Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 24 August 2010,
by Mr Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge,
on the claim presented by the player,
M
as Claimant
against the club,
A
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related contractual dispute arisen between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 16 December 2005, the player, M (hereinafter: the Claimant), and the club, A
(hereinafter: the Respondent), concluded an employment contract (hereinafter: the
contract) valid from 2 January 2006 until 30 June 2007 (art. 5 of the contract).
2.
The contract, in its art. 2, provided for a monthly remuneration of EUR 600. Art. 3 of the
contract also stipulated that “the team may still pay the player the game or
classification reward in relation to the results which, since given regularly, will be
considered as part of his remuneration”.
3.
The parties to the dispute signed an undated agreement called in its translated version
“contract rescission”, by means of which the parties agreed to terminate their
contractual relationship at the end of the season 2005/2006 (par. 2 of the said
agreement). Furthermore, par. 3 of the said agreement stipulated that “the parties,
consequently to the present revocation, have nothing to require between themselves
under the pretense of compensation or under any other pretense”.
On 18 July 2007, and after having allegedly put the Respondent in default on 25 June
2007, the Claimant lodged a complaint against the Respondent before FIFA.
4.
In this respect, the Claimant held that he played for the club during a period of 6
months until the end of the season 2005/2006. Due to the fact that the Respondent did
allegedly not fulfilled its contractual obligations, he decided to terminate his
contractual relationship with the Respondent (cf. point no. I./3. above). However, the
Claimant added that the Respondent did not pay him three monthly salaries allegedly
due for the months of March, April and May 2006.
5.
As a consequence, the Claimant claimed the payment of a total amount of EUR 1,800.
6.
On 14 July 2008, the Respondent rejected the claim of the Claimant and alleged that it
had no outstanding payments towards the latter. Indeed, according to the Respondent,
the parties agreed to terminate their contractual relationship at the end of the season
2005/2006 and that, after the election of the new board of directors, at the end of the
2005/2006 season, it paid the salaries to all the players, some after a judicial decision
some by amicable settlement.
2
II.
Considerations of the DRC judge
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber analysed whether it was competent to deal
with the case at hand. In this respect, the Chamber referred to art. 21 par. 1 of the Rules
Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution
Chamber (edition 2008). The present matter was submitted to FIFA on 18 July 2007, thus
before the aforementioned Rules entered into force on 1 July 2008. Therefore, the
Chamber referred to art. 18 par. 2 and 3 of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the
Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) (hereinafter:
Procedural Rules; edition 2005) and concluded that the 2005 edition of the Procedural
Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.
2.
Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules and
confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and in combination with art. 22 lit. b of
the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2009) 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 in does not exceed 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 2009 and
2008), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 18 July 2007, the previous
version of the regulations (edition 2005; 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 DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. He started by
acknowledging that the parties to the dispute had signed an employment contract,
which was originally valid from 2 January 2006 until 30 June 2007.
6.
Equally, the DRC judge observed that the parties signed a termination agreement, by
means of which the parties agreed to terminate their contractual relationship at the
end of the season 2005/2006.
7.
In continuation, the DRC judge noted that the Claimant lodged a claim against the
Respondent requesting the payment of an amount of EUR 1,800, allegedly
corresponding to the unpaid monthly salaries of March, April and May 2006.
8.
On the other hand, the DRC judge noted that the Respondent rejected the claim and
added that the parties agreed to terminate the contract and that the Respondent paid
all the amounts due.
3
9.
In view of the foregoing, the DRC judge pointed that art. 13 of the Regulations
stipulates that a contract between a professional and a club may only be terminated
upon expiry of the term of the contract or by mutual agreement.
10.
According to the documents received, the DRC judge recalled that the contract, valid
from 2 January 2006 until 30 June 2007, was terminated before its expiry, at the end of
the season 2005/2006.
11.
In this context, the DRC judge underlined that par. 2 and 3 of the termination
agreement provided that “by the present agreement the team and the player accept to
revoke partially the same contract, which will be reduced for the 2005-2006 period. The
parties, consequently to the present revocation, have nothing to require between
themselves under the pretense of compensation or under any other pretense”
(emphasis added).
12.
In view of the above, the DRC judge concluded that the parties to the dispute have
found a mutual agreement in order to prematurely terminate the contract and that
they agreed upon the fact that they had no further claims against each other.
13.
Finally, on a side note, the DRC judge recalled that a party signing a document of legal
importance without knowledge of its precise contents – which is, in any case, in casu not
invoked – does so, as a general rule, on its own responsibility.
14.
Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations, the DRC judge
decided that the claim of the Claimant for the outstanding salaries has to be rejected
based on the fact that the parties agreed upon an early termination of the contract
specifying that no further claim can be requested from the other party.
4
III.
Decision of the DRC judge
The claim of the Claimant, M, is rejected.
***
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to art. 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 DRC judge:
Jérôme Valcke
Secretary General
Encl.
CAS directives
5