Solidarity Contribution
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 April 2006,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Carlos Soto (Chile), member
Philippe Piat (France), member
Jean-Marie Philips (Belgium), member
Wilfried Straub (Germany), member
on the claim presented by the club
X, A,
as Claimant
against the club
Y, B
as Respondent
with the club
Z, C
as intervening party
regarding the solidarity contribution related to the
transfer of the player D.
I.
Facts of the case
1.
According to a written letter of confirmation from the claimant Football
Association, the player D, born 4 August 1974, was registered for the following
national clubs between the ages of 9 and 22:
- from 08.04.1984 to 05.03.1985: club G,
- from 05.03.1985 to 08.04.1990: club E,
- from 08.04.1990 to 11.08.1995: club F and
- from 11.08.1995 to 29.08.1996: club X.
2.
In August 1996, the player D was transferred from the national club X, the
Claimant, to the club H in country C apparently for the amount of USD … and in
August 1999 to the club Z in C apparently for the approximate amount of USD ….
3.
On 25 August 2003, a transfer contract for the player D was concluded between
the club Z, the intervening party, and the club Y of country B, the Respondent, for
the net sum of EUR … (approximately USD …).
4.
The Respondent appeared to be prepared to pay the solidarity contribution to the
clubs of the country A involved in the player’s training and education in
accordance with the applicable FIFA regulations, as it deducted the corresponding
amount from the transfer compensation and kept it in reserve for the clubs in A.
5.
On 5 December 2003 and 15 January 2004, the intervening party submitted
statements to FIFA regarding the distribution of the solidarity contribution for the
player D. The intervening party objects to the Respondent withholding the
solidarity contribution for the following reasons (5.1-5.7):
5.1. As part of the relevant transfer compensation, each training club in country A has
already received an amount towards the player’s training at the time of the
relevant transfers, and this payment exceeded the 5% due as a solidarity
contribution. Furthermore, the club G does not have any right to claim solidarity
contribution. However, the intervening party does not know whether the club E
received compensation at the time of the player’s transfer to F.
5.2. Art. 25 of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2001,
hereinafter referred to as; the Regulations 2001) only came into effect after all
transfers involving the training clubs in country A had been completed, and as
such, this provision cannot be applied retrospectively to this matter. As this
provision cannot be applied retrospectively, and in the interests of legal security,
the training clubs cannot have any right to compensation in the sense of the
solidarity mechanism.
2
5.3. Not until FIFA circular 826 dated 31 October 2002 was it made clear that the
transfer compensation agreed between the player’s new, i.e. the Respondent, and
the player’s former club, i.e. the intervening party, must be 100%. Once again, this
could not be applied retrospectively. In other words, the circular could not be
applied to transfers that took place before the circular was issued.
5.4. If retrospective application were to be allowed, the 5% solidarity contribution
would have to be taken into account also in earlier transfer compensations. In this
respect, the intervening party provided several day-by-day calculations, showing
that it was the only club that had received less compensation for the player’s
transfer than it had actually paid to his former club.
5.5. According to art. 20 of the Regulations 2001, training compensation is not payable
for any player over the age of 23. Solidarity contributions cannot be irrespective of
age, as claimed in circular 769.
5.6. By analysing the solidarity mechanism in terms of its etymology, teleology and
stages of conception, it is clear that solidarity contribution is only due if at the
time of the player’s transfer between two clubs the clubs involved did not reach
any agreement on compensation. Therefore, if a club received compensation
when a player left the club, no solidarity contribution is due in case of future
transfers.
5.7. The Respondent provided a bank guarantee for the exact net amount of the
transfer compensation agreed upon with the intervening party. Therefore, it is
clear that when the Respondent signed the transfer contract, it did not make it
clear that it intended to deduct 5%. “Net” means “after deduction of 5% for a
solidarity contribution”. It is not possible to make a retrospective deduction.
Furthermore, in the transfer contract, the Respondent explicitly agreed to bear all
costs.
6.
Finally, the intervening party demanded that the Football Association of country A
should hand out the transfer agreement between the club F and the X, the
Claimant.
7.
On 19 April 2004, the Football Association of country A lodged a claim with FIFA
against the Respondent on behalf of its affiliated club, F, for the payment of the
corresponding amount in accordance with the relevant proportion of the 5%
solidarity contribution.
8.
In response to the aforementioned position of the intervening party, the club F
refuted the allegations made. F believes that the intervening party, on the one
hand, is incorrectly comparing the claims for training compensation with claims
3
made on the basis of the solidarity mechanism, and thereby creating significant
confusion and drawing incorrect conclusions, and on the other hand, is failing to
recognise the existence of the solidarity mechanism.
9.
In its response, the intervening party adhered to its position. In particular, it stated
as follows:
9.1. That the above-mentioned club F had only disputed a few minor points in its
statement, and that as a result, it had accepted the other arguments. For example,
and in particular club F had therefore admitted to have received the sum of USD
… for the player’s transfer to X, the Claimant.
9.2. The intervening party further stated that the principle of solidarity is to ensure
that compensation reaches the clubs which did not receive payments at the start.
Consequently, the training club should only be compensated if there is no
agreement on and payment of compensation at the time of the player’s transfer
from the training to a new club. F received compensation when the player was
transferred to X, the Claimant, which is why the club does not have the right to be
compensated again for the same training.
9.3. In addition, there is no compensation due because when the original transfer
compensation was agreed upon by F and the Claimant, the clubs did not know
that as of September 2001, i.e. as of the coming into effect of the Regulations
2001, another 5% of any compensation paid within the scope of a further transfer
would be due.
10.
Finally, the intervening party demanded once again that the Football Association
of country A hands out the transfer agreement concluded between the club F and
the claimant club.
11.
In continuation, the Respondent reasoned as follows:
11.1. The Respondent informed FIFA that the transfer agreement with the intervening
party stipulated a total transfer compensation of EUR …, payable as follows:
- 1st instalment of EUR … within 24 hours of receipt of the International
Transfer Certificate,
- 2nd instalment of EUR … by 20 September 2003 at the latest, and
- 3rd instalment of EUR … by 20 July 2004 at the latest.
11.2. The Respondent explained that the first two instalments were paid on time and
without any deductions. Furthermore, the Respondent maintained that before the
3rd instalment was due, it informed the intervening party that it would withhold
4
the corresponding solidarity contribution of EUR … in order to distribute this
money to the training clubs.
11.3. With regard to the agreed net payment of the transfer compensation, the
Respondent explained that it had only been agreed that it would cover the costs
of administration and registration, but that it had never been agreed that the
Respondent would also pay the solidarity contribution. Such an agreement would
have had to be defined explicitly, in other words, with “solidarity contribution”
mentioned in the relevant transfer contract. With this in mind, the respondent
club referred to the wording of the contract, which states: “exempt from any
other costs”.
11.4. According to the FIFA circulars 769 and 826, the new club is responsible for paying
the 5% solidarity contribution, and it is therefore allowed to subtract the relevant
amount from the transfer compensation. With regard to the solidarity
contribution, contrary to the intervening party’s opinion, it is not the training
work itself but the simple fact that the club was involved in training the player
that gives rise to the claim. Training compensation and compensation regarding
solidarity mechanism are two completely different rights or claims that exist
independently of each other.
11.5. The Respondent also refutes the intervening party’s argument that a bank
guarantee for the entire transfer compensation is incompatible with a later
deduction of the 5% solidarity contribution from the final instalment, as the
Respondent would still have to pay the full amount anyway, but to various clubs
instead of to the intervening party only.
11.6. Finally, the respondent club stated that it was happy to wait for the Dispute
Resolution Chamber to reach a decision before making the necessary payment.
12.
In response, the intervening party submitted numerous statements.
12.1. It repeated that the club F, having received a transfer compensation of USD …
from X, the Claimant, had received much more than a solidarity contribution for
its training, and that it had even made a considerable profit (sic: in its previous
submission, the intervening party had referred to a compensation of USD …).
12.2. The intervening party also reiterated that the Respondent should have explicitly
excluded the solidarity contribution from the transfer contract if it wanted to
proceed this way. The opposite, however, was in fact true. It is clear that the
Respondent, from the outset, knew that it would have to cover the solidarity
contribution itself. Otherwise, the Respondent would not have paid the first two
instalments without subtracting 5%. The note regarding the 30-day payment
5
deadline in art. 11 of the Regulations governing the Application of the
Regulations 2001 also supports this.
12.3. Furthermore, the intervening party once again stressed that a club could not be
compensated twice for the same right.
12.4. Finally, the intervening party insisted that the Football Association of country A
should hand out the transfer agreement between the club F and the claimant
club.
13.
In its submissions dated 18 May and 29 July 2004, the Football Association of
country A informed FIFA that its club and the Respondent held the same
viewpoints in this dispute, and therefore asked for a decision that reflected this.
14.
On 6 July 2004, without prejudice to any decision which might have to be taken by
the competent body at a later stage, FIFA drew the parties’ attention to the
general principle that legal provisions and regulations are only open to
interpretation if their wording is not clear and precise. FIFA stated that the
provisions in the FIFA Regulations regarding the solidarity mechanism and its
application are clear and precise, and therefore leave no room for interpretation.
FIFA invited the parties to duly consider this fact and to proceed accordingly.
15.
In response, the intervening party stated that it would be standing by its position,
whereas the Football Association of country A demanded that the parties act in
accordance with FIFA’s instructions.
16.
The Respondent then informed FIFA that its bank, i.e. where the bank guarantee
had been placed, had received a request from the intervening party, i.e. the
recipient of the guarantee, for a partial payment of the guarantee in the amount
of EUR … and that the bank had approved this request. The Respondent therefore
stated that the club F should make direct contact with the intervening party
regarding the solidarity contribution. FIFA should also order the intervening party
to pay the EUR … which it had obtained illegally, to the club F.
17.
The Football Association of country A then once again called upon the parties
involved to act in accordance with FIFA’s letter dated 6 July 2004, and demanded
that the relevant proportions of the solidarity contribution are paid to the clubs
that had been involved in the player’s training. Furthermore, in response to a
request from FIFA for clarification, the Football Association of country A submitted
copies of the complaints for payment of solidarity contribution from the clubs E
and X, the Claimant. Finally, the Football Association of country A submitted
another letter in which it once again demanded that the solidarity contribution is
to be paid to its clubs, while also claiming the relevant interests.
6
18.
In their final submissions dated 6 March 2006, the clubs X, E and F stood by their
complaints and opinions (i.e. backed the former submissions of F), and demanded
that the interest is to be paid as well as appropriate disciplinary measures are to
be imposed.
19.
The intervening party disputed its involvement and its capacity to be made a
respondent in this whole dispute. The intervening party stated that the only
question to be answered was whether the new club, i.e. the Respondent, had paid
a solidarity contribution in accordance with the FIFA regulations and circular as
well as in accordance with FIFA jurisdiction. Consequently, other questions
regarding contractual relationships with other clubs were not to be examined.
With regard to its previous submissions, the intervening party stated that these
had only been made in order to learn about FIFA’s interpretation of the new
system that had been introduced at the start of proceedings. Furthermore, the
intervening party stated that, in any case, it was the responsibility of the
Respondent to pay the solidarity contribution. In addition, any claim submitted by
the Respondent for repayment would have to be considered in separate
proceedings at a later date. Furthermore, the intervening party is of the opinion
that, contrary to the statements submitted by the clubs X, E and F, the FIFA letter
dated 6 July 2004 had only contained directives for the respondent club, not any
orders directed to the intervening party. Finally, the intervening party stressed
that the delay in this proceedings could only be attributed to the Respondent’s
actions.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Chamber analysed whether it was competent to deal with the
matter at stake. In this respect, it referred to art. 18 par. 2 and 3 of the Rules
Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute
Resolution Chamber. The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 19 April 2004,
as a consequence the Chamber concluded that the previous Procedural Rules
(edition 2001) on matters pending before the decision making bodies of FIFA are
applicable on the matter at hand.
2.
With regard to the competence of the Chamber, art. 25 par. 2 of the FIFA
Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2001) establishes that, it
falls within the purview of the Dispute Resolution Chamber to review disputes
concerning the distribution of the solidarity contribution.
3.
As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is the competent body to
decide on the present litigation concerning the distribution of the solidarity
7
contribution claimed by the Claimant in connection with the transfer of the
professional player D during the course of a contract.
4.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber analyzed which edition of the
Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players should be applicable as to the
substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 26 par. 1 and
2 of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2005) in the
modified version in accordance with the FIFA circular no. 995 dated 23 September
2005. Furthermore, it acknowledged that the professional player in question had
been registered for his new club in August 2003. Equally the Chamber took note
that the claim was lodged at FIFA on 19 April 2004. In view of the
aforementioned, the Chamber concluded that the former FIFA Regulations for the
Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2001, hereafter: the Regulations) are
applicable on the case at hand as to the substance.
5.
In continuation, and entering into the substance of the matter, the members of
the Chamber started by acknowledging that as established in art. 25 of the
Regulations in connection with art. 11 par. 1 of the Regulations governing the
Application of the Regulations 2001 (hereinafter: Application Regulations), the
new club concerned is to distribute 5% of any compensation paid to the previous
club of the player to the club(s) where the player had played between the ages of
12 and 23.
6.
In the present case, the Chamber outlined that the entire period to be taken into
consideration for the calculation and distribution of the solidarity contribution ran
from the sporting season 1987, at the beginning of which the player was 12, until
the sporting season 1997, at the end of which the player was 23.
7.
The Chamber made further reference to art. 10 of the Application Regulations,
which provides the figures for the distribution of the solidarity contribution, in
accordance with the time the player was effectively trained by the clubs involved.
8.
In the case at hand, the Chamber observed that Football Association of country A
confirmed that the player D had been registered for the Claimant from 11 August
1995 until 29 August 1996.
9.
Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the period of effective training to be
taken into account for the solidarity contribution due to the Claimant corresponds
to one year, from 11 August 1995, at the time when the player was 20 years old
until 29 August 1996.
10.
Therefore, the Chamber established that, in accordance with the breakdown
provided for in art. 10 of the Application Regulations, the Claimant is in principle
entitled to receive 10% of the 5% of the compensation paid in relation to the
transfer of the player from the intervening party to the Respondent.
8
11.
In continuation, the Chamber turned its attention to the Respondent’s position.
The Chamber acknowledged, in particular, that the Respondent had intended to
withhold 5% of the transfer compensation it had agreed upon with the
intervening party in order to distribute the relevant amount to the player’s
training clubs. Yet, after having the bank, where the bank guarantee for the
intervening party had been placed, upon request of the intervening party,
transferred the amount of EUR … (the amount which the Respondent had
withheld in order to distribute to the training clubs) to the intervening party, the
Respondent contests its obligation to pay any compensation to the Claimant.
12.
The Chamber noted that the Respondent asserts having now paid 100% of the
transfer compensation. Moreover, the Respondent argues that it agreed with the
intervening party that the transfer compensation was paid exempt from any other
costs. From the Respondent’s point of view, this did, however, not mean that it
would have to pay solidarity contribution to the training clubs in addition to the
transfer compensation to the intervening party. The relevant provision only
committed the Respondent to cover all costs of administration and registration.
The Chamber observed that the Respondent is of the opinion that the Claimant
should therefore turn to the intervening party directly in order to receive the
relevant proportion of solidarity contribution.
13.
Taking the above into account, the Chamber outlined that it could not upheld the
position of the Respondent with regard to its obligation to pay solidarity
compensation to the Claimant. The Chamber emphasised that the relevant
provisions contained in the Regulations as well as in the Application Regulations
on the duty of the new club to distribute 5% of any compensation paid to the
previous club(s) where the player had played between the ages of 12 and 23 are
clear and precise and do not leave room for interpretation. Moreover, the
Chamber deemed it important to clarify that besides the aforementioned, the
Claimant’s rights could not be forgone by a contractual clause, such as the abovementioned wording “exempt from any other costs”, agreed between two other
parties.
14.
In this respect, the Chamber referred to its well-established jurisprudence in similar
cases, according to which the player’s new club is ordered to remit the relevant
proportion(s) of the 5% solidarity contribution to the club(s) involved in the
player’s training in strict application of art. 11 of the Application Regulations.
Moreover, and in applying the said jurisprudence, the Chamber underlined that
the Respondent, in turn, will have the right to claim the reimbursement of the
same proportion(s) of the 5% in relation to solidarity mechanism from the player’s
former club.
15.
The said jurisprudence is based on the fact that there is no contractual link
between the training club claiming for solidarity contribution and the player’s
9
former club. Therefore, the relevant claim does not find a contractual basis. Yet,
the Regulations clearly establish that the distribution of the solidarity contribution
is incumbent on the new club. As a consequence, the Regulations provide for a
legal basis for the claim of the training club against the new club, yet not for a
claim against the player’s former club. Finally, the new club and the previous club
are bound by a contractual agreement, which needs to be respected.
16.
The Chamber noted that in accordance with the transfer contract regarding the
player D signed on 25 August 2003, the Respondent agreed to pay the amount of
EUR … to the club Z. Furthermore, the Chamber recalled that, as clarified in the
FIFA circular 826, the 5% solidarity contribution is to be deducted from the
amount payable to the player’s former club.
17.
Taking into account the above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must
pay the Claimant 10% of the 5% of the transfer compensation it paid in relation
to the transfer of the player in question from the intervening party to the
Respondent, i.e. EUR ….
18.
In continuation, the Chamber referred to the Claimant’s demand for default
interest. In this respect and with regard to the mode of payment, the members of
the Chamber referred to the well-established jurisprudence of the Dispute
Resolution Chamber, according to which in case of contingent payments the new
club shall pay the solidarity contribution to the training club(s) 30 days after the
date of such payments. It is in fact on the basis of this jurisprudence that the
revised Regulations (edition 2005) explicitly provide for this rule (cf. art. 2 par. 1 of
Annex 5 to the revised Regulations).
19.
Consequently, in light of the fact that from the relevant payment of transfer
compensation ¼ (i.e. EUR …) had been due within 24 hours of receipt of the
International Transfer Certificate, ¼ (EUR …) on 20 September 2003 and ½ (EUR
…) on 20 July 2004, the Dispute Resolution Chamber established that a default
interest payment of 5% p.a. according to the agreed contingent payments must
be applied, as follows:
- default interest of 5% p.a. on EUR …, i.e. ¼ of the above-decided solidarity
contribution due to the Claimant, as from the day on which the 1st instalment
was due, i.e. 25 August 2003,
- default interest of 5% p.a. on EUR …, i.e. ¼ of the above-decided solidarity
contribution due to the Claimant, as from the day on which the 2nd instalment
was due, i.e. 20 September 2003 and
- default interest of 5% p.a. on EUR …, i.e. ½ of the above-decided solidarity
contribution due to the Claimant, as from the day on which the 3rd instalment
was due, i.e. 20 July 2004.
10
20.
Taking into account all of the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided
that the Respondent must pay the Claimant EUR … as solidarity contribution in
relation to the transfer of the player D from the intervening party to the
Respondent, plus 5% default interest per year on EUR … starting on 25 August
2003, on EUR … starting on 20 September 2003 and on EUR … starting on 20 July
2004, all applicable until the effective date of payment to the Claimant.
21.
Finally, notwithstanding the above and for the sake of completeness, the Chamber
turned its attention to the intervening party’s position. The Chamber
acknowledged that from the very beginning and even prior to the present claim
being lodged the intervening party contested before FIFA its obligation to accept
a deduction from the transfer compensation that it had agreed upon with the
Respondent, on the basis of payment of solidarity contribution for the transfer of
the player in question. In particular, the intervening party argues that at the time
of the player’s transfer from a training club as part of the relevant transfer
compensation, each training club has already received an amount towards the
player’s training, and therefore has no right to be compensated again for the
same training. Furthermore, the Chamber acknowledged that the intervening
party is of the opinion that solidarity contribution is only due if the parties
involved in the transfer of the player from a training club did not reach an
agreement on compensation. Therefore, if a training club already received
compensation when a player left the club, no solidarity contribution should be
due.
22.
In this respect, the Chamber outlined that it could not upheld the position of the
intervening party, since training compensation, transfer compensation and
solidarity contribution are three completely different rights or claims that exist
independently of each other. The Chamber was eager to emphasise that it is one
of the essential aims of the FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players
to encourage the work of training clubs by trying to ensure appropriate
compensation for their efforts made within the scope of training and educating
players. Therefore not only the principle of training compensation for young
players but also the pillar of the solidarity contribution was included as a central
principle of the Regulations. A training club should thus not only be compensated
for its work at the moment when the player leaves it (training compensation), but
throughout the duration of the player’s career, whenever another club receives
financial contribution for the player (solidarity contribution).
23.
Moreover, the Chamber duly noted that the intervening party asserts that art. 25
of the Regulations and the FIFA circular 826 only came into effect after all
transfers involving the training clubs had been completed, and as such, these
provisions cannot be applied retrospectively to this matter.
11
24.
To that regard, the Chamber pointed out that the facts that give rise to the claim,
i.e. the transfer of the player to the respondent club and its registration date,
occurred in August 2003, thus after the coming into force of art. 25 of the
Regulations (1 September 2001) and after the issuance of the FIFA circular 826 (31
October 2002). As a consequence, the Chamber stated that, as a matter of
principle, no retrospective application of the aforementioned provisions appears
to be existent. The relevant rules are being applied on a transfer that clearly took
place after their coming into effect. The Chamber was of the unanimous opinion
that under such circumstances also those clubs that trained the player prior to the
coming into effect of the applicable Regulations and the implementation of the
principle of the solidarity mechanism, have to be entitled to participate to such
contribution. Any other approach would constitute an illegitimate discrimination
of certain training clubs and go against the aim of encouraging training of young
players. Finally, the Chamber stressed that the principle of legal security is
safeguarded since any club transferring a player after 1 September 2001 needs and
can be aware of that institution. Equally, the Chamber stressed that the
Regulations are not limiting in time the training clubs entitled to claim solidarity
contribution but simply refer to “the club(s) involved in the training and education
of the player” (cf. art. 25 par. 1 of the Regulations).
25.
In continuation, the Chamber took note of the intervening party’s assertion
according to which solidarity contribution cannot be irrespective of age analogue
to training compensation. Therefore, no solidarity contribution should be due in
the case at hand.
26.
In this context, the members of the Chamber again stated that the intervening
party’s position has to be rejected, since – as outlined above – solidarity
contribution is an independently existing claim beside training compensation. The
two claims have two different aims and therefore the provisions need different
requirements to be met. In particular, as already exposed, the solidarity
mechanism shall make sure that a training club can financially profit from its
training work throughout the entire career of a player it contributed to train and
educate. The FIFA circular 769 therefore rightly states that solidarity contribution
is due irrespective of the player’s age. Furthermore, the Chamber emphasised that
neither art. 25 of the Regulations nor art. 10 and 11 of the Application
Regulations anyhow refer to a possible age limitation.
27.
With regard to the intervening party’s remark that only the FIFA circular 826 dated
31 October 2002 made clear that the transfer compensation agreed between the
former and the new club is 100% and that therefore, the 5% solidarity
contribution is to be deducted from the amount payable to the player’s former
club, the Chamber again recalled that the transfer at the basis of the present
dispute took place after the issuing of the relevant circular, i.e. in August 2003.
Therefore, again, it is not appropriate to speak of a retrospective application.
12
Equally, the Chamber deemed it important to explain that, in any case, the
relevant circular only clarified the understanding of the relevant provision, yet it
did not create any new rule.
28.
Finally, the Chamber turned its attention to the intervening party’s allegation
according to which the Respondent should have explicitly excluded the solidarity
contribution from the transfer contract if it wanted to proceed this way, i.e. to
deduct the 5% related to the solidarity mechanism from the transfer
compensation.
29.
In this respect, the Dispute Resolution Chamber outlined that it could once again
not upheld the position of the intervening party. As previously shown, the FIFA
circular 826 unmistakably clarified that the 5% solidarity contribution is to be
deducted from the amount payable to the player’s former club. Therefore, it is not
necessary to explicitly report this fact in the relevant agreement. Equally, the
Chamber deemed that the agreement on a net amount cannot affect this principle
but only refer to tax and other (administrative) costs. The circular had already
been issued at the time of the relevant transfer agreement.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, X, is accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Y, has to pay the amount of EUR … to the Claimant.
3.
The Respondent, Y, has to pay default interest of 5% p.a. until the effective date
of payment to the Claimant, as follows:
3.1. on EUR …, as from 25 August 2003,
3.2. on EUR …, as from 20 September 2003 and
3.3. on EUR …, as from on 20 July 2004.
4.
The amount due to the Claimant, X, has to be paid by the Respondent, Y, within
30 days as from the date of notification of this decision.
5.
If the aforementioned sums according to the above-stated points 2 and 3 are not
paid within the aforementioned deadline the present matter shall be submitted to
FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee, so that the necessary disciplinary sanctions may be
imposed.
6.
The Claimant, X, is directed to inform the Respondent, Y, directly and immediately
of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the
Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received.
13
7.
According to art. 60 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:
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:
__________________________________
Urs Linsi
General Secretary
Enclosed: CAS directives
14