points out that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant has confirmed the fact that he was
excluded from the club’s training. As a result, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent asks
for the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim to be rejected in its entirety.
15. In its duplica, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant submitted a last statement in which it
explains that the payment of EUR 52,000 of 12 August 2011 was made in cash because
of time constraints. In addition, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant claims that the
original document ‘’is now in a local prosecution file’’ and states being willing to
provide the FIFA DRC with the document after said investigation is concluded.
16. In his final comments on the Respondent/Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim, the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent reiterated his previous arguments and insisted that the
document provided regarding the allegedly payment of 12 August 2011 by the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant cannot be considered, since the Respondent/CounterClaimant failed to submit the relevant original document.
17. In spite of having been invited to do so, Club E, the Intervening Party, failed to present
its comments on the present affair.
18. Finally, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent informed FIFA that, on 31 January 2012, he
signed an employment contract with the Intervening Party, valid as from the date of
signature until 1 July 2013 in accordance with which he was entitled to receive a
monthly salary of EUR 450.
Player A, Country B/ Club C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 6 of 16
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. First of all, the DRC 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 25 May 2012. Consequently, the 2008 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 par.
2 and par. 3 of the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the DRC referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed
that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in conjunction with art. 22 lit. b) of the
Regulations (editions 2010, 2012, 2014), it is competent to decide on the present
litigation, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international
dimension, between a player from Country B and a club from Country D.
3.
Furthermore, the DRC analysed which edition of the Regulations should be applicable
as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber confirmed that, in
accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations (editions 2010, 2012, 2014)
and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 25 May 2012, the
2010 edition of said Regulations is applicable to the present matter as to the
substance.
4.
The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established,
the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In doing so, it started to
acknowledge the facts of the case as well as the documents 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 DRC acknowledged that it was undisputed by the parties that the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had signed an
undated employment contract valid as from 5 August 2010 until 31 May 2012. In
Player A, Country B/ Club C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 7 of 16
addition the parties also signed on 26 April 2011 a supplementary agreement (cf.
point I.3 above).
7.
In continuation, the Chamber took note that it is undisputed by the parties involved
that the employment relationship had been terminated by the Claimant/CounterRespondent, in writing, on 13 August 2011.
8.
The DRC noted that, on the one hand, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims that
the Respondent/Counter-Claimant has breached the contractual relationship without
just cause, by failing to pay outstanding bonus due to him (cf. point. I.7. above) and
excluding him from the trainings with the professional team (cf. point I.9. above). In
this regard, the Chamber acknowledged the documentation provided by the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent, consisting of a certificate of attendance to two daily
sessions for the period from 19 July to 12 August 2011 signed by the player and the
club. The Chamber further observed that, by means of his correspondence of 27 July
2011, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent reminded the Respondent/Counter-Claimant
of its situation of breach of contract. As the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not
react to such reminder, the Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated the contract
on 13 August 2011 and requested, by means of his claim before FIFA, the amounts
detailed in point I.7. above.
9.
Subsequently, the DRC noted that, on the other hand, the Respondent/CounterClaimant claims that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent terminated the contract
without just cause, since it deems to have no debts toward the Claimant/CounterRespondent but, on the contrary, to have paid him 14,728.94 in excess. In support of
its position, the DRC noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant provided bank
statements and a document allegedly bearing the signature of both parties in
relation to a payment of EUR 52,000 on 12 August 2011 with the indication “total
premium for rising super league that is accepted by sides”. In addition, the members
of the Chamber noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant confirmed that due to
the lack of performance of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, it did not send the
player to the training camp with the team but kept him at the club’s facilities.
Player A, Country B/ Club C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 8 of 16
10. In continuation, the Chamber observed that, in his replica, the Claimant/CounterRespondent denies having signed the aforementioned document of 12 August 2011,
claiming that it is a counterfeit. Furthermore, the DRC noted that, despite having
been invited by FIFA to provide the original version of the document allegedly signed
by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to do
so.
11. Having established the aforementioned, the Chamber deemed that the underlying
issue in this dispute, considering the claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent and
the allegations of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, was to determine whether the
employment contract had been unilaterally terminated with or without just cause by
the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, and which party was responsible for the early
termination of the contractual relationship in question.
12. In this respect, the Chamber considered that it should first analyze whether the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s argument regarding the alleged counterfeit of the
document dated 12 August 2011, could be upheld or, in case not, whether the
financial
obligations
of
the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant
towards
the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent could be considered as extinguished with the alleged
signature of the aforementioned document.
13. At this stage, the members of the Chamber considered it appropriate to remark that,
as a general rule, FIFA’s deciding bodies are not competent to decide upon matters
of criminal law, such as the ones of alleged falsified signature or document, and that
such affairs fall into the jurisdiction of the competent national criminal authority.
14. In addition, the members of the DRC pointed out that, upon FIFA’s request and in
view
of
the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent
allegation
of
falsification,
the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant was not able to provide the original of such receipt. In
view of the above, the DRC concluded that the document allegedly signed by both
parties on 12 August 2011 cannot be taken into account.
Player A, Country B/ Club C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 9 of 16
15. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the DRC analysed the bank statements provided by
the Respondent/Counter-Claimant (cf. point I 12 above) in order to establish whether
the
financial
obligations
of
Claimant/Counter-Respondent
the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant
could
be
considered
as
towards
complied
with
the
and,
consequently, extinguished. In this context, the members of the Chamber noted that
from the dates indicated in the bank statements, it could not be established that the
bonuses due as per the annexe were paid because of the fact that all the dates refer
to a period prior the promotion of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant.
16. In view of the above, the DRC concluded that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant has
not provided enough evidence of its defence and that, therefore, it could be
established that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant had failed to pay the promotion
bonus as per the annexe.
17.
Furthermore, the DRC focused its attention on the second reason given by the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent
to
terminate
the
contract
with
the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant on 13 August 2011, namely, his exclusion from the
first team and his subsequent assignment to a training program with a group of
players who were no longer part of the club’s plans for the upcoming season.
18. At this point and for the sake of good order, the Chamber recalled 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 from an alleged fact shall carry the respective
burden of proof.
19. In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged the documentation provided by the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent, consisting of a certificate of attendance to two daily
sessions for the period from 19 July to 12 August 2011 signed by the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent and the Respondent/Counter-Claimant. The Chamber
further noted that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims that, the training
schedules happened to consist of two daily running sessions.
Player A, Country B/ Club C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 10 of 16
20. The Chamber equally noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant did not contest
the allegations of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent regarding his exclusion from the
first team and his assignment to a special training group, neither presented any
documentation in this regard. On the contrary, the Respondent/Counter-Claimant
confirmed that its technical director did not want the player to travel to the training
camp with the group but deemed it more suitable for the player, due to his
insufficient performances, to continue his training at the club’s facilities (cf. point
I.11. above).
21. Bearing in mind the aforementioned allegations of the parties, the Chamber further
observed that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s exclusion from the first team
occurred for at least the period comprised between the 19 July and the 12 August
2011,
as
it
can
be
inferred
from
the
documentation
provided
by
the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent in this regard. The indicated period forms part of
what is considered to be a crucial phase of preparation for the upcoming season,
during which all players are required to display their performance, in order to be
able to undergo a selection by the club’s coach for the next season.
22. It was during this highly important preparation phase that the Claimant/CounterRespondent was not only excluded from the trainings of the first team, but was also
not provided by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant with a sufficient training for a
professional football player.
23. In addition the Chamber noted that the club did not dispute, but rather confirmed
the player’s allegations that it had presented him with a termination agreement
dated 26 July 2011, which he refused to sign, due to its allegedly unfair conditions
(cf. point I.4. and I.5. above).
24. In view of the aforementioned facts, the DRC was of the opinion that the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent
had
founded
reasons
to
believe
that
the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant was no longer interested in his services for the
upcoming season and that the latter would no longer provide him with any
remuneration for his services.
Player A, Country B/ Club C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 11 of 16
25. As a consequence of all the aforementioned allegations combined with the
documentation provided by the parties, the Chamber considered that the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant was to be considered responsible for the breach of
contract without just cause. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent had a valid reason to terminate his contractual
relation with the Respondent/Counter-Claimant on 13 August 2011 and that it should
be considered as a well-founded just cause.
26. Prior to establishing the amount of compensation for breach of contract due to the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent
by
the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant,
the
DRC
proceeded with the calculation of the outstanding monies payable to the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent under the terms of the employment contract until the
date of termination, i.e. on 13 August 2011, in accordance with the general legal
principle of “pacta sunt servanda”.
27. At this point and for the sake of good order, the Chamber recalled 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 from an alleged fact shall carry the respective
burden of proof. In this regard, the Chamber pointed out that, on the one hand, the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent claims that two bonuses and an advance payment of
EUR 40,000 remain outstanding (cf. point. I.7. above). On the other hand, the
Chamber noted that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant failed to provide any
consistent evidence of the payment of the bonus for the entrance in the Super
League stipulated in the annexe (cf. point I.3. above).
28. Furthermore, the members further noted that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent did
not substantiate its claims with regard to the bonus stipulated in clause 2 of the
contract under the section Special Provisions, as it did not present sufficient evidence
that the club became champion.
29. Consequently, the Chamber decided that the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is liable
to pay to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the bonus that was outstanding at the
time of the termination i.e. the amount of 50,000. The Chamber further established
Player A, Country B/ Club C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 12 of 16
that an interest rate of 5 % p.a. would apply over the aforementioned amount, as
from 9 June 2011.
30. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount
of compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake.
31. In this context, the Chamber outlined 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/Counter-Respondent 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.
32. 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.
33. Subsequently, and in order to evaluate the compensation to be paid by the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant, the members of the Chamber took into account the
remuneration due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent in accordance with the
employment contract as well as the time remaining on the same contract, along with
the professional situation of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent after the early
termination occurred. In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that at the time of the
termination of the employment contract on 13 August 2011, the contract would run
until 31 May 2012, for 10 other months. Consequently, taking into account the
financial terms of the contract, the Chamber concluded that the remaining value of
the contract as from its early termination by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant until
Player A, Country B/ Club C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 13 of 16
its regular expiry amounts to USD 100,000 (10 salaries of USD 6,000 each plus EUR
40,000 as advance payment for the season 2011/2012) and that such amount shall
serve as the basis for the final determination of the amount of compensation for
breach of contract.
34. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant/CounterRespondent 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.
35. The Chamber recalled that the Claimant/Counter-Respondent signed an employment
contract with the club from Country D, Club E, valid as from 31 January 2012 until 1
July 2013, in accordance with which the Claimant/Counter-Respondent was to receive
a monthly salary of EUR 450. Therefore, this employment contract enabled the
Claimant/Counter-Respondent to earn an income of EUR 1,800 (4 x EUR 450) during
the relevant period of time of 31 January 2012 until 31 May 2012.
36.
Consequently, in accordance with the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution
Chamber and the general obligation of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent to
mitigate his damages, such remuneration under the new employment contract shall
be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach
of contract.
37. In view of all of the above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent/CounterClaimant must pay the amount of EUR 98,200 to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent
as compensation for breach of contract without just cause, which is considered by the
Chamber to be a reasonable and justified amount of compensation. Furthermore, the
members of the Chamber established that an interest rate of 5% p.a. would apply
over the aforementioned amount, as from 25 May 2012, i.e. the date of the claim.
Player A, Country B/ Club C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 14 of 16
38. In conclusion, the DRC decided that the Respondent/ Counter-Claimant is liable to pay
to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent the amount of 50,000, plus 5% interests as from
9 June 2011 corresponding to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent’s outstanding bonus
at the time of the unilateral termination of the contract without just cause by the
Respondent/Counter-Claimant, as well as the amount of EUR 98,200, plus 5%
interests as from the date of claim, i.e. 25 May 2012, corresponding to compensation
for breach of contract without just cause.
39. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by
establishing that any further request filed by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent is
rejected and that the counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant is rejected.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1. The claim of the Claimant/Counter-Respondent, Player A, is partially accepted.
2. The counterclaim of the Respondent/Counter-Claimant, Club C, is rejected.
3. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant is ordered to pay to the Claimant/CounterRespondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision,
outstanding remuneration in the amount of 50,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 9
June 2011 until the date of effective payment.
4. The Respondent/Counter-Claimant is ordered to pay to the Claimant/CounterRespondent, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision,
compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 98,200 plus 5% interest
p.a. as from 25 May 2012 until the date of effective payment.
5. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant/Counter-Respondent plus interest
are not paid by the Respondent/Counter-Claimant within the stated time limit, the
present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
for consideration and a formal decision.
6. Any further claims lodged by the Claimant/Counter-Respondent are rejected.
Player A, Country B/ Club C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 15 of 16
7. The Claimant/Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent/CounterClaimant 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):
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
Deputy Secretary General
Encl.
CAS directives
Player A, Country B/ Club C, Country D / Club E, Country B
Page 16 of 16