Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 9 May 2011,
by Mr Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge,
on the claim presented by the player,
S,
as Claimant
against the club,
FC A,
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute
between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 15 May 2008, the player, S (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the club, A FC
(hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract)
valid as from 1 June 2008 until 31 May 2009 “or after the last game of the Championship
(2008-2009) whichever is the latest”.
2.
In accordance with art. 4 of the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive, inter alia,
EUR 65,000 for the season 2008/09:
- EUR 5,000 on 30 May 2008;
- EUR 60,000 in 10 equal instalments of EUR 6,000 each, the first instalment to be
paid on 30 August 2008 and the next on the last day of each consecutive month
until full payment.
3.
On 15 December 2009, the Claimant lodged a complaint against the Respondent in front
of FIFA requesting the outstanding amount of EUR 36,000 plus interest, made up of
salaries from December 2008 until May 2009 as well as requesting legal fees and any
other or further remedy FIFA deems appropriate.
4.
In its reply, the Respondent denied all allegations submitted by the Claimant and
reinforced that it paid all the salaries due to the Claimant.
5.
It further argued that the parties already signed an employment contract on 2 May 2007
and that the parties prolonged their employment relationship by signing the present
contract. Furthermore, it stated that the Claimant signed a receipt numbered 0303 on
4 June 2009, according to which the Claimant received the amount of EUR 3,000 “for full
and final settlement of all dues”.
6.
In his replica, the Claimant maintained his previous position and denied the Respondent’s
statement that he was fully paid. The Claimant stated that he never signed any kind of
payment receipt regarding his unpaid salaries and rejected the Respondent’s allegation
that he accepted any kind of arrangement regarding the full settlement of his unpaid
salaries by being paid the amount of EUR 3,000 by the Respondent.
7.
Moreover, the Claimant stressed that he does not write or speak G language and thus
cannot comprehend what is written on the payment receipt, dated 4 June 2009. The
Claimant requested from the Respondent to provide all payment receipts for the football
period of 2008/09 in order to proof that the outstanding salaries were paid to him.
8.
In its final position, the Respondent maintained its previous position and stated that the
Claimant always signed the receipts in G language and never faced any problem with
doing so.
2/6
II. Considerations of the DRC judge
1.
First of all, the DRC judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the case at
hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on
15 December 2009. Consequently, the 2008 edition of the Rules Governing the
Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber
(hereinafter: Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter at hand (cf. article 21 par. 2
and 3 of the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 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 (hereinafter: the Regulations;
edition 2010), the DRC judge is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which
concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a
player and a club.
3.
Furthermore, the DRC judge analysed which edition of the Regulations should be
applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, he confirmed that in
accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations (editions 2010 and 2009), and
considering that the claim was lodged on 15 December 2009, the 2009 edition of the said
regulations is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
4.
The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been
established and entering into the substance of the matter, the DRC judge acknowledged
the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file.
5.
In this respect, the DRC judge took due note that the Claimant demands to be awarded
payments by the Respondent in the amount of EUR 36,000 as outstanding salaries from
December 2008 until May 2009 with default interest, legal fees and any remedy FIFA
deems appropriate.
6.
On the other hand, the DRC judge took note that the Respondent denied that it owed
the Claimant any outstanding amount for the months of December 2008 to May 2009,
since the Claimant allegedly signed a receipt numbered 0303 in the amount of EUR 3,000
on 4 June 2009 “for full and final settlement of all dues”.
7.
In view of the argumentation put forward by the Respondent, the DRC judge deemed
that, in order to be able to establish whether the Respondent still had outstanding
salaries to be paid to the Claimant, it was crucial to closely examine the aforementioned
document which the Respondent claimed has settled all debts.
3/6
8.
In this respect, the DRC judge first of all acknowledged the translation of the document
in question dated 4 June 2009 which stipulates that the amount of EUR 3,000 stands for
“for full settlement of all dues”.
9.
Furthermore, turning his attention to the document in its original version in G language,
the DRC judge noted that the document appears to bear, apart from the Respondent’s
letterhead, the signature of the Claimant.
10. With regard to the foregoing, the DRC judge acknowledged that the Claimant claimed
never having signed any kind of payment receipt regarding his unpaid salaries. However,
the DRC judge also emphasised that the Claimant had never explicitly claimed that his
signature on the document in question was forged or contested the translation of the
document provided by the Respondent.
11. Furthermore, the DRC judge noted that the Claimant invoked that he does not write or
speak G language and did not understand the contents of the G document. In this
respect, the DRC judge 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.
12. By examining the evidence at his disposal, in particular the signature of the Claimant on
the original version of the relevant document and the employment contract, the DRC
judge found that he had no other alternative but to conclude that the Claimant signed a
receipt of EUR 3,000 “for full settlement of all dues”.
13. Finally, the DRC judge referred to the Claimant’s argument that the Respondent shall
provide all payment receipts for the season 2008/2009 in order to proof that the
outstanding salaries were paid to him. In this respect, the DRC judge stated that
according to the legal principle of the burden of proof, which is a basic principle in every
legal system, a party deriving from an asserted fact has the obligation to prove the
relevant fact (cf. art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules).
14. In view of all of the above, the DRC judge came to the conclusion that the Respondent
does not owe the Claimant any outstanding monies and, consequently, the Claimant’s
claim for outstanding salaries plus interest is rejected.
15. With regard to the Claimant’s claim for the reimbursement of legal expenses, the DRC
judge recalled the contents of art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, which clearly
stipulates that no procedural compensation is awarded in proceedings in front of the
DRC. Therefore, the DRC judge had no other alternative than to reject this part of the
claim, even though the Respondent did not contest the claim in this regard.
*****
4/6
III. Decision of the DRC judge
The claim of the S, is rejected.
*****
5/6
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, 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 DRC judge:
Jérôme Valcke
Secretary General
Enclosed: CAS directives
6/6