Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 20 July 2012,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman
Johan Van Gaalen (South Africa), member
Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member
on the claim presented by the player,
X,
as Claimant / Counter-Respondent
against the club,
Z,
as Respondent / Counter-Claimant
regarding an employment-related dispute
between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 21 August 2007, the country F player X (hereinafter: player or Claimant /
Counter-Respondent) and the country G club Z (hereinafter: Z, Club or
Respondent / Counter-Claimant) signed an employment contract valid as from 21
August 2007 until 30 June 2010 (hereinafter: contract).
2.
According to art. 4.1 of the contract, the player was to receive, inter alia, EUR 735
from the club at the latest at the end of each month on the basis of twelve
months per year.
3.
Additionally, according to art. 4.4 of the contract, the player was to receive the
total amount of EUR 69,000, payable in seven installments as follows:
EUR 10,000, payable on 31/12/2007, 30/06/2008 and on 31/12/2009 respectively;
EUR 12,000, payable on 31/12/2008 and on 30/06/2009 respectively;
EUR 2,500, payable on 30/05/2010;
EUR 12,500, payable on 30/06/2010.
4.
Art. 4.2 of the contract, related to “bonuses”, stipulates that “in case of staying
the team in A’ national division the first year the player will take EUR 10,000, the
second year of staying the team in A’ will take EUR 10,000 and the third year of
staying the team in A’ will take EUR 15,000.”
5.
The contract contains, inter alia, direct references to art. 17 of the FIFA
Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players in relation with breach of
contract by the club (cf. art. 4 par. 11 of the contract) or by the player (cf. art. 5
par. 5 of the contract), without any amount being indicated.
6.
In addition to the above-mentioned contract, the club and the player, on 1 July
2007, signed a document referred to as “professional football contract”
(hereinafter: agreement) valid for three years between 1 July 2007 and 30 June
2010. In this agreement, it is established that the player would receive a “transfer
fee” in the total amount of EUR 150,000 as follows: EUR 50,000 to be paid for the
2007/08 season, EUR 50,000 for the 2008/09 season and EUR 50,000 for the
2009/10 season. The agreement further indicates that the aforementioned
amounts will be paid to the player in various installments to be determined by
the club.
7.
On 31 July 2009, the player signed an employment contract with the country F
club W (hereinafter: W), valid as from 1 August 2009 until 30 June 2010 and on
the basis of which the player would receive a gross minimum guaranteed
2/14
monthly salary of 150 points (i.e. EUR 2,010, each point representing a value of
EUR 13,40 gross).
8.
On 13 October 2009, the Football Association F (hereinafter: FAF) contacted FIFA
with respect to the International Transfer Certificate (ITC) for the player and also
forwarded the player’s request to be released from his contract with club Z so as
to be able to play for club W and his statement in accordance with which he had
not received any payment since February 2008.
9.
The player also claimed the payment of his outstanding receivables and
compensation for breach of contract, which he, later on during the proceedings,
indicated to be the following:
Outstanding salaries:
Amount
EUR 32,000
Due date
installments due during
the 2007/08 season
Remarks
based on the agreement (EUR
50,000 – EUR 18,000 paid by the
club in 6 installments of EUR 3,000
each)
Compensation for breach of contract without just cause by the club:
Amount
EUR 50,000
EUR 50,000
EUR 49,000
EUR 30,000
Due date
payable in installments over
the 2008/09 season
payable in installments over
the 2009/10 season
match premiums
Remarks
based on the agreement
based on the agreement
based on the contract
referred to as damages
10.
In its reply to the player’s claim, the club firstly acknowledged having signed the
contract and the agreement with the player.
11.
In continuation, it considered that the player’s claim has to be rejected and
explained that the player stayed in country G until the beginning of May 2008,
which corresponds to the end of the country G championship, before leaving the
club without authorization nor having informed it about his destination, whereas
the club was still to have trainings and friendly games to play before ceasing its
activities on 30 May 2008. The club further explained that the player was still
absent at the beginning of the 2008/09 season, i.e. on 2 July 2008.
12.
Club Z also referred to a letter dated 21 August 2008, which it allegedly
addressed to FIFA in order to report the illegal and unjustified absence of the
3/14
player for almost four months, and in which it reserved its right to bring a legal
action against the player. Furthermore, the club pointed out that it had the
player replaced.
13.
The club explained that the player never returned to country G to terminate the
contract, but that he called the club’s president in August 2009 to ask to send his
ITC. The parties would have orally agreed on the payment by the player or his
new club of EUR 10,000 to pay off the club’s alleged various losses and upon
receipt of which the club would accept to have the relevant ITC issued.
14.
The club submitted that, on 8 September 2009, the player informed the club that
he had joined club W and requested the issuance of his “letter of release”, as a
result of which he would stop legal proceedings before FIFA.
15.
After having initially opposed to the issuance of the ITC, unless the player paid
EUR 10,000, the club considered that the player would not return to the club and
finally agreed to the issuance of the ITC. The club thus considers that the player
stopped being a member of the team as of 5 November 2009.
16.
With regard to the player’s financial claim, the club asserted that it paid him all
his dues during the period of time he has been rendering his services, which,
according to the club, also explains why the player never had brought up any
financial related issues before.
17.
What is more, the club pointed out that all the above-described difficulties
derived from the player’s non-respect of his contractual obligations and that,
even though it ultimately accepted to have the ITC issued to the Football
Association F, it wishes to claim EUR 10,000 from the player.
18.
The player rejected the club’s position and reiterated that he did not receive any
payment as from the beginning of the year 2008, despite the fact that he started
to ask for it already in May 2008. In this respect, the player held that the club
cannot assert that he left without authorization, since it had promised him to pay
all his dues when he would return to the club after his holidays, which he
allegedly did in July 2008.
19.
However, the player reported that when he came back to the club in July 2008 to
start the training, he could not enter the apartment provided by the club as its
lock had been changed.
20.
Furthermore, he was told by the club that he was no longer a member of the
team.
4/14
21.
The player explained that as a result of these two events, he returned to country
F mid-July 2008 and considered that the club breached the contract and the
agreement. In this respect, the player submitted a copy of the list of the club’s
players for the season 2008/09 and pointed out that his name is not appearing on
it. The player also pointed out that the club agreed to his release to play in
country F in November 2009 only.
22.
The player considered that in light of the above-described elements, the club is
responsible for having breached the contract without just cause and therefore
maintained his claim.
23.
The player insisted on the fact that he never seeked a termination of the
contract, but simply requested to receive his dues. The alleged change of the lock
of the apartment in combination with the club’s refusal to let him join the team
upon his return in July convinced him that the issue would not be resolved.
24.
Additionally, the player denied having agreed upon a compensation of EUR
10,000 with the club and stressed that if it had been the case, he would have
primarily tried to collect his dues and not waive them all to accept to pay the club
EUR 10,000.
25.
In its final comments, the club pointed out that the player’s claim is time-barred
since he claimed before FIFA on 8 April 2011 in relation with events that took
place in May 2008.
26.
Furthermore, the club fully maintained the contents of its previous position and
reasserted that the player left the club in May 2008 without authorization to an
unknown destination, whereas the club was still active and that they never
managed to reach him.
27.
In addition, the club insisted on the fact that it did not owe him any salary until
the player had left country G and that he never brought up this issue before the
claim was lodged.
28.
The club reiterated that it accepted to have the relevant ITC issued, since it had
been orally mutually agreed with the player that he would compensate the club
in the amount of EUR 10,000 for the damages it had suffered.
29.
Finally, the club pointed out that after it accepted the issuance of the ITC, it did
not hear from the player until being contacted by FIFA. In this respect, the club
held that if the player had outstanding monies to receive, he would have raised
that point already as from May 2008.
5/14
30.
In light of the above-mentioned reasons, the club is of the opinion that the
player’s claim has to be rejected and maintained its counterclaim to receive EUR
10,000 from the player.
31.
The player finally indicated that he did not play for any other club before he
signed an employment contract with club W.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as
Chamber or DRC) 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 13 October 2009, thus after 1 July 2008. Consequently, the Rules Governing
the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution
Chamber (edition 2008; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the
matter at hand (cf. art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules).
2.
With regard to the competence of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, art. 3 par. 1
of the Procedural Rules states that the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall examine
its jurisdiction in the light of art. 22 to 24 of the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players (edition 2010). In accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in
combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the aforementioned Regulations, 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 and a club.
3.
Subsequently, 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
(editions 2009 and 2010), and considering that the present claim was lodged on
13 October 2009, the 2009 edition of said regulations (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. In this
regard, the Chamber first and foremost acknowledged that during the
investigation of the facts of the matter at hand, the Respondent / CounterClaimant held that the claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is timebarred, since the latter allegedly lodged a claim before FIFA on 8 April 2011 in
connection with events that took place in May 2008, i.e. more than two years
after the occurrence of the facts giving rise to the dispute.
6/14
5.
The Chamber carefully examined the documentation on file and acknowledged
that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent lodged the claim against the Respondent
/ Counter-Claimant on 13 October 2009; In fact, the date of 8 April 2011
corresponds to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s reply with regard to the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant’s counterclaim. In light of the above, the
members of the Chamber unanimously concluded that less than two years had
elapsed between the date on which the facts giving rise to the dispute occurred
and the date on which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent lodged his claim in
front of FIFA.
6.
For this reason, the Chamber established that the Respondent / CounterClaimant’s argument related to the statute of limitations had to be rejected.
7.
In continuation, the members of the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant /
counter-Respondent and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant signed the contract
as well as the agreement (hereinafter together referred to as contracts), on 21
August 2007 and 1 July 2007, respectively, both valid until 30 June 2010.
8.
Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, on the
one hand, maintains that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant breached the
contracts without just cause by not paying various contractual amounts in a
timely manner and by not having allowed him to reintegrate the club upon his
return from holidays in July 2008. The Chamber also noted that the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant, on the other hand, held that the player left the club without
any communication nor any authorisation in the beginning of May 2008 and
never returned to the club afterwards. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant
further asserted that it did not hear from the player until August 2009, date on
which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent would have asked the club to agree to
the issuance of the ITC in order to enable him to join the country F club W.
9.
In this context, the members of the Chamber agreed that they firstly had to
analyse the circumstances surrounding the player’s departure from country G,
apparently in May 2008.
10.
In doing so, the Chamber found that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
specified having left the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in May 2008 and
subsequently spent his holidays in country F.
11.
In this respect, the Chamber also noted that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
denied having left the Respondent / Counter-Claimant without any authorisation
and that, according to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, it was previously
agreed that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant would pay to the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent all his dues upon his return from holidays, in July 2008.
7/14
12.
On the other hand, the Chamber recalled that the Respondent / CounterClaimant held in this regard that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had left the
club without having been authorised to do so after the end of the domestic
championship. However, according to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the
club’s players were still to participate in training sessions and friendly matches
until the end of the month of May 2008.
13.
On account of the above-mentioned, the Chamber concluded that it was
undisputed that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, regardless of the question
as to whether he was authorised to leave, left the Respondent / Counter-Claimant
during the course of the month of May 2008 and after the end of the
championship.
14.
With those considerations in mind, the members of the Chamber reverted to the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s assertion in accordance with which he had not
received any payment from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant as from the
month of February 2008.
15.
In continuation, the members of the Chamber duly noted that the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant held that it had paid to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent all
his dues during the period of time during which the Claimant / CounterRespondent had rendered his services to the club.
16.
However, the Chamber highlighted that this statement of the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant had not been supported by documentary evidence of any kind
in accordance with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules which stipulates that any
party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of
proof. In light of the above-mentioned principle, the Chamber considered that
such unproven allegation brought up by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had
to be rejected.
17.
As a result of the above, the members of the Chamber came to the conclusion
that at the time of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s departure from the club
in May 2008, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had not received any payment
from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant during a period of time of about four
months.
18.
What is more, and on the basis of the statement of claim particularly related to
outstanding remuneration and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant having failed
to present documentation in support of its allegations, the members of the
Chamber established that since the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had
acknowledged having received EUR 18,000 only during the 2007/08 season in
connection with the agreement, the amount of EUR 32,000 out of the total of
EUR 50,000 for the 2007/08 season had not been paid to the Claimant / Counter8/14
Respondent by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant when the player left the club
at the end of the season. Furthermore, this amount of EUR 32,000 represents
more than half of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s yearly remuneration
based on the agreement. In addition, it was noted that the player’s remuneration
in accordance with the agreement constitutes the biggest part of the player’s
overall remuneration including the contract.
19.
In view of all of the above, the Chamber unanimously concluded that when the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent left the Respondent / Counter-Claimant during
the course of the month of May 2008, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had
already substantially breached its contractual obligations towards the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent without having brought forward any just cause in this
respect.
20.
In view of the aforementioned consideration, the Chamber deemed if fit to point
out that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, in fact, would have had valid
reasons not to return to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant at the beginning of
the 2008/09 season.
21.
In light of the above-mentioned conclusion in accordance with which the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant had been found in breach of contract without
just cause at the time the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had left the club in May
2008, the Chamber concurred that the questions as to whether the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent’s absence from the club had been authorised or not by the
Respondent / Counter-Claimant and as to whether the Claimant / CounterRespondent actually returned to the club at the beginning of the month of July
2008 were not necessarily to be further analysed.
22.
Having established that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is to be held liable
for the early termination of the employment contract and the agreement
without just cause in May 2008, the Chamber focussed its attention on the
consequences of such breach of contract. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1
of the Regulations, the Chamber decided that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent
is entitled to receive from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant compensation for
breach of contract in addition to any outstanding payments on the basis of the
contracts for services rendered by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent.
23.
The Chamber then reverted to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s financial
claim, which included outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR
32,000.
24.
In this respect, the members of the Chamber recalled that no proof had been
presented by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant demonstrating that the amount
of EUR 32,000 had been paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant.
9/14
25.
In light of the above, the members of the Chamber decided that the Respondent
/ Counter-Claimant is liable to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent the
amount of EUR 32,000 as outstanding remuneration based on the agreement
signed by and between the parties.
26.
In continuation, the Chamber focussed its attention on the calculation of the
amount of compensation payable by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant for
breach of the contracts in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber firstly
recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the
amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise
provided for in the contracts at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration
for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further
objective criteria, including, in particular, the remuneration and other benefits
due to the Claimant under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the
time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and
depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.
27.
In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had
to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract and/or the agreement
contain a provision by which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount
of compensation payable by either contractual party in the event of breach of
contract.
28.
In this context, the members of the Chamber reverted to the agreement and,
after a careful analysis of its contents, was satisfied that said agreement does not
contain any provision related to compensation in the event of breach of contract.
29.
In continuation, and after having analysed, in particular, the contents of art. 4
par. 11 of the contract, which is related to compensation to be paid to the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in case of
breach of contract by the latter, and which directly refers to art. 17 par. 2 of the
FIFA Regulations, the members of the Chamber noted that said provision did not
contain any figures to be taken into account as to the amount to be paid in case
of breach of contract by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. Consequently, art. 4
par. 11 of the contract could not be taken into consideration in this regard.
30.
No compensation clause having been inserted in the contract or the agreement,
the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation
payable by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to the Claimant / CounterRespondent resulting from the breach of contract had to be assessed in
application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations.
The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive
enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the
amount of compensation payable. Therefore, other objective criteria may be
10/14
taken into account at the discretion of the deciding body. In this regard, the
Chamber emphasised beforehand that each request for compensation for
contractual breach has to be assessed on a case-by-case basis taking into account
all specific circumstances of the respective matter.
31.
Additionally, the Chamber deemed it important to emphasise that the wording
of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows it to take into account both the
existing contracts and the new contract in the calculation of the amount of
compensation.
32.
The Chamber firstly reverted to the claim lodged by the Claimant / CounterRespondent and noted that his claim for compensation is based on the
agreement and represents the amount of EUR 179,000, corresponding to
remuneration (EUR 100,000), match premiums (EUR 49,000) and damages (EUR
30,000).
33.
In this respect, the Chamber deemed relevant to reiterate that any party claiming
a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden of proof. However,
and based on the analysis of the documentation on file, the members of the
Chamber did not find any evidence justifying the Claimant / CounterRespondent’s claim for EUR 49,000 in connection with match premiums. In
particular, and after a careful analysis of the contractual terms, the Chamber
could not find any provision in support of this particular claim. Notwithstanding
the above, the Chamber wished to highlight that even if the contracts would
have entitled the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to receive match premiums,
such premiums could not be taken into account in the determination of the
amount of compensation, since the amounts are closely linked to the future
performance of the team and/or the player.
34.
In order to evaluate the compensation to be paid by the Respondent / CounterClaimant, the members of the Chamber took into account the amount of EUR
100,000, i.e. the Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s remuneration claimed on the
basis of the agreement and which corresponds to the time remaining on the
agreement, which serves as the basis for the final determination of the amount
of compensation for breach of contract in the case at hand.
35.
The Chamber then took due note of the employment situation of the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent after the early termination of the contracts occurred and
analysed the new employment contract that he entered into with club W, valid as
from 1 August 2009 until 30 June 2010. According to said contract, the Claimant /
Counter-Respondent would receive a gross minimum guaranteed monthly salary of
EUR 2,010.
11/14
36.
In light of the above, for the relevant period of time starting as from 1 August
2009 until 30 June 2010 (i.e. eleven months), the Chamber found that the amount
to be taken into account for the calculation of the compensation payable to the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is EUR
22,110.
37.
In fact, in accordance with the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution
Chamber as well as the general obligation of the player to mitigate his damages,
such remuneration under the new employment contract shall be taken into
account for the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of
contract.
38.
For all the above considerations, the Chamber decided to partially accept the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim and that the Respondent / CounterClaimant must pay the amount of EUR 77,890 to the Claimant / CounterRespondent as compensation for the breach of contract without just cause by
the Respondent / Counter-Claimant.
39.
Finally, the members of the Chamber analysed the Respondent / CounterClaimant’s claim against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent related to the
amount of EUR 10,000 based on the alleged fact that it would have orally been
agreed between the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the Claimant / CounterRespondent that the latter would pay such amount to the Respondent / CounterClaimant as a result of which the club would agree to the issuance of the
International Transfer Certificate to the Football Association F.
40.
In this respect, the Chamber firstly wished to strongly underline the fact that in
accordance with art. 9 of the Regulations, International Transfer Certificates shall
be issued free of charge and without any conditions or time limits.
41.
Furthermore, the Chamber also noted that the above-described agreement, the
existence of which is denied by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, is, above all,
not proven by any kind of evidence brought forward by the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant in accordance with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules. In
light of the above, the Chamber decided that the Respondent / CounterClaimant’s claim against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent has to be rejected.
42.
For all the above considerations, the Chamber decided to partially accept the
Claimant / Counter-Respondent’s claim and that the Respondent / CounterClaimant must pay the amount of EUR 32,000 to the Claimant / CounterRespondent as outstanding remuneration and the amount of EUR 77,890 as
compensation for breach of contract without just cause by the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant.
12/14
43.
The Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing
that any further claims of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent are rejected.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, X, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club Z, has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent outstanding remuneration amounting to EUR 32,000 within 30 days
as from the date of notification of this decision.
3.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent compensation for breach of contract amounting to EUR 77,890
within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision.
4.
In the event that the aforementioned amounts due to the Claimant / CounterRespondent are not paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant within the
above-mentioned time limit, interest at the rate of 5% per year will apply as of
expiry of the stipulated time limit and the present matter shall be submitted,
upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for its consideration and a
formal decision.
5.
Any further request filed by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is rejected.
6.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected.
7.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant immediately and directly of the account number to which the
remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every
payment received.
*****
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.
13/14
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
Secretary General
Encl: CAS directives
14/14