Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 10 August 2007,
in the following composition:
Mr. Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Mr. Mario Gallavotti (Italy), Member
Mr. Mohamed Mecherara (Algeria), Member
Mr. Michele Colucci (Italy), Member
Mr. Mick McGuire (England), Member
on the claim presented by the
Player T
Represented by players´ agent,
as Claimant
against the club
K
Represented by lawyer,
as Respondent
regarding a contractual dispute between the parties involved
./…
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 20 August 2004, the player T, born in 1984, (hereinafter: the player) and the
club K signed an employment contract valid until 31 December 2008. According to
art. 6 of the said contract the club has to pay to the player a monthly salary of USD
9,000.
2.
On the same date, the parties signed an Appendix 1 which contains an exhaustive
art. 7 that stipulates the following:
•
Article 7.1.: K shall pay to the player an advance payment of his salary
amounting USD 265,000 in 13 instalments, starting the first one 1 September
2004 and the last one 1 August 2008.
•
Article 7.2.: K shall pay to the player a monthly salary: during 2004–USD 9,000;
during 2005 – USD 11,000; during 2006 – USD 12,500; during 2007 - USD
14,500 and during 2008 – USD 17,000.
•
Article 7.3.: K shall pay at the end of each calendar year USD 1,000 per month
for accommodation expenses for the period from March until November for
each year of the contract validity.
•
Article 7.4.: in June 2005 K shall pay a compensation to the player in the
amount USD 3,500 for the car expenses.
•
Article 7.5.: at the end of each calendar year the club shall pay a
compensation to the player for two (2) air tickets expenses twice a year to his
country.
3.
On 30 November 2006, the player requested the termination of the employment
contract concluded with K for sporting just cause, since apparently he participated
in less than 10 % of the official matches of K during the entire season 2006
(March-November 2006). The last match of K was on 26 November 2006. In
addition the player requested part of the salary of December 2005 (USD 5,000) and
the salary of November 2006 (USD 12,500) amounting USD 17,500, default
interests, compensation and sporting sanctions to be imposed on the club.
4.
On 16 February 2007, the club rejected the player’s claim and filed a counterclaim
against the player.
5.
In particular, the club deems that the player has no just cause to terminate the
contract because the alleged sporting just cause is inexistent and the alleged
unpaid salaries were in fact paid. As a result, the club requests that the player has
to return and reassume duties immediately based on the relevant employment
contract valid until 2008.
6.
Subsidiary, only in case the above would be rejected, the club requests that the
player should be sanctioned and condemned to pay the legal expenses as well as
compensation for breach of contract during the protected period in the amount of
USD 996,685 calculated as following:
a.
USD 296,685: amortisation of transfer compensation paid by K to the former
club, L, i.e. USD 649,000; contract duration 52.5 months, remaining 24
months = 45.7 % = USD 296,685.
b.
USD 700,000:
estimated sporting and financial damage of the club K.
7.
Regarding the alleged unpaid salaries the club explained that, as a general
practice, it paid the salaries on the 20th day of the following month, therefore the
salary for November 2006 was to be paid on 20 December 2006 at the earliest, but
since the player was absent and never returned, the salary was deposited onto a
Player T / Club K
Page 2 of 11
debit bankcard attribute to the player( the club sent evidences to FIFA in this
respect). With regard to the salary of December 2005 the club stressed that
contrary to the player’s claim the amount of USD 3,540 would be outstanding if
any. Yet two fines were imposed on the player, one of USD 3.000 (bad behaviour
during a match) and another one of USD 1,000 (late arrival to the pre-season
training).
8.
Regarding the sporting just cause the club stated that according to the art. 15 of
the Regulations four cumulative conditions need to be fulfilled: a) established
professional; b) appearance in less than 10 % of the official matches; c) player’s
circumstances and d) termination notice given by the player within 15 days
following the last official match of the season.
9.
In this respect, K deems that none of the four conditions are fulfilled. a) On the
one hand, the player is not an established professional, he is a young (born in
October 1984) promising player but nowadays his training is not completed. He
was playing before but this league is more difficult and he was not able to play in
the first team. Equally, his salary for the season 2006 amounted to USD 12,500 and
the monthly salaries of the established players in K are much higher (to this regard
the club quoted case 05-00460 monthly salary of USD 30,000). b) On the other
hand, the club stressed that the player appeared in more than 10% of the official
matches. He appeared in 4 of the 34 matches played by the club. Therefore he
appeared in 11,76% of the official matches. c) Moreover, the club explained that
the player was not fielded more due to his behaviour. In July 2006 a medical
examination revealed that he was suffering a severe sexual illness. The player had
to be treated and was prevented from playing for two weeks and afterwards it
took several weeks to recover. The head coach recommended him to train with
the second team but the player categorically refused. During all this period of time
K could not use the services the player. d) Finally, the club emphasised that the
termination letters sent by the players´ agent to the Federation and FIFA are dated
27 November 2006. At that time the players´ agent was not entitled to act on
behalf of the player, only on 8 January he send the power of attorney dated 4
January 2007.Therefore the termination notice is null and void.
10.
On 2 March 2007, the Federation informed FIFA that K played 34 official matches,
30 matches with the National Championship and 4 matches for the Domestic Cup.
The player T participated for K in 5 matches and effectively fielded 245 minutes.
11.
On 22 March and 12 April 2007 the player submit to FIFA his position to club’s
answer and change the terms of his original claim stating the following
considerations.
12.
Firstly, the player reiterated that he has no intentions to return to the club and
that the club had breached the employment contract due to its failure to comply
with its financial obligations. In particular, the player is of the opinion that the
salary agreed in art. 6 (USD 9,000 per month) of the employment contract is the
basic monthly salary, and the salary which was stipulated in the Appendix 1 has to
be considered as “extra salary”. The player stated that he never contested having
received a copy of the relevant employment contract but he emphasized that he
did not have the original copy of the contract by the time he lodged his complaint
with FIFA and therefore once he received the relevant copy through FIFA, he
carefully reviewed it and he sent the relevant claim.
Player T / Club K
Page 3 of 11
13.
Consequently, the player deems that the basic monthly salary of USD 9,000 (art. 6
of the contract) has been outstanding as from 20 August 2004 until the end of the
contract i.e. 31 December 2008 amounting to USD 471,193,55.
14.
As a result, the player deems that the club breached the contract and requests the
total amount of USD 1,076,041,55 composed in the following manner: a) part of
salary December 2005 (USD 2,000), b) basic salary 20 August to 1 September 2004
(USD 3,193.55, pro rata from USD 9,000), c) basic salary September 2004 to
December 2008 (USD 468,000, 52 months x USD 9,000), d) bonuses for March 2007
until August 2008 (USD 120,000), e) instalment of extra salary Dec. 2005 (USD
2,000), f) extra salary Nov/Dec 2006 (USD 25,000, 2 x 12,500), g) salary acc. to
appendix 1/ 2007 (USD 174,000 , 12 x 14,500) salary acc. to appendix 1/ 2008 (USD
204,000, 12 x 17,000), h) accommodation 2007/2008 appendix 1, art. 3 (USD 18,000,
USD 9,000 per year), i) air tickets 2007/2008 acc. to Art 5 appendix 1 (USD 7,848)
and j) additional financial compensation for breach of contract based on Swiss
Code of Obligations 337c III (USD 54,000, six basic monthly salaries, 6 x USD 9,000).
15.
Regarding the payment evidences submitted by the club, the player states that he
is not in possession of any Mastercard account and he is not able to withdraw
money. He does not possess a visa and therefore he does not have access to the
relevant amount. Moreover the player argues how the club was able to get a
statement of his account since this constitutes a violation of his privacy.
16.
Regarding the admissibility of the claim, the player explained that on 25
September 2006 he mandated the players´ agent to act on his behalf. Moreover,
the representation contract valid until 25 September 2008 contains an
“exclusivity” clause. Equally, upon FIFA’s request another power of attorney was
submitted dated 4 January 2007.
17.
With regard to the fines the player accepts the fine of USD 3,000 (signed by him),
but not the fine of USD 1,000 for late return after holiday, due to the lack of
evidence or reason for such penalty. The player affirmed that he returned late due
to some problems with his visa and since he could not leave the training campus
due to domestic law. However the remaining part of USD 2,000 is still outstanding
as salary of December 2005. Regarding the daily fine amounting to USD 400 per
day starting from 8 January 2007 for every day of absence, the player stressed that
based on the domestic Labour code a fine cannot exceed 50% of the monthly
basic salary. Therefore the player consider that the decision of the K board of
directors violated the law and therefore it shall be declare null and void since USD
400 x 30 days USD 12,000 more than monthly salary USD 9,000. Moreover, the
player stressed that from the analysis of the relevant resolution it appears that the
decision was taken on 8 January 2007 imposing a fine for being absent as from the
8 until 13 January 2007, i.e. the decision was taken before the absence period was
expired. The player concluded that the Club has provided a document with false
content.
18.
Regarding the salary for November 2006 of USD 12,500, the player emphasised
that the payment date is not expressly stipulated in the contract but as a general
rule it must be paid at the end of month, therefore K is delayed.
19.
Moreover, the player maintained that according to domestic law, in case of
holiday, the salary has to be paid in advance therefore, the salary as from 27
November 2006 (USD 12,500 monthly salary 2006) to 8 January 2007 (USD 14,500
monthly salary 2007) is outstanding as well.
Player T / Club K
Page 4 of 11
20.
Finally, the player informed FIFA that he has not signed a new employment
contract yet.
21.
Subsidiary the player requests FIFA to declare the relevant employment contract
terminated by the club for sporting just cause. The player contested the club’s
position and maintained that the four conditions are fulfilled. In particular, he
deems that he was an established player before joining K. As a general rule an
established player is the one that starts playing regularly in the first team of a
club. Moreover, the FIFA Circular Letter 769 expressly contains an example which
confirms that “the player’s establishment is over once he starts playing regularly in
the first team of the club”. Furthermore, the player stressed that he has
terminated his training period at the age of 19 prior to his transfer to K. The
player sent a statement made by the Federation of the club L as evidence in this
respect. Moreover, the aforementioned Federation declared that the player
participated in 27 official matches (1988 minutes on the field) for the National
Championship and Cup as a professional with club L during 2003/4 season.
22.
Furthermore, the player considers that the statement of the aforementioned
Federation is not accurate and coherent with the statistics provided by K in its
website. In fact, the Federation considers that the player played in 5 official
matches (245 min.) for K while the club’s website establishes that the player
played 4 matches (198 min). The player alleges that the difference of one match is
because the Federation takes into consideration one match that he played for the
second team of the club. Consequently, the player deems that he played for the
first team 4 matches (198 min. on the field) out of 34 official matches (3090 min.)
and for the second team 5 matches (245 min. on the field) out of 64 official
matches (6150 min.). As a result, the player is of the opinion that considering the
First or Second team in both cases he played less than 10 % of the playing time.
23.
Moreover, the player totally rejects the argumentation regarding his illness
emphasising that such an illness does not prevent a player from his ability to play
football. The medical report does not contain any restriction to play for 2 weeks.
However the club recognises that they unilaterally suspended the player for two
weeks. This decision shall be considered as an extreme violation of the labour
relationship. Moreover, the medical report sent by K refers to the period 11-26
July while the player had no official appearance in a match since 27 March 2006. T
was a substitute player already long time before the illness occurred. The player
also contested that he had refused to train and to participate in matches with the
second team. He played on 12 August 2006.
24.
Finally, the player maintained that the termination notice was given within 15
days following the last official match of the season since the last match of the
relevant season was on 26 November 2006 and the letter of termination was dated
and sent on 27 November 2006 one day after. Moreover, the player reiterates that
the Agent had, at that time, a valid power of attorney and even a representation
contract.
25.
With its last statement K emphasised that the player received a copy of the
relevant employment contract and that he was fully aware about all its provisions.
Moreover, art. 10 of the employment contract stipulates that it is made out in
three copies, one for the club, one for the player and one for the league. The
player´s assertion that he never received a copy shows his bad faith and contradicts
Player T / Club K
Page 5 of 11
his previous allegation that he did not have a copy of the employment contract
because “it was lost with his luggage”. Furthermore, the club pointed out that the
player changed completely his original claim and particularly the amounts claimed
cannot be followed and are unfounded.
26.
In addition, the club categorically rejects the claim of a supplementary monthly
amount of USD 9,000 on the basis of art. 6, emphasising that the monthly salaries
are the ones prescripted on Appendix 1 art. 7.2.. Moreover, the club reiterated
that the salary of November 2006 was deposited and that with regard to the salary
of December 2005 the amount of USD 3,540 over USD 5,000 remains unpaid, but it
is compensated by the fines and the daily fine of USD 400 starting from 8 January
2007. Consequently, the club fulfilled all its financial obligations towards the
player.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the 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 30 November
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.
If an employment contract is breached by a party, the Dispute Resolution Chamber
(DRC) is also responsible to verify whether a party is accountable for outstanding
payments and/or compensation. Equally, the Chamber shall decide whether sports
sanctions shall be imposed.
4.
As a consequence, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is the competent body to
decide on the present litigation involving a player and a club regarding a dispute
in connection with an employment contract.
5.
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 20 August 2004 and the claim was
lodged at FIFA on 30 November 2006. In view of the aforementioned, the
Chamber concluded that the current 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.
Player T / Club K
Page 6 of 11
6.
In continuation, and entering into the substance of the matter, the members of
the Chamber started by acknowledging that both parties signed an employment
contract on 20 August 2004 valid until 31 December 2008.
7.
Moreover, the Chamber noted that on the same date both parties signed an
additional document identified as Appendix 1 by means of which the player T
(hereinafter: the Claimant or the player) and the club K (hereinafter: the
Respondent or the club or K) agreed financial conditions such as, additional
payments, monthly salaries, accommodation expenses, among others.
8.
At this stage, the members of the Chamber pointed out that the Claimant deemed
that the Respondent breached the aforementioned employment contract by no
paying, since the signature of the employment contract and the additional
document, a monthly salary of USD 9,000 established in the art. 6 of the cited
contract in addition to the salary agreed and regularly paid by the Respondent in
accordance with the art. 7.2 of the Appendix 1, as well as part of the salary of
December 2005 and the salary of November 2006.
9.
As a result, the Chamber had to verify whether, as affirmed by the Claimant, the
Respondent had persistently failed to fulfil its financial obligations towards the
Claimant, and therefore, the latter terminated the employment contract with just
cause.
10.
In this respect, the members of the Chamber focused on the analysis of the
content of both documents, i.e. the employment contract and the Appendix 1
concluded by the parties, identifying that there is a monthly salary of USD 9,000
agreed in the art. 6 of the employment contract and there are different amounts
established as monthly salaries in the art. 7.2 of the Appendix 1 for each year
during the validity of the relevant contract.
11.
In continuation, the members of the Chamber took duly note that since the
celebration of the employment contract on 20 August 2004 until the player T
started the relevant proceeding at FIFA on 30 November 2006, the Respondent
regularly paid to the Claimant the monthly salaries in accordance with the art. 7.2
of the Appendix 1, meaning USD 9,000 in 2004; USD 11,000 in 2005, USD 12,500 in
2006. Moreover the members of the Chamber acknowledged that during the
entire aforementioned period of time (20 August 2004 until 30 November 2006),
i.e. more than two years, the Claimant was remunerated by the Respondent in
accordance with the terms agreed upon in the Appendix 1. To this regard, the
Chamber deemed it important to reiterate that the said Appendix provided for a
monthly salary of USD 9,000 for the year 2004 and a yearly increase whereby the
Claimant would be receiving the amount of USD 11,000 for the year 2005, USD
12,500 for the year 2006, USD 14,500 for the year 2007 and the amount of USD
17,000 for the year 2008.
12.
In view of the foregoing, the Chamber came to the conclusion that the
employment contract and the Appendix 1 reflect the spirit and the aim of both
contractual parties, the Claimant and the Respondent, to agree upon a “startsalary” of USD 9,000 for the first calendar year, corresponding to the salary
provided for in art. 6 of the employment contract, and thereafter on a continuous
increase as foreseen in the Appendix 1.
13.
The above appreciation is uphold by the fact that, based on the documents at
disposal, it seems that never the Claimant expressed his disagreement to be
compensated based on the Appendix 1, but only until the end of the procedure of
Player T / Club K
Page 7 of 11
the present dispute, i.e. the Claimant never claimed to the Respondent the
payment of the additional amount of USD 9,000 as monthly salary in accordance
with the art. 6 of the employment contract.
14.
Furthermore, the members of the Chamber took in consideration that the player T
sent his claim to FIFA on 30 November 2006 requesting the termination of the
employment contract based on sporting just cause and the payment of two
monthly salaries in accordance with the amounts established in the art. 7.2 of the
Appendix 1. Moreover, the Chamber outlined that at a later stage, only the
Claimant changed radically the terms of his original claim requesting the referred
additional amount of USD 9,000 per month as salary in accordance with art. 6 of
the relevant employment contract and subsidiary the termination of the relevant
contract based on sporting just cause.
15.
On account of all the above, the DRC concluded that based on the
aforementioned facts and circumstances, it seems that the amount of USD 9,000
was agreed by the parties in both documents (contract and appendix) as monthly
salary during the first year of validity of the contract, i.e. 2004, and that then for
the rest of the years until the end of the contract, the salary would be increased
yearly in accordance with the art. 7.2 of the aforementioned Appendix 1.
16.
Consequently, the members of the Chamber concluded that by the time the
Claimant prematurely terminated the employment, if any, the salaries of the 1 ½
months have remain unpaid, namely part of the December 2005 salary and the
November 2006 salary.
17.
However, the members of the Chamber underlined that even though the
Respondent would owe the aforementioned 1 ½ salary to the player T, the latter
would not have had a justified and significant reason to consider the relevant
contract breached by the club K and thus terminate the contract with just cause.
18.
In view of all of the above, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant terminated
the employment contract prematurely without just cause and during the
protected period in the sense of point 7 of the definitions of the Regulations, i.e.
during a period of three entire seasons or three years, whichever comes first,
following the entry into force of a contract, if such contract was concluded prior to
the 28th birthday of the professional.
19.
At this stage, the members of the Chamber focused their attention to the
Claimant’s alternative allegation regarding sporting just cause. In this respect, the
DRC pointed out that art. 15 of the Regulations establishes that an established
professional who has in the course of the season appeared in less than 10 % of the
official matches in which this club has been involved may terminate his contract
prematurely on the grounds of sporting just cause. Besides, the existence of this
causal shall be established on a case by case basis.
20.
In continuation, the members of the Chamber deemed important to emphasize
that for the sake of good order the determination of sporting just cause has to be
measured accurately and carefully. Therefore this legal remedy authorizing to
terminate a labour relationship with a valid reason has to be set at high level and
under clear and objective conditions in order to preserve the legal security.
21.
Equally, the deciding authority was eager to emphasize that it is the first time it
had to address the question whether a professional has terminated the relevant
employment contract prematurely on the grounds of sporting just cause in the
Player T / Club K
Page 8 of 11
sense of art. 15 of the Regulations, and thus, no jurisprudence has been
established so far.
22.
Yet the Chamber remarked that under the Regulations and following a
grammatical interpretation of the relevant provision, the sporting just cause is
established mainly taking in consideration a floor of 10 % of the official matches
in which the player in question participated and not the minutes.
23.
Furthermore, the members of the Chamber checked carefully the information at
disposal in the matter at stake, in particular the report submitted to FIFA by the
National Football Union and they concluded that the player T participated in 5 of
the 34 official matches that K played.
24.
Consequently, the Chamber deemed that there is not sporting just cause in the
matter at stake since 5 matches out of 34 is more than 10 % that the limit required
by art. 15 of the Regulations.
25.
On account of all the foregoing, the members of the Chamber decided
unanimously that the player T did not had justified reasons to terminate the
relevant labour relationship with the club K neither for outstanding salaries nor
for sporting just cause. Therefore, and considering the above point II 18, the
Chamber pointed out that the Claimant terminated the employment contract
during the protected period i.e. 2 years and 3 months, without just cause and
should be liable to pay compensation to the Respondent.
26.
Finally, the DRC turned its attention to the Respondent’s requests for
compensation based on that the Claimant breached the contract without just
cause during the protected period.
27.
In this context, the Chamber considered that the Respondent requests the amount
of USD 996,685, i.e. USD 296,685 with regard to the expenses incurred related to
the previous transfer of the Claimant amortised over the term of the contract as
well as the amount of USD 700,000 as compensation.
28.
Thereafter and considering the objective criteria listed in art. 17 par. 1 of the
Regulations, the Chamber decided that a compensation of USD 446,685 is
adequate in view of the fact that the relevant employment contract would still run
until 31 December 2008 and that the Respondent paid to the previous club of the
player T in occasion of the transfer (August 2004) an amount of USD 649,000.
29.
In light of the above, the DRC decided that the employment relationship between
the Claimant and the Respondent has been terminated by the end of November
2006 and that the player T has to pay to the club K the amount of USD 446,685 as
compensation for breach of contract within the third contractual year.
30.
Then the members of the Chamber turned to the question of the sporting
sanctions to be imposed on the player in accordance with art. 17 par. 3 of the
Regulations.
31.
In this respect, the Chamber referred to the basic sanction of four months on the
player’s eligibility to participate in any official football matches in case of an
unjustified breach of contract by a player. Moreover, the Chamber referred to the
fact that the breach occurred during the so-called protected period, since it
occurred during the third year following the entry into force of the relevant
employment contract.
Player T / Club K
Page 9 of 11
32.
In view of all the above, the members of the Chamber decided that the player T
has to pay the amount of USD 446,685 to the Respondent and has to be
sanctioned with a restriction of four months on his eligibility to participate in any
official football matches.
33.
Finally and referring to the well established jurisprudence the Chamber rejected
the claimed legal expenses.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, the player T, is rejected.
2.
The counterclaim of the Respondent, K, is partially accepted.
3.
The Claimant, the player T, has to pay the amount of USD 446,685 to the
Respondent, K.
4.
The amount due to the Respondent has to be paid by the Claimant within 30
days as from the date of notification of this decision.
5.
In the event that the debt of the Respondent is not paid within the stated
deadline an interest rate of 5% per year will apply as of expiry of the said time
limit.
6.
A restriction of four months on his eligibility to play in official matches is imposed
on the player T. The sanction shall take effect as from the first day of the
registration of the player with a new club.
7.
In case of non-compliance of the present decision within the relevant time frames,
the matter shall be submitted to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee, so that the
necessary disciplinary sanctions may be imposed.
8.
The Respondent is directed to inform the Claimant immediately of the account
number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute
Resolution Chamber of every payment received.
9.
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
Player T / Club K
Page 10 of 11
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:
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 General Secretary
Encl.: CAS directives
Player T / Club K
Page 11 of 11