Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 16 July 2009,
in the following composition:
Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member
Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member
on the claim presented by the player
A from K,
represented by Mr M, Attorney at Law
as Claimant / Counter-Respondent
against the club
L from S,
represented by Mr B, Attorney at Law
as Respondent / Counter-Claimant
and involving the club
C from D,
as intervening party
regarding a contractual dispute between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 11 November 2005, the player A (hereinafter: the Claimant / CounterRespondent, or the Claimant) and the club L (hereinafter: the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant, or the Respondent) concluded an employment contract for
three years, valid as from 11 November 2005 until 10 November 2008.
2.
According to the employment contract, the Respondent undertook to remunerate
the Claimant as follows:
o monthly net wages of USD 40,000;
o benefits and bonuses as usually paid to first team players;
o accommodation, a car and four return flights to D.
3.
On 2 April 2007, the Claimant lodged a complaint with FIFA against the
Respondent, asserting that, the latter had not fulfilled its financial obligations as
provided for in the aforementioned employment contract. He explained that,
from 2 February 2006 until 31 December 2006, he had been loaned by the
Respondent to the club E, and, within this period of time, namely from 13 August
2006 until 31 December 2006, he had further been loaned by the latter to club F
(hereinafter: F).
4.
The Claimant stated that after having been released by F on 26 December 2006, he
had asked the Respondent, on 27 December 2006, to provide him with a flight
ticket, in order to resume his duties with the latter.
5.
The Respondent had then informed the Claimant on 27 December 2006 that,
because of the ongoing religious “holidays” in S, it could only provide him with
the flight ticket 15 days later. Eventually, on 11 January 2007, the Respondent
provided him with a copy of the employment contract and on 25 January 2007
with the flight ticket and the necessary documents for the visa application.
6.
The Claimant asserted that in view of the difficulties in obtaining the visa for S
and the fact that his wife was to give birth on 14 February 2007, he had then
asked the Respondent to re-issue the flight ticket for the date of 18 February
2007. The Claimant mentioned that, eventually, he had arrived in S on 19 February
2007 and had started training with the Respondent some days later. The Claimant
asserted that from the first day onwards, he had not received any sporting support
from the Respondent and had been abandoned in a hotel without having the
possibility to attend the club’s training sessions.
7.
The Claimant added that, since his first contact with the Respondent on 27
December 2006, that is at the end of his loan in K, he had not received any salary
payments nor had he been provided with the promised private accommodation or
the private car. He further claimed to have sent letters to the Respondent on 13,
21 and 26 March 2007 and on 2 April 2007 in order to remind the latter to fulfil its
contractual obligations. Moreover, the Claimant asserted that due to the
2
outstanding salaries, he had had no other choice but to prematurely terminate the
employment contract with the Respondent on 24 April 2007.
8.
On 7 April 2007, the Respondent informed the Claimant, with a copy to FIFA, that
it would be pleased to pay his wages but only for the period in which he actually
played for it. The Respondent added that it had provided him with
accommodation in a five-star hotel throughout the period of his employment and
that it had done its best to find him other accommodation. The Respondent
further deemed that as the Claimant had violated art. 10 par. 3 of the FIFA
Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (hereinafter: the Regulations),
he had had to train with its second team until 30 June 2007.
9.
Subsequently, on 24 May 2007, the Respondent, via the S Football Federation,
provided FIFA with its official response to the Claimant’s claim by stating that it
had informed the latter on 27 December 2006 that the necessary procedure
regarding the visa would be initiated after the holidays. It asserted to have then
provided the Claimant with the flight ticket for 27 January 2007 and the necessary
visa documents on 24 January 2007.
10.
The Respondent further affirmed that it had requested the issuance of the
international transfer certificate (ITC) for the Claimant from the K Football
Federation via the S Football Federation, on 29 January 2007, but had not received
it. Although the visa and the flight ticket had been issued for the Claimant, the
Respondent argued that he had failed to arrive in S on time. On 12 February 2007,
after the closing of the registration period on 8 February 2007, the Respondent
had been informed by the Claimant that he had received the visa on 9 February
2007 but that due to the upcoming birth of his child, he would not be able to
arrive in S before 18 February 2007.
11.
Moreover, the Respondent explained that the late arrival of the Claimant had
made it impossible to register him, as the registration period had already closed,
and that it had therefore had to hire another player and thus incur losses. The
Respondent added that after the re-issuance of the flight ticket, the Claimant had
finally arrived in S on 19 February 2007.
12.
Furthermore, the Respondent mentioned that after the Claimant had come back,
he had been provided with proper accommodation in a five-star hotel as well as
other allowances, such as the use of a chauffeur. The Respondent explained that
as the Claimant could not be registered, he could not join its first team but had
had to start his training with the club’s “Olympic” team.
13.
The Respondent asserted to have informed the Claimant that it had been ready to
pay him the outstanding salaries, but only as of the date when he had resumed
duty with it, i.e. on 19 February 2007, and not as of 1 January 2007, as requested
by the Claimant. In addition, the Respondent claimed to have issued the Claimant
with a cheque for USD 80,000 to cover the salaries for the period from 19 February
3
until 18 April 2007 but that he had refused to accept the cheque and to sign a
statement and had allegedly insisted on leaving the country.
14.
The Respondent summarised its position by stating that the conflict between the
parties had arisen due to the Claimant’s late arrival at the club. Although the
Claimant had been provided with the entry visa and the flight ticket on time, he
had arrived late in S and as a consequence, could not be registered with the S
Football Federation. The Respondent reaffirmed its willingness to pay all
outstanding salaries to the Claimant as of the date of his arrival on 19 February
2007.
15.
The Respondent also emphasised that the further loan of the Claimant from E to F
had been carried out without its approval and had therefore been in violation of
the FIFA Regulations. It also stated that due to the unauthorised further loan to F,
the Claimant had already been registered with two different clubs, E and F, in the
relevant period from 1 July 2006 until 30 June 2007, and could therefore not play
official matches for it until 30 June 2007 without formal authorisation from FIFA,
causing great financial loss to the Respondent.
16.
Furthermore, the Respondent enclosed a letter from the attorney of the Claimant
dated 13 February 2007, addressed to the Respondent, in which he requested that
the Respondent re-issue the flight ticket for 18 February 2007 as the Claimant’s
wife would give birth on 14 February 2007 and also due to some difficulties with
the visa.
17.
In his second submission, the Claimant put forward that his delayed arrival had
been solely caused by the Respondent as he had been ready to rejoin the club
with immediate effect on 27 December 2006, when he had first contacted it. The
Claimant stated that, as indicated by the Respondent in its statement, he had been
informed on 24 January 2007 to apply for the visa and the flight ticket had been
issued for 27 January 2007, thus giving him only three days to contact the S
embassy in Y to get the visa. The Claimant added that the issuance of his work
permit should not serve as an excuse for the Respondent not to fulfil its
contractual obligations.
18.
Regarding the alleged non-issuance of the ITC, the Claimant asserted that it had
never been requested by the Respondent and that this was a matter between the
associations and did not concern him. Furthermore, he mentioned that it was not
clear why the S Football Federation had not requested the intervention of FIFA
and that the request needed to be made within the registration period and not
the date of receipt of the ITC.
19.
The Claimant strongly objected to the Respondent’s allegation that he had
refused to accept the cheque for USD 80,000. He stated that the copy of the
cheque could easily be post- or predated. With respect to the loan from E to F, the
Claimant mentioned that the Respondent had not informed E about its opposition
and had therefore tacitly accepted the loan. The Claimant requested FIFA to
4
determine the salary payments already due and to establish the amount of
compensation.
20.
Invited by FIFA to submit its final arguments, the Respondent reiterated its
position. In particular, the Respondent noted that the Claimant had only returned
to S on 19 February 2007 whereas it claimed that the necessary conditions (visa
and flight ticket) had been duly provided to the Claimant on 24 January 2007. It
also deemed that the three days given to the Claimant to obtain the required visa
at the S Embassy in Y were enough. In this regard, the Respondent stressed that
the Claimant had only managed to obtain the said visa on 9 February 2007 and
that he had subsequently asked the Respondent for its permission for him to
remain in K until 18 February 2007 for the reasons previously explained.
21.
Furthermore, the Respondent lodged a counterclaim against the Claimant,
arguing that the latter had unilaterally terminated his employment contract
without just cause. Consequently, the Respondent claimed compensation based
upon the transfer fee of USD 3,000,000 it had had to pay to P on 11 November
2005. The Respondent also deemed that the Claimant’s new club C (hereinafter:
C), shall be jointly and severally liable for any amount the Claimant could
potentially be asked to pay.
22.
On 14 October 2008, and in response to the Respondent’s counterclaim, the
Claimant reiterated his previous position and furthermore asked FIFA to hold that
the Respondent should pay compensation according to art. 17 par. 1 of the FIFA
Regulations in connection with the remuneration and remaining time of the
employment contract existing between the relevant parties as well as impose
disciplinary sanctions on the Respondent.
23.
Finally, on 5 December 2008, FIFA forwarded the counterclaim to C and asked it to
submit its position in response to the Respondent’s counterclaim.
24.
On 2 February 2009, C responded that it had been contacted by the Claimant’s
agent in August 2007. The Claimant had apparently informed them that he had
become a free agent since his employment contract with his former club had been
terminated on 24 April 2007, due to the non-payment of his salaries. C had then
signed a contract with the Claimant with a validity period from 24 August 2007
until 30 November 2007.
25.
C explained that the ITC for the Claimant had then been requested by the K
Football Federation on 24 August 2007 but had been denied as the S Football
Federation had argued that it would not issue it without an official decision from
FIFA. It further explained that by the time the K Football Federation had finally
received the authorisation to register the player (on 19 October 2007), C had no
longer been able to count on the player since art. 8 of the K Football Federation
regulations did not allow the participation of any player whose
registration/eligibility had not been published by the day before the club’s match
of the 26th round, which happened to be on 21 September 2007. Consequently,
5
the Claimant allegedly never played for C due to the non-issuance of the ITC on
time.
26.
In conclusion, C deemed that since the Claimant had signed his contract with it
five months after he had terminated his employment contract with the
Respondent due to the non-payment of his salaries, it should not be deemed as
having induced the Claimant to breach his employment contract with the
Respondent.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) analyzed whether it was
competent to deal with the present matter. In this respect, it noted that the
instant case was submitted to FIFA on 2 April 2007. Consequently, the Rules
Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute
Resolution Chamber (edition 2005; hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) are
applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 18 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules in
combination with art. 21 par. 2 and 3 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of
the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber [edition
2008]).
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 and 2 in
connection with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of
Players (edition 2008), the Dispute Resolution Chamber shall adjudicate, in the
presence of at least three members including the chairman, on employment
related 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 K player and a S club regarding an
employment related dispute between the parties.
4.
Subsequently, the members of the Chamber analysed which edition of the
regulations 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
on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2008) and, on the other hand, to the
fact that the relevant employment contract at the basis of the present dispute was
concluded on 11 November 2005 and that the claim was lodged with FIFA on 2
April 2007. In view of the foregoing, the Chamber came to the conclusion that the
previous version of the regulations, the FIFA Regulations for the Status and
Transfer of Players (edition 2005, hereinafter: the Regulations), are applicable to
the case at hand as to the substance.
6
5.
Once its competence and the applicable Regulations were thus established, the
members of the Dispute Resolution Chamber went on to deal with the substance
of the matter and started by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts and
documentation contained in the file as well as carefully considered the arguments
submitted by all the parties involved in the present dispute.
6.
In particular, the Chamber noted that the entire dispute centered around the
question as to which party had caused the late arrival of the Claimant at the
Respondent. In this respect, the members of the Chamber underlined that the
Claimant had argued that it had been the Respondent who had omitted to
provide him with the necessary documents on time in order for him to travel
without delay, whereas the Respondent had maintained that the Claimant himself
had delayed his arrival without valid reason. Consequently, and on the basis of the
submissions filed by the parties, the Chamber held that it would have to
determine if the course of action and attitude of each of the Claimant and
Respondent had in some way contributed to the late return of the Claimant to the
Respondent and to which extent.
7.
In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging that the Claimant and the
Respondent had concluded a valid employment contract in force from 11
November 2005 until 10 November 2008. It was also noted that the Claimant had
been loaned by the Respondent to the club E from 3 February 2006 until 31
December 2006, and, within this same period of time, namely from 13 August
2006 until 31 August 2006, had further been loaned by E to another K club, R.
8.
In this context, the Chamber went on to underline that on 27 December 2006, a
few days before his contract concluded with R in connection with the second loan
expired, the Claimant had contacted the Respondent in order to be provided with
a flight ticket so that he could resume duty with the Respondent’s team. Then,
apparently because of the ongoing religious “holidays” in S, the Respondent had
only been able to provide the Claimant with his flight ticket and the necessary
documents for his visa application on 24 or 25 January 2007, according to the
different versions, submitted by the Claimant and the Respondent, respectively for
a flight leaving on 27 January 2007, that is, exactly one month after the Claimant
had contacted the Respondent.
9.
At this point, the members of the Chamber thought it important to stress that the
delay running from the day the Claimant should have resumed duty with the
Respondent according to the relevant contract, i.e. 1 January 2007, until the day
the latter provided the former with the necessary documents and flight ticket,
could not reasonably be attributed to the Claimant. In this respect, the Chamber
found no reason to believe that the Claimant would not have travelled to S
earlier, had he been provided by the Respondent with the necessary documents a
few days after having asked for them.
10.
In continuation, the Chamber noted that the Claimant had explained to have only
been able to obtain his visa from the S embassy in Y on 9 February 2007, i.e. 13
7
days after he had been due to fly to S. For this reason as well as because his wife
was to give birth apparently on 14 February 2007, the Claimant had asked the
Respondent, a first time on 12 February and then again on 13 February 2007, to
re-issue his flight ticket for the date of 18 February 2007. In this respect, the
members of the Chamber agreed to hold that the Claimant had not provided any
convincing evidence justifying the delay in obtaining his visa. In particular, the
Chamber stressed that the Claimant had eventually taken 16 or 17 days to get his
visa. Moreover, the Chamber could not understand why the Claimant had taken so
long to inform the Respondent of the apparent difficulty he was having in relation
to the issue of his visa. As a matter of fact, the Claimant had only informed the
Respondent of the aforementioned on 12 February 2007 in writing.
11.
In view of the above, the members of the Chamber were of the view that the
Claimant had not taken all reasonable steps to keep the delay to obtain the
necessary visa from the S embassy as short as possible after the receipt of his flight
ticket and the documents related to the obtainment of his visa on 24 or 25 January
2007 and that therefore, he had himself contributed to the delay in his return to
the Respondent.
12.
This being established, the Dispute Resolution Chamber went on to consider what
had then been the reaction of the Respondent in reply to the request made by the
Claimant to have his flight ticket issued to fly to S on 18 February 2006. In this
respect, the Chamber referred to the content of a correspondence dated 14
February 2007 submitted by the Respondent itself. The letter, sent by fax to the
Claimant on or about 14 February 2007, reads the following statements: “Please
find enclosed to your attention the new (PTA) and reservation details of Mr A […].
Please note that the referred tickets are dated February 18th 2007 as per your
request [emphasis added]. Therefore, the issued new tickets should be collected by
the player from Air Y counter at the airport. We also request your best attention
to the fact that L Club has accomplished with all your requests in order to provide
the player the necessary period of time to assist his family, wife and new baby.
However, we kindly request your comprehension in order to understand that no
longer delays concerning your return shall be tolerated by L Club”.
13.
In light of the wording of the aforementioned correspondence, the Chamber
concluded that the Respondent had expressly agreed to the request made by the
Claimant on 12 and 13 February 2007 to have his flight ticket re-issued but that it
would no longer tolerate any delay in his return. In other words, the Respondent
had granted the Claimant a final deadline for the latter to resume duty with its
team until 19 February 2007, a deadline which the Claimant had eventually
respected. Therefore, the Chamber was of the opinion that although the delay
running from 27 January 2007 and 13 February 2007 could be attributed to the
Claimant, the Respondent had, by means of the above-mentioned
correspondence, subsequently allowed the Claimant to resume duty with it on 19
February 2007. Consequently, the Respondent could no longer allege that it was
the Claimant who had failed to arrive at the club on time.
8
14.
This being established, the Chamber went on to consider the assertion raised by
the Claimant according to which he had not received any salary payments since his
first contact with the Respondent on 27 December 2006, nor had he been
provided with the promised car and private housing mentioned in this
employment contract.
15.
In this respect, the Dispute Resolution Chamber acknowledged that the
Respondent had claimed to have issued a cheque in the amount of USD 80,000 in
favour of the Claimant and covering the period from 19 February 2007 until 18
April 2007, but that the latter had refused to accept it. According to the Chamber,
it had not enough evidence before it in order to conclude that the
aforementioned amount of money (i.e. the USD 80,000) had been duly received by
the Claimant. In particular, the Chamber noted that the relevant cheque was
dated 30 April 2007, whereas the Claimant had already terminated his
employment contract with the Respondent on 24 April 2007. Furthermore, the
members of the Chamber agreed that a cheque can subsequently be cancelled
before it can be cashed. Consequently, and in the absence of any further evidence
demonstrating that the relevant amount had indeed been withdrawn from a
particular bank account by the beneficiary of the cheque, the Chamber could not
infer from the submission of the Respondent that the amount of money had duly
been received by the Claimant.
16.
As for the private housing and car, the Chamber noted that on the basis of the
parties’ submissions, it could not be clearly established that the Respondent had
failed to respect its obligations under the contract, since it had provided the
Claimant with a hotel room of good standard while looking for alternative
accommodation as well as had put a chauffeur at his disposal. The Chamber
emphasised that the Claimant had not denied the aforementioned but had only
sought to argue that the accommodation provided was not up to the standard
required by the contract, an allegation that would in any case be difficult for the
Chamber to verify.
17.
In continuation, the members of the DRC recalled that the Claimant had
terminated his contract with the club on 24 April 2007 and had eventually left S to
apparently go back to K since he deemed that the Respondent had failed to
comply with the terms of their respective employment contract.
18.
In this connection, the Chamber addressed the issue of whether the termination of
the contract by the Claimant was justified. First of all, the DRC sought to recall
that the delay in the return of the Claimant until 27 January 2007 had been caused
by the Respondent and that consequently, the latter was in any case not entitled
to withdraw payment to the Claimant of his salary due for January 2007. The
argument of the Respondent according to which the Claimant should only receive
his salary as from the date of his return to the club, i.e. 19 February 2007, could
consequently not be upheld by the Chamber.
9
19.
Secondly, the fact that the Claimant had himself delayed his return the days after
he was due to fly back to S on 27 January 2007, could not possibly discharge the
Respondent from his obligation to pay the Claimant as soon as he had
reintegrated the team. In this regard, the Chamber sought to stress that although
the Respondent had, on several occasions, claimed that it was willing to pay the
Claimant as from the date of his return to the club, it had eventually not been
able to prove that it had effectively paid the Claimant as stated.
20.
Equally, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that the Respondent, by means of
its letter dated 14 February 2007, accepted the Claimant’s request to return to S by
means of the flight leaving the destination of origin on 18 February 2007. In other
words, the Chamber pointed out that the Respondent could not claim that the
Claimant left the Respondent and did not reintegrate it on time, since it explicitly
accepted the Claimants behaviour by means of its aforementioned letter dated 14
February 2007.
21.
In view of the above, the members of the Chamber were convinced that the
Respondent had failed to respect the terms of the employment contract it had
signed with the Claimant and had therefore breached the said employment
contract. As a consequence, the Claimant, having requested the Respondent on
several occasions to proceed to pay his outstanding salaries, and the Respondent
not having complied with these requests, had had a just cause to terminate his
contract and claim compensation under art. 17 of the Regulations. On account of
the above, the members of the Chamber, founding in favour of the Claimant,
consequently also agreed to dismiss the counter-claim that the Respondent had
lodged against the Claimant and his new club, C.
22.
Before turning its attention to the issue of compensation to be granted to the
Claimant, and for the sake of good order, the Chamber found it worthwhile to
respond to some of the arguments and issues raised by the parties, in particular by
the Respondent, during the course of the present procedure. Firstly, and with
regard to the further loan of the Claimant to club R, the DRC pointed out that
such issue did not concern the Claimant but only the Respondent and the two K
clubs to which the Claimant was transferred on a loan basis. The Chamber,
although aware that such a further loan to club R may eventually have led to the
situation in which the Claimant had had to play with the Respondent’s second
team, held that such matter would have had to be resolved between the clubs
involved and could therefore not have any repercussion on the contractual
relationship between the Respondent and the Claimant.
23.
With regard to the allegation that the ITC of the Claimant had never been
received by the S Football Federation, the Chamber sought to emphasise that any
association requesting the issuance of an ITC from another association can request
the assistance of FIFA if the latter association is not willing or does not issue the
said ITC and the further mandatory prerequisites for such request are fulfilled, but
that the S Football Federation had, for unknown reasons not called on the
assistance of FIFA.
10
24.
As to the argument raised by the Respondent according to which the late arrival
of the Claimant had resulted in the impossibility of the Respondent to register him
as the registration period had already been closed, the Chamber was keen to
underline that an association does not have to wait for a player to be physically
present in order for him to be registered for the club concerned at that same
association.
25.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber then went on to deal with the issue of
compensation to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant following the
termination of the employment contract with just cause by the latter. To this
effect, the Chamber referred to art. 17 of the Regulations and recalled that the
said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria which may be
taken into consideration at the entire discretion of the relevant decision-making
body when calculating the amount of compensation payable.
26.
This being established, the Chamber started by considering the amount of money
that the Respondent should have paid to the Claimant as outstanding salaries and
concluded that, on the basis of the employment contract signed between the
parties, the Claimant’s salaries were due as from 1 January 2007 and for the period
until the time he had terminated his contract. In deduction to the amount of
outstanding salary pertaining to the aforementioned period, the members of the
Chamber concurred to deduct the month of February 2007 since it had been
previously established that the Claimant had delayed his return after 27 January
2007 without being able to provide any conclusive evidence justifying such a
delay. In this respect, the Chamber was of the view that although the Respondent
had eventually allowed the Claimant to return to S on 19 February 2007, such a
permission did not mean that the former had an obligation to pay the latter’s
salary for the period running from his first initial return on 27 January 2007 up
until he had effectively resumed duty with the team. However, the Respondent
had in any case the obligation to pay the Claimant’s salary after he had returned
to S. As a consequence, the Chamber held that the outstanding salary due to the
Claimant amounted to USD 120,000 (i.e. the salaries pertaining to the months of
January, March and April 2007).
27.
In continuation, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the
amount of compensation to be paid by the Respondent to the Claimant in order
for the latter to be compensated following his lawful termination of the
employment contract concluded between the respective parties. To that end, the
members of the Chamber sought to recall that each request for compensation has
to be assessed on a case-by-case basis taking into account the specificities and
particular circumstances of each case as well as the specificity of sport and should
be based on the criteria stipulated in art. 17 of the Regulations.
28.
This being established, the Chamber emphasised that, based on the nonexhaustive criteria contained in art. 17 of the Regulations, any party claiming
compensation for breach of contract has a responsibility to mitigate the loss that it
11
may have suffered as a result of a breach. In this respect, the Chamber took note
of the fact that on 24 August 2007, the Claimant had been able to conclude an
employment contract with C and that, subsequently, on 1 January 2008, he had
signed another employment contract with the K club X, although for a value
inferior to his previous contract with the Respondent.
29.
On account of the aforementioned circumstances, and, in particular, in view of the
fact that the Claimant had been able to mitigate his loss, the Chamber concluded
that a compensation amounting to two monthly salaries, amounting to a total of
USD 80,000 according to the contract the Claimant had concluded with the
Respondent, seemed an appropriate and reasonable compensation to be paid to
the Claimant.
30.
In view of all of the above, the members of the Chamber concluded that, bearing
in mind art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, as well as the particular circumstances of
the present case, the claim of the Claimant should be partially accepted and that,
consequently, the Respondent has to pay to the Claimant the total amount of USD
200,000, consisting of USD 120,000 pertaining to outstanding salaries as provided
for under the terms of the relevant employment contract and of USD 80,000,
pertaining to compensation for breach of contract without just cause payable by
the Respondent.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, A, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, L, has to pay to the Claimant / CounterRespondent, A, the amount of USD 200,000 within 30 days as from the date of
notification of this decision.
3.
If the aforementioned sum is not paid within the aforementioned deadline, an
interest rate of 5% per year will apply as of expiry of the fixed time limit and the
present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee
so that the necessary disciplinary sanctions may be imposed.
4.
The Claimant / Counter-Respondent, A, is directed to inform the Respondent /
Counter-Claimant, L, 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.
12
5.
Any further claims lodged by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, A, are rejected.
6.
The counterclaim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, L, is rejected.
*****
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to article 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 Dispute Resolution Chamber
Markus Kattner
Deputy Secretary General
Encl. CAS Directives
13