Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 7 May 2008,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Philippe Piat (France), member
Gerardo Movilla (Spain), member
Philippe Diallo (France), member
Ivan Gazidis (USA), member
on the claim presented by the player
Player A, X,
as Claimant
against the club
Club B, Y,
as Respondent
regarding an employment related contractual dispute
arisen between the player and the club.
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 1 September 2005, the player, Player A (hereinafter: the player), concluded
an employment contract with the Y club, Club B (hereinafter: the club), for the
2005-2006 and 2006-2007 seasons.
2.
On 19 January 2006, the two parties agreed to terminate the player’s
employment contract by mutual consent. This agreement stipulated that the
parties were terminating their contractual relationship and that the parties
had no claim over each other. This agreement was subject to, inter alia, the
club paying the player USD 40,000 within four months of the termination
agreement being signed.
3.
By correspondence dated 13 December 2006, the legal representative of the
player gave the club notice of a claim for USD 40,000, which should have been
paid by 19 May 2006 (i.e. four months after the signature of the contract).
4.
In a complaint against the club submitted to FIFA on 2 January 2007, the player
demanded the payment of USD 40,000, i.e. the amount that was due under the
terms of the termination agreement of 19 January 2006. The player also
demanded interest of 15% per annum, as well as the reimbursement of all
procedural costs.
5.
The club contests the player’s claim regarding the amount owed. First of all,
the club admitted to owing the player USD 20,000. However, the club asserted
that it had already paid USD 20,000 by way of bank transfer to the player’s
manager, C, on 7 January 2006. To substantiate this allegation, the club
attached a bank statement, in Y language, from 9 January 2006, which
allegedly confirmed that the club had made a bank transfer to C.
6.
In response to the club’s statements, the player stated that he did not have a
contractual relationship with the above-named manager. Furthermore, he
stated that the mutual agreement to terminate the contract had only been
signed by the two parties on 19 January 2006, i.e. 12 days after the alleged
bank transfer. The player also noted that the above-named manager was not a
named party in the termination agreement.
7.
The club did not express itself with regard to these last statements of the
player.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player A, X / Club B, Y
2
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber 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 2 January 2007. Consequently, the
Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to
the matter at hand (cf. art. 18 par. 2 and 3 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. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (edition 2008) 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 from X and a Y club.
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 (edition 2008), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 2
January 2007, the previous version of the regulations (edition 2005;
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 carefully studied the facts outlined above as well as
the entire documentation on file. In this respect, the Chamber noted that, on 1
September 2005, the parties involved concluded an employment contract for
the football seasons of 2005/06 and 2006/07. Furthermore, the Chamber
acknowledged that, on 19 January 2006, the two parties signed an agreement
in accordance with which they terminated the said employment contract by
mutual consent. This agreement was subject to, inter alia, the club paying the
player USD 40,000 within four months of the termination agreement having
been signed.
5.
Continuing, the Chamber took note that the player demands the payment of
USD 40,000, i.e. the amount that was due under the terms of the mentioned
termination agreement of 19 January 2006 and that the player also demanded
interest of 15% per year, as well as the reimbursement of all procedural costs.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player A, X / Club B, Y
3
6.
With regard to the player’s claim for payment of the amount of USD 40,000 in
accordance with the termination agreement, the Chamber noted that the club
admitted to owing the player USD 20,000. The Chamber acknowledged that
the club contests the player’s claim regarding the entire amount of USD 40,000
by alleging that it had already paid USD 20,000 by way of bank transfer to the
player’s alleged manager, C, on 7 January 2006. Concerning this allegation of
the club, the Chamber emphasised that in order to prove its allegation, the
club attached a bank statement, in Y language, from 9 January 2006, which
allegedly confirmed that the club had made a bank transfer to C.
8.
On the other hand, the Chamber took note of the player’s statement that he
did not have a contractual relationship with the above-named manager and
that the mutual agreement to terminate the contract had only been signed by
the two parties involved in the present dispute on 19 January 2006, i.e. 12 days
after the aforementioned alleged bank transfer. Moreover, the Chamber
acknowledged that the player stated that the above-named manager was not
a named party in the termination agreement.
9.
The club, for its part, had not commented on the last statements of the player
and thus did not contest the player’s depiction of the relevant circumstances.
Moreover, the members of the Chamber emphasised that the club was neither
able to prove that the player has already received payment of the amount of
USD 20,000 nor that the person to whom the said amount had allegedly been
transferred was linked in any way to the player.
10.
On account of all of the above, the Chamber concluded that the total amount
of USD 40,000 remains unpaid and therefore decided to accept the player’s
claim against the club for the payment of the amount of USD 40,000.
11.
Furthermore, the Chamber acknowledged that the player asks for interest of
15% p.a. over the amount due. Taking into account the longstanding practice
of the Chamber in this respect, interest of 5% p.a. is due to the creditor and
therefore the Chamber decided that in the specific case at hand the club has to
pay to the player interest of 5% p.a. over USD 40,000 as from 20 May 2006.
12.
Finally, with respect to the Claimant’s request to be awarded reimbursement
of his procedural costs, the Chamber decided to reject the relevant request on
the basis of art. 15 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player A, X / Club B, Y
4
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim submitted by the Claimant, Player A, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club B, is ordered to pay the amount of USD 40,000 plus
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as from 20 May 2006 until the date of effective
payment to the Claimant within 30 days as of notification of the present
decision.
3.
If the amount due is not paid by Club B within the above-mentioned time
limit, the matter shall be submitted to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for its
consideration and decision.
4.
Any further request filed by the Claimant is rejected.
5.
The Player A is directed to inform Club B directly and immediately of the
account number to which the remittance is to be made, and to notify the
Dispute Resolution Chamber about any receipt of the payment.
6.
According to art. 61 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).
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player A, X / Club B, Y
5
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:
__________________________________
Jérôme Valcke
Secretary General
Enclosed: CAS directives
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Player A, X / Club B, Y
6