Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 8 June 2007,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Philippe Diallo (France), member
Zola Malvern Percival Majavu (South Africa), member
Theo van Seggelen (the Netherlands), member
John Didulica (Australia), member
on the claim presented by the player
A, X,
as Claimant
against the club
B, Y,
as Respondent
regarding outstanding remuneration on the basis of an employment contract.
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The player A (hereinafter: the Claimant) from X and the club B from Y
(hereinafter: the Respondent) signed an employment contract valid from 10
August 2005 until 31 June 2006. A copy of the relevant employment contract was
submitted to FIFA along with the Claimant’s claim.
2.
According to the employment contract, the Claimant was entitled to receive a
monthly salary of USD 2,000.
3.
The Claimant signed a further employment contract with the club C valid from 10
February 2006 until 30 June 2007. A copy of the said employment contract was
submitted to FIFA on the occasion of the following request of the X football
association.
4.
On 3 April 2006, the X football association contacted FIFA asking for its assistance
in obtaining the international transfer certificate (ITC) from the Y football
association for the Claimant. The X football association affirmed that the
Claimant is free to register with C, since his former club, the Respondent,
confirmed in a letter dated 20 January 2006 that the Claimant is free to sign with
another club of his choice without any financial charge towards the Respondent,
i.e. that his contract had expired on 31 December 2005. A copy of the said
confirmation was submitted to FIFA.
5.
The Y football association refused to issue the requested ITC with the explanation
that the Claimant still has a valid employment contract with its affiliated club, the
Respondent, until 31 June 2006. Furthermore, the said association maintained
that the Claimant breached the aforementioned contract by not having joined
its affiliate on 5 January 2006 against their agreement. Therefore, and for the
issuance of the relevant ITC, the Claimant would have to pay first compensation
of USD 10,000.
6.
FIFA asked the Y football association and the Respondent to explain the
discrepancy between the above-mentioned confirmation of the Respondent,
according to which the Claimant’s contract expired on 31 December 2005, and
the pretension stated in the answer to the ITC request, according to which the
Claimant has a valid contract until 31 June 2006 with the Respondent.
Furthermore, FIFA asked the Y football association to present a copy of the said
employment contract valid until 31 June 2006. The Y football association and its
affiliate, the Respondent, never answered to the aforementioned requests.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2
7.
On 9 May 2006, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee authorized the
X football association to provisionally register the Claimant with its member club,
C, since no currently valid written employment contract concluded between the
said parties was presented, nor the Respondent was asking for the return of the
Claimant but appeared to be rather interested in receiving compensation. In fact,
the issuance of the ITC was made subject to the payment of USD 10,000.
8.
On 24 April 2006, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent. According
to the Claimant, the Respondent did not pay him the salaries for the months
September until December 2005 in connection with the employment contract
signed by the parties concerned. Consequently, the Claimant demands from the
Respondent the amount of USD 8,000 (4 salaries of USD 2,000 each).
9.
The Respondent argued that the confirmation letter of the Respondent put
forward by the Claimant and according to which the Claimant would be free to
sign with another club of his choice without any financial charge towards the
Respondent, i.e. that his contract had expired on 31 December 2005, was falsified
by the Claimant.
10.
The Respondent further explained that it concluded an employment contract
with the Claimant valid from 10 August 2005 until 31 June 2006. Furthermore,
the Respondent affirmed that the Claimant has breached the said contract, since
he did not return after New Years Eve feasts 2005. Therefore, it requested from
the Claimant the payment of USD 10,000.
11.
Finally, the Respondent maintained having fulfilled all its contractual obligations
towards the Claimant.
12.
The Claimant presented a further communication explaining that he did not
receive match premiums in the amount of USD 2,500 neither. Consequently, the
Claimant demands the total amount of USD 10,500 from the Respondent.
13.
On 11 August 2006, the Respondent presented some payment receipts in partly
one and partly in another language.
14.
As the payment receipts presented by the Respondent were not clearly assignable
and only parts of them were drafted in one of the four official FIFA languages,
FIFA asked the Respondent to present the receipts once again as well as a
translation of them.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3
15.
In reply hereto, the Respondent underlined that it sent the original payment
receipts to the Y football association.
16.
The Claimant affirmed that the payment receipts put forward by the Respondent
were all forged and that he never received these amounts.
17.
The Respondent did not present any further communications.
18.
Upon FIFA’s requests to present copies of the above-mentioned original payment
receipts, the Y football association did not provide any answer up to today.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution 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 24
April 2006, as a consequence the Chamber concluded that the revised Rules
Governing Procedures (edition 2005) on matters pending before the decision
making bodies of FIFA are applicable to 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 combination with art. 22 (b) of the aforementioned
Regulations, the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall adjudicate on employmentrelated disputes between a club and a player that have an international
dimension.
3.
As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is the competent body to
decide on the present litigation involving a X player and a Y club regarding a
dispute in connection with an employment 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, on the one hand,
to art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players
(edition 2005) and, on the other hand, to the fact that the relevant contract at the
basis of the present dispute was signed on 10 August 2005 and the claim was
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4
lodged at FIFA on 24 April 2006. In view of the aforementioned, the Chamber
concluded that the current FIFA Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players
(edition 2005, hereafter: the Regulations) are applicable to the case at hand as to
the substance.
5.
In continuation, the members of the Chamber acknowledged the abovementioned facts as well as all the further documentation contained in the file.
6.
In this respect, the members of the Chamber took due note that, on the one hand,
the Claimant demands outstanding salaries and bonuses in the total amount of
USD 10,500 from the Respondent, which the latter omitted to pay him at the end
of the relevant employment contract allegedly on 31 December 2005.
7.
On the other hand, the Chamber noticed that the Respondent is, in particular,
convinced that the Claimant breached the aforementioned contract by not having
joined the club on 5 January 2006 after the New Years Eve feasts 2005. Therefore,
the Respondent claims USD 10,000 from the Claimant. Furthermore, the Chamber
took note that the Respondent asserts having fulfilled all its contractual
obligations towards the Claimant.
8.
In view of the above, the Chamber turned its attention to the question whether
the employment contract at the basis of the present dispute were breached by any
party and, in the affirmative, to consider the relevant consequences of the
unilateral breach of the employment contract without just cause.
9.
In view of the above, the members of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
acknowledged that the parties signed an employment contract in August 2005
that was due to run until 31 June 2006 and established in favour of the Claimant a
signing of fee of USD 10,000 and a monthly salary of USD 2,000. Furthermore, the
Chamber took note of the fact that the Respondent signed a further document
dated 20 January 2006 addressed to the club D by means of which it confirmed
that the Claimant is free to leave without any financial charge towards the
Respondent and that his contract has expired on 31 December 2005. To that
regard, the Chamber took note that this confirmation was signed by the president
of the Respondent and contains the Respondent’s club stamp.
10.
In this context, the Chamber turned its attention to the Respondent’s allegation
according to which the above-mentioned confirmation was falsified. To that
regard, the Dispute Resolution Chamber emphasised that FIFA is not competent to
decide upon matters of criminal law, such as document forgery. Consequently, the
Chamber decided to refer the Respondent to the competent national authorities
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5
in order to obtain a binding decision regarding the alleged forgery of the relevant
confirmation.
11.
As a result, the Chamber concluded that it cannot take into consideration the
Respondent’s aforementioned allegation for the said reasons, and therefore
established that the relevant employment contract concluded between the parties
terminated on 31 December 2005.
12.
On account of the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber considered that the
Claimant was not obliged to join the Respondent after 1 January 2006 and
consequently that the Claimant did not breach the employment contract at the
basis of the present dispute. Therefore, the Chamber decided to reject the
Respondent’s claim for USD 10,000.
13.
Subsequently, the Chamber turned its attention to the Claimant’s demand for
outstanding salaries for the months of September to December 2005 in the total
amount of USD 8,000. In this respect, the Chamber stated that it is not contested
by the Respondent that the Claimant rendered his services until 31 December
2005, i.e. the end of the relevant employment contract.
14.
As a result, the Chamber emphasised that, in principle, the Claimant should have
received for the time period from 10 August 2005 until 31 June 2006, a part from
the signing-on fee of USD 10,000, a monthly salary of USD 2,000 established by the
parties in the relevant employment contract. In particular, the Chamber stated
that for the months of September to December 2005, the Claimant should have
received the total amount of USD 8,000 according to the said employment
contract and claimed by the Claimant.
15.
Furthermore, the Chamber took note that the Respondent asserts having fulfilled
all its contractual obligations.
16.
In this context, the Dispute Resolution Chamber emphasized that in accordance
with the legal principle of the burden of proof, which is a basic principle in every
legal system, a party asserting a fact has the obligation to prove the same (cf. art.
12 par. 3 of the FIFA Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status
Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).
17.
To that regard, the Chamber analysed the payment receipts presented by the
Respondent and determined that they are not clearly assignable and therefore
cannot be considered as sufficient evidence in order to corroborate the allegations
of the Respondent of having fulfilled its contractual obligations towards the
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6
Claimant. Even more, since the Respondent did not provide neither a translation
of the said payment receipts into one of the four official FIFA languages (English,
Spanish, French or German), nor a copy of the original payment receipts (even not
via the Y football association), although it and the Y football association were
invited to do so by FIFA on several occasions (cf. points 13-15 and 17-18 of the
facts).
18.
On account of the above, and in accordance with the said principle of the burden
of proof, the members of the Chamber unanimously concluded that the
Respondent failed to comply with the contractual terms, as far as the salary from
September to December 2005 is concerned, which constitutes a breach of contract
without just cause.
19.
In continuation, the Chamber turned its attention to the consequences of the
unjustified breach of contract in accordance with art. 17 of the Regulations. In this
context, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent is obliged to pay all
outstanding salaries due to the Claimant, in accordance with the relevant
employment contract at the basis of the present dispute as well as based on the
Claimant’s claim, until 31 December 2005.
20.
As regards the claimed amount of USD 2,500 for outstanding match premiums, the
Chamber considered that it cannot award this claim, since match premiums or any
other bonuses were not contained in the relevant employment contract and since
the Claimant did not specify the claimed amounts nor, carrying the burden of
proof, presented any documentary evidence to that regard. Consequently, the
Dispute Resolution Chamber decided to reject the Claimant’s claim to that regard.
21.
In view of all of the above, the members of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
therefore decided that the Respondent must pay outstanding salaries to the
Claimant due to the breach of contract without just cause in the amount of USD
8,000.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim submitted by the Claimant is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent has to pay the amount of USD 8,000 to the Claimant, within 30
days as of notification of the present decision.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7
3.
If the aforementioned amount is not paid within the stated deadline, an interest
rate of 5% per year will apply, as from expiry of the stated deadline. In the event
that the Respondent does not comply with the present decision, the matter will
be submitted to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee, so that the necessary disciplinary
sanctions can be imposed.
4.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent 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.
5.
Any further claims of the Claimant are rejected.
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).
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
General Secretary
Enclosed: CAS directives
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8