Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 12 June 2012,
by Mr Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge,
on the claim presented by the player
A,
as Claimant
against the club
X,
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute
arisen between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 28 June 2008, the country G player, A (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the
country C club, X (hereinafter: the Respondent), signed an employment contract
(hereinafter: the contract) valid from 1 July 2008 until 31 May 2010, i.e. for two
seasons.
2.
Pursuant to the contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive for his services, inter
alia, the total amount of EUR 40,000 per season, payable in ten equal instalments
of EUR 4,000.
3.
Furthermore, equally on the same day, i.e. on 28 June 2008, the parties also signed
a private agreement (hereinafter: the agreement) valid from 1 July 2008 until
31 May 2010, and according to which the Claimant was entitled to receive, inter
alia, the total amount of EUR 50,000 per season, payable in ten equal instalments
of EUR 5,000.
4.
On 27 June 2011, the Claimant lodged a complaint in front of FIFA against the
Respondent requesting the total outstanding amount of EUR 18,000 made up of
the following amounts:
the sum of EUR 8,000 corresponding to the salaries of April and May 2010 as
provided for in the contract;
the amount of EUR 10,000 corresponding to the instalments of April and May
2010 as stipulated in the agreement.
5.
Furthermore, the player also claimed damages, costs and sanctions against the
Respondent.
6.
Despite having been invited to do so, the Respondent did not provide any
position.
*****
2/6
II.
Considerations of the DRC judge
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber judge (hereinafter referred to as the
DRC judge or the judge) analysed whether he was competent to deal with the
matter at stake. In this respect, he referred to art. 21 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 27 June 2011.
As a consequence, the DRC judge concluded that the 2008 edition of the Rules
Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute
Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to the matter
in hand.
2.
Subsequently, the judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules and
confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 and in combination with
art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition
2010), he is competent to decide on the present litigation with an international
dimension concerning an employment-related dispute between a player and a
club.
3.
In particular, and in accordance with art. 24 par. 2 lit. i) of the Regulations on the
Status and Transfer of Players, the DRC judge confirmed that he may adjudicate in
the present dispute which value does not exceed CHF 100,000.
4.
In continuation, the DRC judge analysed which 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 on the Status and Transfer of Players
(edition 2010), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 27 June
2011, the 2010 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
5.
The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been
established, the latter entered into the substance of the matter by acknowledging
that the parties to the dispute had signed an employment contract as well as a
private agreement, which were both valid from 1 July 2008 until 31 May 2010.
6.
Subsequently, the Dispute Resolution Chamber judge noted that the Respondent,
for its part, failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant, in spite of
having been invited to do so several times. In this way, so the judge, the
Respondent renounced its right to defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of
the Claimant.
7.
Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the DRC
judge concurred that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, he
shall take a decision upon the basis of the documentation already on file; in other
words, upon the statements and documents presented by the Claimant.
3/6
8.
In line with the above, the judge took into consideration that according to the
Claimant, the club had failed to pay his remuneration in the total amount of
EUR 18,000 amount which includes EUR 8,000 relating to his salaries for April and
May 2010 as well as EUR 10,000 representing the instalments of April and May
2010. Consequently, the Claimant asked to be awarded payment of the total
amount of EUR 18,000.
9.
As stated above, in accordance with the employment contract and the private
agreement presented by the Claimant, the Respondent was obliged to pay the
player the total amount of EUR 9,000 on a monthly basis during 10 months per
season.
10.
Taking into account the documentation presented by the Claimant in support of
his petition, the DRC judge concluded that the Claimant had substantiated his
claim pertaining to outstanding remuneration with sufficient documentary
evidence.
11.
On account of the aforementioned considerations, the Dispute Resolution
Chamber judge established that the Respondent failed to remit the Claimant’s
monthly remuneration in the total amount of EUR 18,000.
12.
Consequently, the judge decided that, in accordance with the general legal
principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant
outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR 18,000.
13.
Moreover, the DRC judge decided that the Claimant’s request for legal costs is
rejected in accordance with art. 18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules.
14.
Finally, the Dispute Resolution Chamber judge concluded its deliberations in the
present matter by establishing that the claim of the player is partially accepted,
and any further claims lodged by the Claimant are rejected.
*****
4/6
III.
Decision of the DRC judge
1.
The claim of the Claimant, A, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club X, has to pay to the Claimant, A, the amount of EUR 18,000,
within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision.
3.
If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the above-mentioned deadline, an
interest rate of 5% per annum will apply as of expiry of the stipulated time limit
and the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary
Committee for its consideration and a formal decision.
4.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant, A, is rejected.
5.
The Claimant, A, is directed to inform the Respondent, Club X, immediately and
directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to
notify the DRC judge of every payment received.
*****
5/6
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to art. 67 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
Encl.
CAS directives
6/6