Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 23 September 2005,
in the following composition:
Mr. Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman
Mr. Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), Member
Mr. Michele Colucci (Italy), Member
Mr. John Didulica (Australia), Member
Mr. David Mayebi (Cameroon), Member
Mr. Paulo Rogerio Amoretty Souza (Brazil), Member
Mr. Eissa M. Selah Al-Housaini (U.A.E.), Member
Mr. Peter Friend (Australia), Member
Mr. Philippe Diallo (France), Member
on the claim presented by
Player X, Nationality A and B,
as Claimant
against
Club Y, Nationality B,
as Respondent
regarding the preliminary question on the competence of FIFA
to deal with the relevant claim.
I.
Facts of the case
1.
The player X with double nationality A/B, and the club Y, nationality B, signed an
employment contract on 1 June 2003.
2.
As from May 2005, a contractual dispute arose between the parties regarding
the question if the contract expires on 31 May 2005 or if it is extended for two
years.
3.
In the meantime, the player concerned appears to have the opportunity to sign a
new contract with a club in the country A.
4.
In this regard the player asks FIFA to establish that he is no longer bound to the
club X in question and free to sign for the club of his choice, and that this club
owes him certain contractual payments.
5.
Upon request of FIFA, the Football Federation of country B informed that the
player in question is registered for the club Y under the nationality B.
6.
The player X is of the opinion that FIFA should be competent to deal with the
matter at hand, since the employment contract concluded with the club Y does
not establish the competence of the Football Federation of country B to solve
contractual disputes.
7.
On 28 July 2005, the Dispute Resolution Chamber was asked to decide on
account of the above about the competence of FIFA to deal with the labour
dispute at hand.
8.
However, shortly before the submission of the case at hand, on 27 July 2005, the
Football Federation of country A submitted to the Single Judge of the FIFA
Players’ Status Committee a request for provisional registration of the player
concerned for its affiliated club Z.
9.
Due to the tight timeframe, the said development could not be duly considered
by the Dispute Resolution Chamber on 28 July 2005, and therefore, the decision
on the matter was postponed and the case set on the agenda of the following
meeting of the Dispute Resolution Chamber.
II.
Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the members of the Dispute Resolution Chamber acknowledged the
above-mentioned facts as well as the further documentation contained in the
file.
Player X, nationality A and B/ Club Y, nationality B
2/4
2.
The members of the Dispute Resolution Chamber then acknowledged that they
needed only to verify whether the Dispute Resolution Chamber could deal with
this matter or not for formal reasons, and that at present, they were not asked
to enter into the substance of the matter as such.
3.
In this respect, the members of the Chamber first took note of the fact that the
player in question had double nationality A and B, and that in the case at stake,
he was claiming against a club from country B. Moreover, the members of the
Chamber noticed that the same player had signed an employment contract with
a club in the county A in the meantime, and that due to the fact that the
Football Association of the country B did refuse to issue his International
Transfer Certificate to the Football Association of country A, a request for
provisional registration of the player was submitted to FIFA by the Football
Association of country A on 27 July 2005.
4.
On account of this, the members of the Chamber stressed that, before examining
if the competence to deal with the labour dispute between the player X and the
club Y could have to be rejected due to the possibility that the present dispute
could constitute an internal matter, it should be verified if FIFA is competent to
deal with the labour dispute between the player X and the club Y anyway due to
the fact that a request for provisional registration of the player concerned was
submitted to FIFA by another Association in the meantime.
5.
In this regard, the chamber stated that in principle, in case of an internal labour
dispute, i.e. when a player is claiming against a club that has its domicile in the
same country as the one of which the player is a national, it is not competent to
deal with such matter. However, if in the occasion of such a dispute, an
association of a third country requests FIFA’s intervention to provisionally
register the player concerned for one of its affiliated clubs, the competence to
pass a decision in the relevant labour dispute is, as an exception to the aboveprinciple, with FIFA.
6.
This principle is also included in Article 22 of the revised FIFA Regulations for the
Status and Transfer of Players (edition July 2005):
“FIFA is competent for
lit. a) Disputes between clubs and players in relation to the
maintenance of contractual stability (Art. 13 – 18) if there has been an
ITC Request and if there is a claim from an interested party in relation
to such ITC Request, in particular regarding its issuance, regarding
sporting sanctions or regarding compensation for breach of contract.”
Player X, nationality A and B/ Club Y, nationality B
3/4
7.
On account of the above-mentioned facts, as well as the outlined jurisprudence,
the Dispute Resolution Chamber decided that it is competent to enter into this
matter.
8.
In consequence, the FIFA Administration was asked to commence an
investigation on the labour dispute between the player X and the club Y.
III.
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
1.
The Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to decide on the claim submitted
by the player X against the club Y.
2.
According to art. 60 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes this decision may be appealed
before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be
sent to the CAS directly within 10 days of receiving notification of this decision
and has to contain all elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives
issued by the CAS, copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days
following the expiry of the time limit for the filing of the statement of appeal,
the appellant shall file with the CAS a brief stating the facts and legal arguments
giving rise to the appeal (cf. point 4 of the directives). The full address and
contact numbers of the CAS are the following:
Château de Béthusy
Avenue de Beaumont 2
1012 Lausanne
Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00, Fax: +41 21 613 50 01
[email protected], www.tas-cas.org
For the
Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Dr. Urs Linsi
General Secretary
Encl.
CAS directives
Player X, nationality A and B/ Club Y, nationality B
4/4