Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 15 December 2016,
in the following composition:
Thom as Grim m (S w itzerland), Deputy Chairman
Mario Gallav otti (Italy ), member
John Bram hall (England), member
in the matter between the player,
Play er A, from country B,
as Claimant / Counter-Respondent
and the club,
Club C, from country D
as Respondent / Counter-Claimant
and the club,
Club E, from country B
as intervening Party
regarding an employment-related dispute
between the parties
I.
Facts of the cas e
1.
On 21 August 2014, the player of Country B Player A (hereinafter: the player or
Claimant / Counter-Respondent) and the club of Country B club E (hereinafter:
club E) signed an employment contract, valid as from 1 August 2014 until 30
December 2016. According to said contract, the player was entitled to receive a
salary of 7,500.
2.
On 13 January 2015, Club E and the Club of country D, Club C (hereinafter: Club C
Respondent / Counter-Claimant), concluded a loan agreement for the temporary
transfer of the player from 14 January 2015 to 30 June 2016.
3.
Furthermore, on 14 January 2015, the player and Club C signed an employment
contract valid as from 12 January 2015 until 30 June 2016 (hereinafter: the
contract). According to the contract, the player was entitled to receive, inter alia,
‘a monthly salary, payable in arrears of [expressed in 2,200,000 gross, payable
equivalent to EUR 20,000’.
4.
Also on 14 January 2015, the player and Club C concluded an amendment to the
contract (hereinafter: the amendment), which provided for several other benefits
to the player. According to article 3.2 of the amendment, the player was inter
alia entitled to receive a monthly salary of EUR 20,000 ‘net’. Further, the salary
related to half of the month of January 2015, as well as the full salaries for the
months of February and March 2015, i.e. the total amount of EUR 50,000, were
due upon signing of the contract. The salaries as from the month of “March”
2015 were due on the 29th day of the respective month.
5.
Article 3.4 of the amendment stipulates: ‘In the event of delay in the payment of
salaries for more than 90 days, independently of notification of warning, the
Sports Contract could be rescinded by the player for just cause. (cf. Art, 14 of FIFA
RSTP), during the season or the so called ‘Protected Period’ (cf. Definition no 7 of
FIFA RSTP) without any charge or any (compensation or sports sanctions) for
Player A’.
On 4 February 2016, the player lodged a claim before FIFA against Club C,
claiming the total amount of EUR 240,000, specified as follows:
6.
payment of outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 130,000,
‘corresponding to 6 (six) and a half months salary delayed’;
compensation for breach of contract by Club C, the amount of EUR 110,000,
corresponding to the residual value of the contract in the period between 14
January 2016 and 30 June 2016.
Player A, from country B / Club C, from country D / Club E, from country B
Page 2 of 14
Additionally, the player requested for sporting sanctions to be imposed on Club
C, as well as to order ‘the Respondent to repay to the Claimant for all the
amounts spent in his claim, […] at a 20% (twenty per cent) rate on the due
amount, etc.’.
7.
In his claim, the player argues that after the signing of the contract, he travelled
to country D on a visa valid for only 10 days, as Club C informed him that a
permanent visa would be arranged after his arrival in country D. On 31 March
2015, according to the player of Club C, gave him permission to go for an 8 days’
holiday to country B. However, on 8 April 2015, when the player wanted to
return to country D, the entrance to the plane was denied to him, because of his
expired visa. The player holds that only on 17 July 2015, Club C sent him the
required documents for the permanent visa, and that only after arranging said
visa by himself, he could return to country D.
8.
In addition, the player argues that after signing the contract, on 14 January 2015,
he received a first payment of EUR 50,000. Further, according to the player of
Club C, allegedly failed to pay him the salaries for the months between April
2015 and September 2015. Moreover, the player holds that on 18 October 2015,
Club C paid him ‘one monthly salary’ as well as that on 17 December 2015, he
received a payment from Club C, in the amount of 3,680,000, corresponding to
approximately EUR 30,000 or ‘one and a half monthly salary’.
9.
The player further holds that he put Club C in default on 6 January “2014” for
the outstanding salaries, providing a 10 days’ deadline for the payment. On 12
January 2016, Club C replied via e-mail to the player’s lawyer, by forwarding
three letters dated 7 January, 10 January and 12 January 2016, in which Club C
mentions that the player was absent from training sessions as from 5 January
2016.
10.
On 13 January 2016, the player sent another letter to Club C, arguing that he
‘participated the training sessions on 5 January 2016’. In addition, the player
again put Club C in default for the payment of the outstanding salaries, asking
for the payment of said salaries by no later than 16 January 2016, however to no
avail.
11.
On 18 January 2016, the player unilaterally terminated the contract with Club C,
due to the outstanding salary payments.
12.
Club C replied to the claim of the player, by explaining that in January 2015, it
tried to register the player from Club E, however that due to unknown reasons,
the FA of country D did not timely request the ITC for the relevant transfer. Club
C also holds that as a result, it agreed with the player that it would try to register
him at the beginning of the 2015/2016 season.
Player A, from country B / Club C, from country D / Club E, from country B
Page 3 of 14
13.
In addition, Club C argues that the amendment submitted by the player, is ‘an
illegal contract’, which is not approved by the Professional Football League. Club
C holds that the document ‘remained null and void in terms of law’ (free
translation).
14.
Moreover, according to Club C, the player returned to country B on 31 March
2015, with the intention to register Club C only as from the beginning of the
2015/2016 season.
15.
In addition, Club C argues that only on 3 July 2015, the transfer of the player
could be validly entered in the TMS, and that on 17 July 2015, the player arrived
to perform his contractual duties, after the contract was approved by the FA of
country D.
16.
With respect to the salary payments, Club C that the player was not entitled to
receive salary between 14 January 2015 and 17 July 2015, since the ITC for the
transfer of the player was not granted in time, as a result of which the player
never played for Club C.
17.
For the period between 17 July 2015 and 15 January 2016, Club C holds that the
player was entitled to a monthly salary of 2,200,000’ gross, which corresponds to
1,313,800’ net. Club C that in the period between 17 July 2015 and 15 January
2016, it paid the player the total amount of 12,230,000’, but that the player was
only entitled to 8,306,420’. As a result, Club C holds that it paid the player the
amount of 3,923,580’, without a legal basis.
18.
Moreover, Club C holds that the player did not respect his contractual obligations
as of 5 January 2016 and confirmed that it sent three letters to the player,
informing him that he was absent without valid reasons and requesting him to
resume his work within 48 hours. Further, Club C holds that on 18 January 2016,
it informed the player via his lawyer about his illegal absence and requested him
to come back.
19.
Club C concludes that no compensation is due to the player. Moreover, Club C
lodged a counterclaim towards the player, claiming the amount of 12,230,000 to
be paid by the player, as compensation for breach of contract by the player
without just cause.
20.
In his reply to Club C counterclaim, the player reiterates his claim and further
explains that he is not contesting the contract as referred to by Club C (which
provided for a gross salary), but argues that some parts of the contract are no
longer valid anymore, because of the validly concluded amendment to the
contract (which provides for a net salary). Furthermore, the player argues that
Player A, from country B / Club C, from country D / Club E, from country B
Page 4 of 14
Club C did not clarify why it paid him the salary in a net amount, if it was of the
opinion that the only validly agreed salary is a gross amount.
21.
In addition, the player states that the obligation to register the amendment
before the Professional Football League ‘was relying on the club’ and not on the
player. Therefore, the player argues that said circumstance can be no valid reason
for Club C to not pay the contractually agreed salary.
22.
Subsequently, the player argues that the fact that the ITC was only obtained on 3
July 2015, is not a fault of the player and that Club C cannot justify the nonpayment of the salaries to the player, based on the circumstance that the ITC was
not obtained.
23.
Moreover, the Player explained that in the period between 14 January 2015 and
5 January 2016, he only received the amount of 11,380,000, despite being
entitled to the amount of 26,400,000.
24.
Finally, regarding ‘the alleged absence from work’, the player ‘absolutely refuses
the allegation, having in mind that the first day the club allege that the player
was absent from work was the day that the player formally notified the club to
pay the salaries in delay […]’ and further states that he or his lawyer never
received a Club C letter of 18 January 2016.
25.
In its replica, Club C reiterated its counterclaim and argued that the amendment
cannot be considered valid, as it was established ‘outside the required standards’.
Further, the contract has to be considered valid, since said document was drafted
‘in line with the standards of the FA of country D and FIFA’.
26.
Finally, Club C argues that the player cannot be entitled to salary for a period in
which he did not work, as well as that it paid the player salary in excess, i.e. the
amount of 3,923,580.
27.
In his duplica, the player repeated his reply to the counterclaim, and submitted a
copy of a visa, allegedly issued on 22 January 2015 and valid for a stay of 10 days
in country D.
28.
After being invited to do so by FIFA, Club E presented its comments to the
player’s claim and Club C counterclaim, by arguing that it always acted in good
faith and by requesting for the rejection of counterclaim of Club C.
29.
Club E explains that on 14 January 2015, it concluded a transfer agreement with
Club C for the temporary transfer of the player, but that due to
miscommunication between Club C and the FA of country D, the player could
only be registered in July 2015.
Player A, from country B / Club C, from country D / Club E, from country B
Page 5 of 14
30.
Further, Club E that in January 2016, the player returned to is club, by explaining
that Club C did not pay him the agreed salaries. As a result, Club E asked Club C
by means of a letter dated 24 February 2016 to explain this situation. In this
respect, Club C answered on 28 February 2016 that it had fulfilled all its
obligations. As a result, an after evaluating the explanation Club C concluded
that Club C did not prove that it paid all the salaries the player was entitled. As a
result thereof, Club E considered the loan transfer agreement terminated and
integrated the player to its team.
31.
In addition, Club E argued that it is irrelevant whether or not Club C failed to
register the player in January 2015, as the contract clearly stipulates that Club C
obligation to pay salary to the player started as from 14 January 2015. Also, Club
E holds that the correct monthly salary is EUR 20,000 net, as per article 3.2 of the
amendment, and that Club C failed to pay at least the amount of 13,520,000 to
the player.
32.
Finally, Club E held that it cannot be sanctioned based on article 17 par. 4 of the
FIFA Regulations, since ‘there is no “club signing a professional”’, because ‘The
contract was already settled and there was no inducement on the return of the
Player’.
II.
Cons iderations of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as
Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter at
hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA
on 4 February 2016. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the
Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2015;
hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of
the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the
Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in
combination with art. 22 lit. b) Of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (edition 2016) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with
the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between a player of country B and club of country D,
with the involvement of a club of country B.
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
Player A, from country B / Club C, from country D / Club E, from country B
Page 6 of 14
(edition 2016), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 4 February
2016, the 2015 edition of said regulations (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. In this
respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as
well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties.
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.
5.
In doing so, the DRC acknowledged that on 21 August 2014, Club E and the
player signed an employment contract valid as from 1 August 2014 until 30
December 2016, in accordance with which the player was entitled to receive a
monthly salary of 7,500.
6.
Furthermore, the members of the Chamber noted that Club E and Club C
concluded a loan agreement for the temporary transfer of the player until 30
June 2016. In this respect, the player and the Club C signed an employment
contract, valid between 12 January 2015 and 30 June 2016, as well as an
amendment to said contract. According to the contract, the player would be
entitled to receive a monthly salary of 2,200,000 gross equivalent to EUR 20,000,
whereas the amendment stipulates that the player is entitled to the amount of
EUR 20,000 net.
7.
In continuation, the Chamber also took note that it remained uncontested by
both the player and Club C that their contractual relationship was unilaterally
terminated by the player on 18 January 2016 and that afterwards, the player
returned to Club E.
8.
In this regard, the Chamber took note of the argumentation of the player, who
insists on the fact that the breach of the contract occurred due to the fault of
Club C, since it failed to pay him his salaries as from April 2015 until September
2015, and that for the period between October 2015 and until the termination of
the contract on 18 January 2016, he only received two and a half monthly
salaries. In this respect, the members of the Chamber further noted that the
Player Explained that - due to problems with his visa for country D - he could only
start performing his obligations under the contract with Club C as of July 2015.
Moreover, the player denied Club C allegations that he was absent from its
training sessions as of 5 January 2016. As a result, based on the above-mentioned
circumstances, the player considers that Club C breached the contract by not
paying him his monthly salaries, he was entitled to as per the contract.
Player A, from country B / Club C, from country D / Club E, from country B
Page 7 of 14
9.
Furthermore, the members of the Chamber took due note of the fact that Club C
argued that it was not obliged to pay salary to the player between 14 January
2015 and 17 July 2015, since the ITC of the player was not timely requested by the
FA of Country D, as a result of which the player was not registered for Club C in
January 2015 and did not play in matches during the first half of 2015.
10.
Furthermore, Club C stated that the player was only entitled to a monthly salary
of 2,200,000 gross, since the amendment it signed with the player was not
approved by the FA of country D, as well as that in the period between 17 July
2015 and 15 January 2016, the player received too much salary. Moreover, Club C
referred to the alleged absence of the player as from 5 January 2016 and to the
unilateral termination of the contract on 18 January 2016. Based on said
circumstances, Club C maintained that the player had terminated the contract
without just cause and therefore claims 12,230,000 as compensation for the
unjustified termination of the contract by the player.
11.
With the aforementioned in mind, in particular, in view of the opposite position
of the parties, the Chamber deemed that the underlying issue in this dispute was
to determine whether the employment contract had been unilaterally terminated
with or without just cause by the player, and which party was responsible for the
early termination of the contractual relationship in question. The DRC also
underlined that, subsequently, if it were found that the employment contract
was breached by one of the parties without just cause, it would be necessary to
determine the consequences for the party that caused the unjust breach of the
relevant employment contract.
12.
Moreover, the Chamber pointed out that from the information on file, it can be
established that the player was not timely registered with Club C in January 2015,
but only in July 2015, and that Club C is therefore of the opinion that it had no
financial obligations towards the player between 14 January and 17 July 2015.
Nevertheless, the Chamber emphasized that on the other hand, Club C paid the
player’s salary between January and March 2015.
13.
In this respect, the Chamber considered relevant to recall its jurisprudence in
accordance with which the validity of an employment contract cannot be made
conditional upon the execution of (administrative) formalities, such as, but not
limited to, the registration procedure in connection with the international
transfer of a player, which is the sole responsibility of a club and on which a
player has no influence. As regards the matter at stake, Club C asserted that it
was the FA of country D who did not timely request the ITC to enable a player’s
registration. In this respect, the Chamber noted that it is the obligation of the
club and the new association (cf. art. 5.2 par. 2 of Annexe 3 of the Regulations) to
timely proceed with the ITC request and to timely register the player. Bearing in
Player A, from country B / Club C, from country D / Club E, from country B
Page 8 of 14
mind the foregoing, Club C cannot uphold a delay in the procedure for the ITC
request against the player.
14.
For these reasons, since the player and Club C had already signed a contract, and
whilst emphasizing once more that it is the responsibility of the club and new
association to (timely) register a player’s contract with its national association,
the members of the Chamber decided to reject the Club C arguments in this
regard. As a result, the Chamber concluded that the club is obliged to pay the
player his salaries as from the starting date of the contract, i.e. 14 January 2015.
15.
Moreover, the DRC took note that Club C also invoked that the player allegedly
was absent from its training sessions as from 5 January 2016 and that as a result
thereof, it was the player who breached his contractual obligations and
afterwards, terminated the contract without just cause.
16.
Subsequently, 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 on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden
of proof.
17.
In view of the above, the Chamber observed that Club C did not submit sufficient
evidence – at the Chamber’s satisfaction – which could prove that the player was
indeed absent as from 5 January 2016, which circumstance is moreover contested
by the player. In addition, the Chamber noted that the club could not prove that
the letters it alleges to have sent to the player, requesting him to come back,
were duly notified and received by the player, who claims to have never received
these letters. Moreover, the DRC recalled that the club only submitted a copy of
the letters, signed by the club’s president and was eager to emphasize that the
information contained in a statement made by a person closely linked to the
club, which is, moreover, not supported by any additional documentation
whatsoever, is of a mainly subjective perception and might be affected by diverse
contextual factors, and therefore, as such, do not fulfil the requirement of
objectivity and impartiality.
18.
However, regardless of the question whether the player was indeed absent from
the training sessions as from 5 January 2016, the Chamber was of the firm
opinion that even if the player would have been absent, in any case, said absence
could not justify Club C conclusion that the player did not had just cause to
unilaterally terminate the employment contract on 18 January 2016 and that he
has to be held responsible for the unilateral termination of the contract.
19.
What is more, the members of the Chamber analysed that the player held that at
the date of termination, six and a half monthly salaries remained outstanding,
whereas Club C only held that it paid the player too much salary for the period
Player A, from country B / Club C, from country D / Club E, from country B
Page 9 of 14
between 17 July 2015 and 15 January 2016, since it had only to pay the amount
of 2,200,000 gross to the player, as the amendment to the contract cannot be
considered valid.
20.
In this context, the Chamber the members of the Chamber first of all turned to
the discussion between the parties about the validity of the amendment to the
contract. In this respect, the Chamber noted that the amendment was signed by
both player and Club C, and that in line with its well-established jurisprudence,
the validity of an employment contract and/or an amendment to such contract,
cannot be made conditional upon the approval of a national association. The
Chamber was of the firm and unanimous opinion that the occurrence of said
non-approval by the FA of country D and the alleged consequences thereof,
could not be held against the player, who had no influence whatsoever on these
processes and bore no responsibility in this regard. As a result, the DRC
determined that the amendment signed between the parties on 14 January 2015
is valid and that it could be established that the player was entitled to receive a
monthly salary of EUR 20,000 net under the contract with country C. Said
circumstance is also confirmed by the fact that it remained uncontested that on
14 January 2015, Club C paid the player the amount of EUR 50,000, which covers
the monthly salary for half of the month of January, as well as the salaries for the
months of February and March 2015.
21.
As a result, and in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt
servanda”, the Chamber concluded that Club C is to be held responsible to pay to
the player a monthly remuneration of EUR 20,000 net as of 14 January 2015, i.e.
the date on which the contract between the parties was signed.
22.
Along those lines, the Chamber firstly referred to the player’s request regarding
the outstanding salaries in the amount of EUR 130,000 at the time of the
unilateral termination of the contract. In this respect, the Chamber noted that
Club C argued having paid to the player the total amount of 12,230,000
(allegedly corresponding to the player’s salary for the period between 17 July
2015 and 15 January 2016) and that said amount was actually more than the
player was entitled to. Moreover, Club C provided several payment receipts and
excel tables, related to these alleged payments.
23.
In this respect, 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 on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden
of proof.
24.
Turning to the amounts Club C claims to have paid to the player, the members of
the Chamber noted that the player acknowledged to have received the amount
of 11,380,000, and that it can be noted that said amount consists of the payments
Player A, from country B / Club C, from country D / Club E, from country B
Page 10 of 14
made for the period between January 2015 and March 2015, as well as two and a
half monthly salaries the player acknowledges to have received by means of the
payments made to him on 18 October 2015 and 17 December 2015. Furthermore,
Club C did not provide with sufficient evidence - at the Chamber’s satisfaction that it paid the remaining salaries the player was contractually entitled to.
25.
In conclusion, the DRC concluded that Club C has not provided sufficient evidence
- at the Chamber’s satisfaction - of its defence that it paid all its debts to the
player. Therefore, it could be established that, as explained by the player, Club C
had failed to pay to the player six and a half monthly salaries in the period
between January 2015 and January 2016, in the total amount of EUR 130,000.
26.
In light of the aforementioned, the DRC came to the unanimous conclusion that,
at the time of the termination, i.e. on 18 January 2016, the amount of EUR 130,000
had fallen due and remained outstanding. Consequently, the Chamber concurred
that the Club C had seriously neglected its financial contractual obligations towards
the player.
27.
On account of the above and taking into consideration the Chamber’s longstanding
jurisprudence in this respect, the Chamber decided that the player had just cause to
unilaterally terminate the contract on 18 January 2016 and that the club is to be held
liable for the early termination of the contract with just cause by the player.
28.
Having established that Club C is to be held liable for the early termination of the
employment contract, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequences of
such termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the
Chamber decided that the player is entitled to receive from Club C an amount of
money as compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding
payments on the basis of the relevant employment contract.
29.
First of all, the members of the Chamber concurred that the club must fulfill its
obligations as per the employment contract up until the date of termination of the
contract, in accordance with the general legal principle of “pacta sunt servanda”.
Consequently, taking into account that the contract between Club C and the
player was terminated on 18 January 2016 and with reference to point II.22 to II. 25
above, the Chamber decided that Club C is liable to pay the player the
outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR 130,000.
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. 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
Player A, from country B / Club C, from country D / Club E, from country B
Page 11 of 14
specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including, in particular, the
remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract
and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a
maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls
within the protected period.
31.
In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had
to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contained a provision
by means of which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of
compensation payable by the contractual parties in the event of breach of
contract. In this regard, the Chamber noted that the clause in article 3.4 of the
amendment stipulates the consequences of a unilateral termination of the
contract with just cause by the player, however established that said clause
cannot be upheld in the matter at hand, as it de facto would prevent the player
from claiming compensation for breach of contract. Furthermore, no other
applicable compensation clauses were included in the contract or the amendment
at the basis of the matter at stake.
32.
As a consequence of the foregoing, the members of the Chamber determined
that the amount of compensation payable by Club C to the player had to be
assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the
Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a nonexhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when
calculating the amount of compensation payable.
33.
Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber
proceeded with the calculation of the compensation and in this regard, it pointed
out that the player determined the residual value of the contract in the amount
of EUR 110,000. Consequently and in line with the above request, the Chamber
decided to take into account said amount, when calculating the amount of
compensation.
34.
In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player had signed an
employment contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by
means of which he would have been able 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.
In this context, the Chamber noted that the player returned to Club E, as he had
still a contract with said club, which was valid until 30 December 2016, by means
of which he would receive in the period between January 2016 and June 2016
the total amount of approximately EUR 14,000.
Player A, from country B / Club C, from country D / Club E, from country B
Page 12 of 14
36.
Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the
specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that Club C must pay the
amount of EUR 96,000 to the player which was considered reasonable and
proportionate as compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.
37.
Furthermore, the members of the Chamber decided to reject any further claim
lodged by the player.
38.
The Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by rejecting the
counterclaim lodged by Club C, as it has been established that the player had just
cause to terminate the employment contract.
III.
Decis ion of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, of Player A, is partially accepted.
2. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club C has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent, w ithin 30 day s as from the date of notification of this decision,
outstanding remuneration in the amount of EUR 130,000.
3. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent, w ithin 30 day s as from the date of notification of this decision,
compensation for breach of contract in the amount of EUR 96,000.
4. In the event that the amounts due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in
accordance with the above-mentioned numbers 2. And 3. are not paid by the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant within the stated time limits, interest at the rate of
5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the aforementioned time limits 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 / Counter-Respondent is rejected.
6. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant immediately and directly of the account number to which the
remittances are to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every
payment received.
*****
Player A, from country B / Club C, from country D / Club E, from country B
Page 13 of 14
Note relating to the m otiv ated decis ion (legal remedy):
According to art. 58 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:
Marco Villiger
Deputy Secretary General
Encl.: CAS directives
Player A, from country B / Club C, from country D / Club E, from country B
Page 14 of 14