Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 7 April 2011,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman ad interim
Michele Colucci (Italy), member
Jon Newman (USA), member
Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member
Todd Durbin (USA), member
on the claim presented by the club,
F,
as Claimant
against the player,
U,
as Respondent I
and the club,
H,
as Respondent II
regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
An employment contract referred to as “Appendix to players’ contract form”,
without date but apparently entering into force in 2004, was signed by and
between H (hereinafter: H Respondent II), the player, born on 15 May 1987,
(hereinafter: player or Respondent I) and his father “in relation to the 2004/5,
2005/6, 2006/7, 2007/8, 2008/9 season[s]”. This document refers to the signature of
a “players contract form” issued by the Football Association I (FAI).
2.
According to this contract, the player was entitled to receive, during the 2004-05
and 2005-06 seasons “some pocket money, as club will decide”. During the 200607 season until the 2008-09 season and as long as the player would serve the
army, the player was entitled to the salary allowed by the army authorities. After
the end of his military service, the player was entitled to a bonus of 50,000.
Furthermore, H had the option to prolong this contract for the 2009-10 season
after the player’s release from military service, setting a gross monthly salary of
10,000 and bonuses.
3.
In January 2006, a loan agreement was signed by and between F (hereinafter: F or
Claimant), the player and H valid until the end of the 2006-07 season.
4.
In accordance with this agreement, the player was transferred from the club H to
the club F on a free loan basis until the end of the 2006-07 season.
5.
Furthermore, according to art. 3 of the loan agreement, after the end of the
2006-07 season F“… will return the player to H automatically for no
consideration”.
6.
In addition, art. 5 of the loan agreement stipulated that “In case the club F would
like to offer the player a professional player contract it should first have an
agreement with the club H upon transfer fees”.
7.
Upon FIFA’s request for information, the Football Association I confirmed that the
player had been registered as a professional with the club H in January 2006 prior
to his transfer to the club F. Furthermore, the duration of the 2004-05 season up
to the 2006-07 season was as follows: as from 21 August 2004 until 28 May 2005;
as from 26 August 2005 until 14 May 2006; and as from 26 August 2006 until 27
May 2007.
8.
On 26 January 2006, the club F and the player signed an employment contract
valid as from 25 January 2006 until 1 May 2007.
Page 2 of 15
9.
Another employment contract was signed between the club F and the player,
bearing no date of signature and valid as from 1 June 2007 until 31 May 2011, in
accordance with which the player was entitled to a gross monthly salary
corresponding to the minimum wage [in the country T].
10.
The Football Federation T (FFT) confirmed that the average gross minimum
monthly wage in country T was as follows: 2007 – 562.50 (approx. EUR 300); 2008
–623.55 (approx. EUR 332); 2009 – 679.50 (approx. EUR 362); 2010 – 729 (approx.
EUR 388).
11.
On 22 August 2007, the Football Association I requested the Football Federation T
to issue the international transfer certificate (ITC) for the player to no avail.
12.
On 5 September 2007, the club H and the player signed an employment contract
valid for the 2007-08 and 2008-09 seasons, including the option for the club H to
prolong the employment contract for one more season, in accordance with which
the player was to receive during each season twelve gross monthly salaries of
12,830, monthly rent payments of up to USD 750, a car, and various match and
championship bonuses as specified in the contract.
13.
On 31 October 2007, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee authorised
the Football Association I to provisionally register the player for H without
prejudice to any decision possibly to be taken by the Dispute Resolution Chamber
(DRC) in the matter.
14.
On 1 February 2008, the club F lodged a claim against the player for breach of
contract without just cause and against the club H, the latter, according to the
club F, being jointly liable for the payment of compensation for breach of
contract.
15.
Club F maintains that it signed an employment contract with the player on 23
January 2006 valid until the end of the 2006-07 season. According to the club F, a
new employment contract was then concluded with the player on 1 June 2007
valid until the end of the 2010-11 season, contract which was registered by the
Football Federation T on 18 July 2007.
16.
According to the club F, the player acted in breach of contract by leaving the club
in September 2007 and signing an employment contract with the club H.
17.
Therefore, the club F claims compensation for breach of contract amounting to
500,000, taking into account that the employment contract was to run for four
more seasons and that the club had lost an U-21 player of the country T national
team.
Page 3 of 15
18.
In addition, the club F claims payment of training compensation for the period of
time between January 2006 and November 2007, plus interest as of the 31 st day of
the player’s registration with the club H.
19.
The club F also asks that sporting sanctions be imposed on the player and the club
H in accordance with the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players,
the employment contract with the club F having been terminated during the
protected period.
20.
In addition, the club F asks that it be awarded an amount of money to cover the
legal expenses relating to the proceedings.
21.
On 11 February 2008, FIFA informed the club F that its claim for training
compensation would be suspended pending the outcome of the employmentrelated dispute between the parties.
22.
The player, for his part, refers to the decision passed by the Single Judge of the
Players’ Status Committee (cf. point I./13. above), who took into account that a
loan agreement had been concluded between the two clubs involved and that the
ITC would have had to be returned to the club H automatically at the end of the
loan period, i.e. at the end of the 2006-07 season, if the clubs could not agree on
an amount of compensation for the definitive transfer of the player.
23.
Furthermore, the player submits that he was deceived by the club F into signing
the employment contract in 2007, whereas the club was fully aware that he
should have returned to the club H at the end of the relevant loan period. In
addition, such document was written in the language T only and the club F had
told him that it was a power of attorney authorising the club F to negotiate the
possible future transfer of the player from the club F to the club H.
24.
According to the player, this employment contract cannot be considered as having
legally binding effects, as the club F was obliged to have the player return to the
club H after the end of the 2006-07 season in accordance with the loan
agreement.
25.
The club H, for its part, fully rejects the claim put forward by the club F and
considers that it is no party in this matter, the claim being based on the
employment contract signed between the player and the club F, to which contract
the club H is not a party.
26.
The club H maintains that, in 2004, the player and the club H signed a binding
agreement valid for the duration set out therein. In January 2006, the player, the
Page 4 of 15
club H and the club F signed an agreement over the loan of the player from the
club H to the club F until the end of the 2006-07 season. According to the club H,
the pertinent agreement clearly stipulates that the transfer was on a loan basis
only.
27.
According to the club H, the club F acted in breach of the loan agreement by
refusing to let the player return to club H after the end of the loan period and the
club H was surprised to find out that according to the club F it had signed an
employment contract with the player on 1 June 2007 valid until 31 May 2011
without H’s knowledge and consent.
28.
In this respect, club H points out that according to the loan agreement, if club F
was interested in offering the player a contract, it first had to agree on the
conditions with club H.
29.
Given that club F was not in a position to sign an employment contract with the
player in the light of the loan agreement, such employment contract shall not be
considered valid and club F cannot rely on it as the basis of its claim.
30.
Club H further points out that it was entitled to sign an employment contract
with the player in September 2007 in the light of the loan agreement.
31.
Club H also feels supported in its position by the motivation of the Single Judge to
provisionally authorise the registration of the player with it.
32.
Club H also stresses that during the ITC procedure, the player has indicated that
he wished to play for club H only.
33.
According to club H, club F’s claim for compensation for breach of contract could
only be possibly directed at the player and reiterated that it is no party in this
case. It further points out that the amount of 500,000 has not been detailed at all
by club F.
34.
In addition, club F’s claim for sporting sanctions is to be dismissed.
35.
The player remained registered with club H until August 2010, when he was
transferred to the club, G. Furthermore, during the 2008-09 season, he was
registered with the club M on a loan basis. The player points out that he does not
have a copy of his contracts with M and G. According to the Football Federation T,
the player was not registered as a professional with the club G. On 28 January
2011, the player was registered with the club, A. The player did not respond to
FIFA’s request for a copy of any employment contract entered into with A.
Page 5 of 15
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
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 case at
hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA
on 1 February 2008, thus prior to 1 July 2008. Consequently, the Rules Governing
the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution
Chamber (edition 2005; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter
at hand (cf. art. 18 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules in combination with art.
21 par. 2 and 3 of the 2008 edition 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. a) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (edition 2010), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with
the matter at stake, which concerns a dispute between a club against a player and
an club in relation to the maintenance of contractual stability, in which there has
been an ITC (international transfer certificate) request and a claim from an
interested party in relation to such ITC request, in particular pertaining to
compensation for breach of contract and sporting sanctions.
3.
Furthermore, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to
the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with
art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(editions 2009 and 2010), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 1
February 2008, the 2008 edition of the 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. The members
of the Chamber firstly proceeded to analyse in greater detail the chronology and
the object of the various (employment) contracts that were concluded by and
between the parties involved in the present matter. In this respect, the Chamber
acknowledged that the Respondent I, his father and the Respondent II signed an
employment contract referred to as “Appendix to players’ contract form” relating
to the 2004/05, 2005/06, 20060/7, 2007/08, and 2008/09 seasons. This contract does
not indicate any date of signature and refers to the signature of a “players
contract form” issued by the Football Association I. The Chamber noted that no
copy of such “players contract form” has been made available in spite of FIFA’s
request.
Page 6 of 15
5.
In continuation, the Chamber noted that, in January 2006, the three parties
involved in the present matter entered into a loan agreement valid until the end
of the 2006-07 season. In this context, the Claimant and the Respondent I signed
an employment contract valid as from 25 January 2006 until 1 May 2007.
6.
Subsequently, the Claimant and the Respondent I signed another employment
contract valid as from 1 June 2007 until 31 May 2011, contract which does not
appear to indicate any date of signature. The Chamber noted that the Claimant’s
assertion that this contract was signed on 1 June 2007 was not refuted by the
Respondent I. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that, in this way, such
allegation was considered accepted.
7.
On 5 September 2007, the Respondent I and the Respondent II signed an
employment contract valid for the 2007-08 and 2008-09 seasons.
8.
The members of the Chamber noted that, according to the Claimant, the
Respondent I acted in breach of the employment contract that was signed on 1
June 2007 by leaving club F and signing on with the Respondent II on 5
September 2007. Consequently, club F asks inter alia that the Respondent I be
held liable for breach of contract and be ordered to pay compensation for breach
of contract amounting to 500,000. In addition, club F asks that the Respondent II
be held jointly liable for the payment of compensation for breach of contract.
9.
The Respondent I, for his part, fully rejects the claim maintaining that he was
deceived by the Claimant in signing the employment contract with the Claimant
in 2007, document which was presented to him in the language T only, while the
Claimant informed him that it was a power of attorney authorising the Claimant
to negotiate the possible future transfer of the player to club F. The Respondent I
asserts that he should have returned to the Respondent II after the end of the
loan period, a fact which the Claimant, so the Respondent I, was fully aware of.
According to the Respondent I, therefore, the employment contract with the
Claimant cannot be considered to have legally binding effects.
10.
The Chamber noted that the Respondent II equally rejects the claim of the
Claimant pointing out that it is no party in this matter, since the claim is based on
the employment contract that was signed between the Claimant and the
Respondent I, contract to which it is not a party. Furthermore, according to the
Respondent II, club F acted in breach of the loan agreement, in which it was
clearly stipulated that after the end of the loan period the player had to return to
H, club with which the player allegedly was still contractually bound, or club F had
to firstly agree on the transfer conditions with the Respondent II, should it have
Page 7 of 15
been interested in retaining the player’s services. The Respondent II deems that
the Claimant was therefore not in a position to sign said employment contract
with the Respondent I without the knowledge and consent of the Respondent II.
Consequently, the Respondent II reckons that the relevant employment contract
shall not be considered valid and that club F cannot rely on it as the basis of its
claim.
11.
In the light of the parties’ diverging stance relating to the validity of the
employment contract that was signed by and between the Claimant and the
Respondent I on 1 June 2007, contract which is at the basis of the present dispute,
the Chamber first and foremost had to address the question as to whether the
Claimant and the Respondent I were indeed contractually bound by means of said
contract.
12.
In this context, to begin with, the members of the Chamber reverted to the
“Appendix to players’ contract form” signed by and between the player and club
H as well as the father of the player in 2004. The Chamber emphasised that the
Respondent I clearly was under the age of 18 when he signed this contract and, in
this regard, referred to art. 18 par. 2 of the Regulations, in accordance with which
players under the age of 18 may not sign a professional contract for a term longer
than three years. Any clause referring to a longer period shall not be recognised.
For the sake of good order, the Chamber highlighted that art. 35 of the 2001
edition of the Regulations, which was in force when said contract was concluded
between the player and club H in 2004, contains the same provision. Therefore,
taking into consideration that the “Appendix to players’ contract form” does not
indicate any date of signature and that with respect to its validity it merely refers
to sporting seasons, the members of the Chamber concluded that the “Appendix
to players’ contract form” must be considered to have expired at the end of the
2006-07 sporting season in May 2007 (cf. point I./7. above).
13.
The members of the Chamber noted that such expiry, in fact, coincides with the
end of the time period stipulated in the relevant loan agreement. Consequently,
the Chamber concluded that at the expiry of the loan period, the Respondent I
was no longer contractually bound to the Respondent II.
14. Taking into account the consideration under point II./6. above, the Chamber
acknowledged that club F and the Respondent I entered into an employment
contract on 1 June 2007 valid as from 1 June 2007 until 31 May 2011, at which
time, as stated above, the Respondent I was considered to be no longer
contractually bound to the Respondent II.
Page 8 of 15
15.
In continuation, the members of the Chamber recalled that, according to the
Respondent I, club F was aware that he should have returned to the Respondent II
at the expiry of the loan period and he was deceived by club F in signing the
employment contract in the language T in 2007, after he was allegedly informed
by club F that said document was in fact a power of attorney in the context of
transfer negotiations. In this respect, the members of the Chamber emphasised
that a party signing a document of legal importance without knowledge of its
precise contents, as a general rule, does so on its own responsibility. Furthermore,
irrespective of the foregoing, the Chamber recalled that the Respondent I also has
the country T nationality and, therefore, the members of the Chamber were not
totally convinced of the accuracy of such allegation.
16.
Furthermore, in this context, the Chamber recalled that it found that at the expiry
of the loan period with club F, the Respondent I was no longer contractually
bound to the Respondent II (cf. point II./13. above). Consequently, even if the loan
agreement stipulated that the Respondent I had to return to the Respondent II at
the end of the loan period, in the light of the fact that the Respondent I was no
longer bound to the Respondent II by an employment contract at the expiry of
the loan period, the Respondent I could not have been obliged to return to the
Respondent II and was, in fact, free to conclude an employment contract with
club F.
17.
Equally, the Chamber took into account that, in their defence, the player and club
H also rely on the decision passed by the Single Judge of the Players’ Status
Committee on 31 October 2007 in relation to the provisional authorisation for the
Respondent I to be registered with the Respondent II. In this respect, the Chamber
deemed it essential to point out that, as clearly stated in said decision, the
decision of the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee of 31 October 2007
is without prejudice to any decision to be possibly taken by the Dispute Resolution
Chamber as to the substance of a contractual dispute between club F and the
Respondent I, in particular, in respect of the question as to whether the
employment contract concluded between club F and the Respondent I in 2007 was
breached with or without just cause by any party, as well as in respect of the
effects of the first employment contract, i.e. the “Appendix to players’ contract
form”, concluded between the player and club H in 2004. Consequently, the
Chamber is not bound whatsoever to the analysis by the Single Judge of the facts
of the matter known to him at the time when he was called upon to pass a
decision as regards the provisional clearance of the Respondent I. That is, the
Chamber shall give its independent interpretation of the facts surrounding the
present contractual dispute on the basis of the documentation at its disposal and
the respective positions of the parties involved.
Page 9 of 15
18.
On account of all of the above considerations, the Chamber agreed that the
argument of the player and club H, in accordance with which the employment
contract signed with club F in 2007 was not valid, could not be sustained and
established that club F and the Respondent I had entered into a valid and binding
employment contract on 1 June 2007, valid as from 1 June 2007 until 31 May
2011.
19.
Irrespective of the aforementioned considerations, and reverting their attention
once more to the “Appendix to players’ contract form” signed by and between
the player and club H as well as the father of player in 2004, on a side note, the
members of the Chamber raised doubts as to whether, in spite of a written
contract having been signed, the player was to be considered a professional (cf.
art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations) under the “Appendix to players’ contract form”,
in the light of the financial aspect of such contract. Indeed, according to said
“Appendix to players’ contract form” the Respondent II was to pay to the
Respondent I, during the 2004-05 and 2005-06 seasons, “some pocket money, as
club will decide”. In addition, during the 2006-07 season (until the 2008-09
season) and as long as the player would serve in the army, the Respondent I was
entitled to the salary owed by the army authorities. However, as can be noted
from the circumstances of the case, the Respondent I obviously did not serve in
the army during said seasons, but instead went on loan to club F as early as during
the 2005-06 season until the end of the 2006-07 season, then signed an
employment contract with club F on 1 June 2007 and, subsequently, on 5
September 2007, signed a new employment contract with the Respondent II. It
thus appears that on the basis of the “Appendix to players’ contract form”, which
was considered to have expired at the end of the 2006-07 season, and in the
absence of any other documentation in connection with the financial
entitlements of the Respondent I under said contract, the Respondent I was not to
receive payments exceeding the expenses actually incurred in relation to his
footballing activity. In this context, the Chamber considered it opportune to stress
that a player’s remuneration as per the criteria set out in art. 2 par. 2 of the
Regulations constitutes the decisive factor in the determination of the status of
the player and that the legal nature or the designation/classification of the
contract is of no relevance in this regard. This has been confirmed by the Court of
Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in its decision CAS 2006/X/XXXX, whereby the Panel
also emphasised that the definition contained in the mentioned provision is the
only ground to establish a player’s status. For the sake of completeness, the
Chamber pointed out that according to the said decision the classification of a
player made by the association of his club is not decisive to determine the status
of a player.
Page 10 of 15
20.
In continuation, the Chamber reverted to club F’s claim that the Respondent I had
acted in breach of the employment contract.
21.
Bearing in mind, as established above after having dismissed the arguments put
forward by the player and club H, that club F and the Respondent I entered into a
valid employment contract on 1 June 2007 expiring on 31 May 2011, the Chamber
decided that by signing the employment contract with the Respondent II on 5
September 2007 for the 2007-08 and 2008-09 seasons (cf. point I./12. above), the
Respondent I had, in fact, breached the employment contract, which he signed
with club F on 1 June 2007.
22.
Having established that the Respondent I is to be held liable for the early
termination of the employment contract with club F without just cause, the
Chamber focussed its attention on the consequences of such breach of contract.
23.
In doing so, the DRC first of all established that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1
of the Regulations, the player is liable to pay compensation to club F.
Furthermore, in accordance with the unambiguous contents of art. 17 par. 2 of
the Regulations, the Chamber established that the player’s new club, i.e. the
Respondent II, shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of
compensation. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to point out that the joint
liability of the player’s new club is independent from the question as to whether
the new club has committed an inducement to contractual breach or any other
kind of involvement by the new club. This conclusion is in line with the wellestablished jurisprudence of the Chamber that was repeatedly confirmed by the
CAS.
24.
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 player under the existing contract
and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a
maximum of five years as well as the fees and expenses paid or incurred by the
former club (amortised over the term of the contract) and whether the
contractual breach falls within a 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
which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation
payable by either contractual party in the event of breach of contract. Upon
Page 11 of 15
careful examination of said contract, the members of the Chamber assured
themselves that this was not the case in the matter at stake.
26.
The Chamber further recalled that the Claimant had claimed compensation in the
amount of 500,000. In this respect, the members of the Chamber took due note
that the Claimant had not presented any breakdown of such amount, nor any
documentation in support of such claim.
27.
In the calculation of the amount of compensation due by the Respondent I, the
Chamber firstly turned its attention to the remuneration and other benefits due
to the player under the existing contract and/or any new contract(s), a criterion
which was considered by the Chamber to be essential. The members of the
Chamber deemed it important to emphasise that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of
the Regulations allows the Chamber to take into account both the existing
contract and any new contract(s) in the calculation of the amount of
compensation.
28.
According to the documentation provided by the parties, it appears that in
accordance with the player’s employment contract with club F, which was to run
for four more seasons at the moment when the breach of contract occurred, the
Respondent I was to receive a remuneration equalling the country T minimum
wage, which, taking into account the remaining contractual period, can be
calculated as being the average amount of EUR 4,250 per year. On the other
hand, the value of the new employment contract, concluded between the
Respondent I and the Respondent II, during the period of time in which the
Respondent I was effectively rendering his services to the Respondent II, i.e.
during the 2007-08 season, appears to amount to EUR 27,300 for one year,
whereas in accordance with the financial terms of the employment contract with
M, which have been disclosed by the Football Association I at FIFA’s request, club
with which the Respondent I was registered on a loan basis during the 2008-09
season, the player was to receive the amount of EUR 13,230 per year. Accordingly,
under the aforementioned employment contracts with said clubs, the Respondent
I was to receive the approximate average income of EUR 20,000 per year. The
Chamber took into account that in accordance with the pertinent confirmation of
the Football Federation T, the player was not registered as a professional with the
club G and, thus, apparently did not sign any employment contract with said club.
On the basis of the aforementioned financial contractual elements at its disposal,
the Chamber concluded that the remuneration of the Respondent I during the
remaining contractual period of time amounted to the average of sum of EUR
12,125 per year.
Page 12 of 15
29.
In continuation, and referring to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, although
bearing in mind that the Claimant had not specifically included any of these costs
in its claim, the Chamber established that it had no indications at its disposal
regarding possible fees and expenses paid or incurred by the Claimant for the
acquisition of the player’s services and that therefore it could not further consider
that criterion in the specific case at hand, whereas according to art. 17 par. 1 of
the Regulations such fees and expenses may be included as one of the criteria to
be taken into account in the calculation of the compensation.
30.
Equally, the members of the Chamber took into account that, in the specific case
at hand, the Respondent I appears to have received under the employment
contract with the Claimant as well as with his new club(s) a relatively low
remuneration and even was registered as an amateur player. Furthermore, the
Chamber deemed that, whereas the Respondent I clearly is to be held liable for
the breach of contract as established above, he possibly acted in good faith by
returning to the Respondent II after the end of the loan period under his personal
assumption that he was obliged to do so.
31.
In view of all of the above, the Chamber concluded that bearing in mind art. 17
par. 1 of the Regulations, after having duly taken into account the specificities of
the present case, a compensation of EUR 20,000 payable by the Respondent I, the
player U, to the Claimant, the club F, would appear fair and proportionate.
32.
For all these reasons, the Chamber decided that the Respondent I, the player U,
has to pay EUR 20,000 to the Claimant, the club F, as compensation for the breach
of contract. In this respect, the Dispute Resolution Chamber also determined that
the Respondent II, the club H, is jointly and severally liable for the payment of the
above-mentioned amount of compensation to club F.
33.
Furthermore, the Chamber held that the Claimant’s claim pertaining to legal costs
is rejected in accordance with art. 15 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules and the
Chamber’s respective longstanding jurisprudence.
34.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter
by rejecting any further request filed by the Claimant.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, club F, is partially accepted.
Page 13 of 15
2.
Respondent I, U, has to pay compensation for breach of contract in the amount of
EUR 20,000 to the Claimant within 30 days of notification of the present decision.
3.
In the event that the aforementioned amount is not paid within the stated time
limit, interest at the rate of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the
aforementioned time limit and the present matter shall be submitted, upon
request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and a formal
decision.
4.
Respondent II, club H, is jointly and severally liable for the aforementioned
payment.
5.
Any further claim filed by the Claimant is rejected.
6.
The Claimant is directed to inform Respondent I and Respondent II immediately
and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to
notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received.
*****
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to art. 63 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,
Page 14 of 15
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
Page 15 of 15