Solidarity Contribution
Texto da decisão
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 April 2007,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Wilfried Straub (Germany), Member
Mario Gallavotti (Italy), Member
Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), Member
Gerardo Movilla (Spain), Member
on the claim presented by the club,
A, from X
as “Claimant”
against the club,
B, from Y
as “Respondent”
regarding the interest on late payment of the solidarity contribution in connection with
the transfer of the player C
I.
Facts of the case
1.
Player C, born 5 September 1979, was, according to the official confirmation
from the Football Association of X, registered with the club A (hereinafter: the
Claimant), as from 9 July 1997 until his definitive transfer to club D on 20 January
2000. Moreover, according to the Football Association of X, the player in
question was loaned from club A to club D as from 31 July 1999 until 13
December 1999.
2.
The player was transferred in June 2005 from club E to club B (hereinafter: the
Respondent), for the amount of EUR 7,000,000.
3.
Such amount was known to the Dispute Resolution Chamber since another X
club, D, claimed its proportion to the solidarity contribution from the
aforementioned club B in front of FIFA. In the aforementioned procedure, club B
confirmed that it was agreed in the relevant transfer agreement it signed with
club E for the transfer of the player in question that the transfer compensation
of EUR 7’000’000 is to be paid as follows: EUR 4’000’000 in July 2005, EUR
1’000’000 on 31 December 2005, EUR 1’000’000 on 31 July 2006 and EUR
1’000’000 on 31 December 2006.
4.
By means of its correspondence dated 13 April 2006, club A, contacted FIFA and
informed that it received, with a considerable delay of 232 days, i.e. on 20 March
2006, the payment of EUR 58’275 as solidarity contribution related to the first
instalments of compensation paid by the Respondent to the player’s former club.
5.
Therefore, club A requests that club B must pay as late payment interest the
amount of EUR 1’860 from the due date being 31 July 2005 until 20 March 2006.
6.
In the course of the investigations of the present matter, on 24 January 2007,
club A confirmed that club B had, in the meantime, paid the solidarity
contribution due and payable pertaining to the transfer of the player in question
from club E to the Respondent and that therefore, the only remaining issue left
is the late payment interest amounting to EUR 1’860.
7.
Although FIFA has invited the Respondent to provide its position to the claim of
the Claimant, the latter failed to do so until to date.
Solidarity contribution in connection with the player C
(Club A, from X / Club B, from Y)
2
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 13 April 2006,
as a consequence the Chamber concluded that the revised Rules Governing
Procedures (edition 2005) on matter 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. 3 par. 1 of the abovementioned Rules states that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall examine its
jurisdiction in the light of articles 22 to 24 of the current version of the
Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2005). In accordance
with art. 24 par. 1 in connection with art. 22 (d) of the aforementioned
Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall adjudicate on disputes
between two clubs belonging to different Associations related to solidarity
mechanism.
3.
As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is the competent body to
decide on the present litigation concerning the distribution of the solidarity
contribution, respectively the potential payment of default interest related to
such contribution, claimed by the Claimant in connection with the transfer of the
professional player C 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 had been
registered for his new club in June 2005. Equally the Chamber took note that the
claim was lodged at FIFA on 13 April 2006. 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 Dispute
Resolution Chamber carefully considered and analysed the above-mentioned
Solidarity contribution in connection with the player C
(Club A, from X / Club B, from Y)
3
facts and all documents submitted during the course of the investigation of this
case.
6.
Most notably, the Dispute Resolution Chamber acknowledged that, at first, the
Claimant requested the payment of default interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as from
the day on which the payment of the solidarity contribution related to the first
instalment of the transfer compensation paid by the Respondent to the player’s
former club had fallen due.
7.
In this respect, the Chamber took note that, in the meantime, and following
FIFA’s intervention in the matter, the Respondent had paid the full amount as
solidarity contribution to the Claimant. Moreover, the Chamber noted that the
Claimant had accepted this amount as being the one due as solidarity
contribution.
8.
As a result of the above, the Chamber concluded that, as far as the payment of
the solidarity contribution is concerned, an amicable settlement had been
reached between the Claimant and the Respondent.
9.
Consequently, the Chamber established that only the Claimant’s demand
regarding default interest at a rate of 5% p.a. as from the day on which the first
payment of the solidarity contribution had fallen due remains disputed.
10.
In this respect, the Chamber, first and foremost, went on to examine whether
the applicable Regulations contain explicit provisions, based on which the
Claimant could be awarded default interest.
11.
In this regard, the Chamber acknowledged that the Regulations do not foresee
any provision stipulating, per se, the right for the Claimant to receive default
interest for a possible late payment of the solidarity contribution. Indeed, the
pertinent arts., in particular art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in connection with
art. 11 par. 3 of the Regulations governing the Application of the Regulations for
the Status and Transfer of Players (hereafter: Application Regulations), stipulate
explicitly that the Dispute Resolution Chamber may impose disciplinary measures
on clubs that do not observe the obligation related to the payment procedure of
the solidarity contribution as set out in art. 11 par. 1 and 2 of the Application
Regulations.
12.
In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that the entitlement to receive
default interest in connection with the solidarity mechanism cannot be derived
Solidarity contribution in connection with the player C
(Club A, from X / Club B, from Y)
4
from the Regulations, but that the Regulations left the decision whether to
award default interest related to the payment of the solidarity contribution to
the competent body’s discretion.
13.
In continuation, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant’s principal entitlement
to receive its proportion of the solidarity contribution, which would in any case
constitute the basis for a possible award of default interest within the scope of
the deciding authority’s discretion, had already been settled amicably (cf. point
II. 8.).
14.
On account of the above, and taking also into consideration that due to the
relevant amicable settlement, and the relevant goodwill finally showed by the
Respondent, no decision with regard to the Claimant’s principal entitlement for
the payment of solidarity contribution as to the substance had to be taken, the
members of the Dispute Resolution Chamber unanimously reached the
conclusion that there was no valid reason to award the Claimant default interest.
15.
As a consequence, the Chamber decided that the Claimant’s claim for default
interest only had to be rejected.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim lodged by the Claimant, club A, is rejected.
2.
According to art. 61 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed
before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be
sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receiving notification of this decision
and has to contain all elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives
issued by the CAS, copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days
following the expiry of the time limit for the filing of the statement of appeal,
the appellant shall file with the CAS a brief stating the facts and legal arguments
giving rise to the appeal (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]
Solidarity contribution in connection with the player C
(Club A, from X / Club B, from Y)
5
www.tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Jérôme Valcke
General Secretary
Encl: CAS directives
Solidarity contribution in connection with the player C
(Club A, from X / Club B, from Y)
6