Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 20 February 2020,
integrated as follows:
Clifford J. Hendel (USA), Deputy Chairman
Roy Verm eer (Netherlands), member
Daan de Jong (Netherlands), member
on the claim presented by the player,
Gadacha Charrad Aikel, France,
represented by Mr Loizos Hadjidemetriou
as Claimant
against the club,
Alki Oroklinis , Cyprus,
represented by Mr George Christofides
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute between the parties
Player Gadacha Charrad Aikel, France / Club Alki Oroklinis, Cyprus
Page 2 of 14
I.
Facts of the cas e
1.
On 20 June 2018, the French player, Gadacha Charrad Aikel, (hereinafter: the player
or Claimant), and the Cypriot club, Alki Oroklinis, (hereinafter: the club or
Respondent) concluded an employment agreement valid as from the date of
signature until 31 May 2019 (hereinafter: the agreement), according to which his
monthly remuneration from August 2018 until May 2019 (10 salaries) was EUR 100
“net”.
2.
On 20 June 2018, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded also an Image Rights
agreement (hereinafter: the image rights agreement) pursuant to which the Claimant
was entitled to the following remuneration:
i. EUR 2,100 net per month from August 2018 until May 2019 (a total of EUR
21,000 “net”);
ii. Accommodation, flight ticket and a car;
iii. A salary increase of EUR 100 in case he was chosen for the starting eleven and
played more than 45 minutes in 12 games;
iv. EUR 1,500 as a bonus in case he was chosen for the starting eleven and played
more than 45 minutes in 15 games.
3.
In addition, according to art. 2.1. of the agreement “the present Contract is regulated
by the provisions of the Standard Employment Contract, as these have been agreed
between the Cyprus Football Association (CFA) and the Cyprus Footballer’s Union
(PASP) and as these provisions have been codified in Annex 1 of the CFA Registration
and Transfer of Players Regulations”.
4.
Furthermore, art. 2.2. of the agreement stipulated the following: “The terms of the
Standard Employment Contract constitute an integral part of the present Contract
having full and direct implementation.”
5.
Moreover, according to art. 2.3 of the agreement “In case of conflict, the terms of the
Standard Employment Contract shall take precedence over the terms of the present
Contract”.
6.
Art. 2.5 of the agreement stipulated the following: “If the club will relegate to the
second division then the player will not be paid the rest of his salaries by the exact
moment of relegation.”
7.
Pursuant to art. 13 of the Standard Employment Contract (hereinafter: the contract)
the parties agreed that “any employment dispute between the Club and the Player
shall fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Dispute Resolution Chamber
of the CFA and shall be resolved according to the applicable regulations of the CFA.”
Player Gadacha Charrad Aikel, France / Club Alki Oroklinis, Cyprus
Page 3 of 14
8.
According to art. 3 of the image rights agreement “This agreement shall terminate
automatically:
3.1. After its expiry.
3.2. By mutual consent of the parties.
3.3. By termination of the contract of employment dated 20/06/2018 between the
Employer and the player.”
9.
On 12 August 2019, the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the
Respondent, requesting the payment of outstanding remuneration in the amount of
EUR 3,800, plus legal interest as from 31 May 2019, corresponding to EUR 100 as basic
monthly salary, EUR 100 as salary increase, EUR 2,100 in monthly salary in accordance
with the image rights contract and EUR 1,500 as participation bonus. Moreover, the
Claimant requested the “Imposition of sanctions on the Respondent as per art 12bis
(4), (5) & (6) of the FIFA RSTP”.
10.
In his claim, the Claimant first asserted that the FIFA DRC was competent to hear the
present dispute. The Claimant stated, with reference to cases 18-01514/osv and 1801308/pam, that the Cyprus NDRC was not independent and impartial as per art. 22
(b) of the RSTP and consequently it cannot exclude the FIFA DRC’s jurisdiction.
Additionally, the claimant listed the following arguments in an attempt to show that
the CFA NDRC did not meet the requirements set in the FIFA RSTP and Circular no.
1010:
I.
The procedure for the election of the player’s representatives is controlled and
monitored by the CFA and is not left in the entire and absolute freedom of
the players’ union. The Claimant claimed that this is proven by art. 22.4 (3)
which stipulates that the election of the players’ representatives must be
approved by the CFA;
II.
The player’s representatives must first be approved by the council of the CFA
(Art 22.4 (4)), which shows that the CFA has the power to intervene by
approving or rejecting the appointment of the player’s representatives;
III.
The CFA has the right, in case it believes, in its sole discretion, that the Players’
union refuses or fails to elect member, to appoint said member by itself (art.
22.4 (5)). The claimant claimed that this shows that the CFA considers itself “as
having the ultimate power to manage and decide on the appointment of the
NDRC members and the running of the NDRC in the absence of the player’s
union”.
IV.
The NDRC is not an independent arbitration tribunal, it is only an intra
association adjudicating body and second, it is not independent from the CFA
which pays the members of the NDRC;
V.
CFA NDRC does not award interest on its monetary awards and additionally
the practise of the NDRC is contrary even to the Cyprus legislation which
provides that in cases of due payables a legal interest (currently at 2%) must
Player Gadacha Charrad Aikel, France / Club Alki Oroklinis, Cyprus
Page 4 of 14
VI.
be credited on the awardee amounts since the day that every amount became
due;
Finally, the Claimant refused to accept the CFA NDRC’s competence because
according to art. 22.39 (5) awards for overdue salaries can be paid off with up
to 24 monthly instalments. This means that if the Claimant had filed his claim
before the NDRC, in case an award for overdue payables was issued in his
favour, the Respondent would have had the right to file an application for
payment of the due payables in up to 24 monthly instalments, within 30 days
since the issuance of the award, without any interest being credited in favour
of the Claimant. According to the Claimant, this is unacceptable and contrary
to his rights as well as the established jurisprudence of the FIFA DRC and the
CAS.
11.
As to the substance, the Claimant claims that he has yet to be paid his May salary,
therefore, on 18 July 2019, the Claimant put the Respondent in default giving it 10
days to comply with its contractual obligations and fully settle all his due payables,
but to no avail.
12.
In support of his argumentation, the Claimant provided a statement issued by the
CFA showing all the games in which he participated and indicating that he has been
chosen for the starting eleven competing for more than 45 minutes in each game for
12 games since “08/12/2018” and that consequently his salary increased by EUR 100.
13.
Furthermore, the Claimant stated he was indeed chosen in the starting eleven of the
Respondent’s team and played for more than 45 minutes in more than 15 games.
Consequently, he claims to be also entitled to the payment of the EUR 1,500
participation bonus.
14.
In its reply to the claim, the Respondent first contested FIFA’s competence to deal
with the present dispute on the following grounds:
I.
The parties mutually and freely agreed, pursuant to clause 13 of the standard
employment contract, that any employment dispute between them shall fall
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFA NDRC;
II.
There is an independent arbitration tribunal established at the national level;
the jurisdiction of the independent arbitration tribunal derives from a clear
reference in the employment contract; the independent arbitration tribunal
guarantees fair proceedings and respects the principle of equal
representation;
III.
In accordance with Art 22.4, the election procedure must be approved by the
CFA.
IV.
The DRC has no competence to adjudicate about the image rights agreement.
According to the Respondent, the DRC tends to consider the agreement on
image rights as separate agreements from the employment contract. The
Player Gadacha Charrad Aikel, France / Club Alki Oroklinis, Cyprus
Page 5 of 14
Respondent claimed that the image rights agreement in dispute does not
provide any specific element leading to the conclusion that is it part of the
actual employment agreement. According to the Respondent, the image
rights agreement is a separate agreement from the employment agreement
and the standard employment contract. The Respondent further claimed that
the amount paid to the Claimant under the image rights agreement is justified
by clauses 1-5 of the image rights agreement.
15.
As to the substance, the Respondent rejected the allegations of the Claimant that it
has not paid the salary of May 2019 amounting to EUR 200 and his image rights
amounting to EUR 2,100.
16.
In support of its position, the Respondent presented a copy of a document titled
“Confirmation of Full payment and Compliance” concluded on 27 March 2019, by
means of which the “Claimant acknowledged that the Club had fulfilled all its
contractual obligations owed to him”.
17.
The Respondent, in addition, stated that it did not have an obligation to pay the
salary of May 2019, as according to clause 2.5 of the employment contract, in case the
Club is relegated to the second division, the latter is not obliged to pay the rest of
the salaries. In this respect, the Respondent provided untranslated documentation
allegedly proving that it was relegated on 18 May 2019.
18.
Finally, the Respondent requested the DRC to declare that:
1. “The DRC has no jurisdiction to decide about the dispute pursuant to article
13 of the Standard Employment Contract signed between the parties on
20/06/2018.
2. The Respondent has fully performed its contractual obligation deriving from
the Employment Contract.
3. Reject the Claims of the Respondent as described in points A 1 – 2 of its pray
for relief.
4. Declare that it has no competence to examine and award compensation in
relation to the image agreement signed between the parties on 20/06/2018.”
19.
Required to comment on the document “Confirmation of Full payment and
Compliance”, the Claimant stated that it refers to the March 2019 salary and to all
payments that should have been received until March 2019. He further pointed out
that the salary of March 2019 was never claimed.
Player Gadacha Charrad Aikel, France / Club Alki Oroklinis, Cyprus
Page 6 of 14
II.
Cons iderations of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
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 matter at stake. In this
respect, the DRC took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 12
August 2019 and decided on 20 February 2020. Taking into account the wording of
art. 21 of the 2019 edition of the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status
Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules),
the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at
hand.
2.
Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 and 2 of the Procedural Rules and
confirmed that, in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and 2 in combination with art. 22
lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, the DRC is, in principle,
competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment–related
dispute with an international dimension between an French player and an Cypriot
club.
3.
At this point, the Chamber noted that the Respondent first objected the admissibility
of the present claim, alleging that according to art. 13 of the agreement as well as to
art. 22 of the national regulations for the status and transfer of players the Cypriot
NDRC is competent to adjudicate in the present matter, arguing that the conditions
set out in art. 22 (b) of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players are
met.
4.
In this regard, the DRC noted that the Claimant asserted that FIFA has jurisdiction to
deal with the present matter since the Dispute Resolution Committee of the CFA
allegedly does not respect the principle of equal representation of players and clubs.
In particular, he referred to art. 22.4.3 of the NDRC Regulations and highlighted that
the election of the players’ representatives “must be approved by the council of the
CFA”. The Claimant further argued that in accordance with art. 22.4.5 of the NDRC
Regulations, the CFA “considers itself as having the ultimate power to manage and
decide on the appointment of the NDRC members and the running of the NDRC in
the absence of the players’ union” and that, therefore, it cannot provide for fair
proceedings.
5.
While analysing whether it was competent to hear the present matter, the Chamber
considered that it should, first and foremost, analyse whether the employment
contract at the basis of the present dispute actually contains a jurisdiction clause.
6.
Having said this, the DRC turned its attention to art. 13 of the contract, on the basis
of which the Respondent contested FIFA’s jurisdiction. According to said art. 13, “Any
Player Gadacha Charrad Aikel, France / Club Alki Oroklinis, Cyprus
Page 7 of 14
employment dispute between the Club and the Player shall fall under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the National Dispute Resolution Chamber of the CFA and shall be
resolved according to the applicable regulations of the CFA.”
7.
In view of the aforementioned clause, the DRC was of the opinion that art. 13 of the
employment contract makes clear reference to a national dispute resolution chamber
or any similar arbitration body in the sense of art. 22 lit. b) of the aforementioned
Regulations. Therefore, the DRC deemed that said article constitutes an arbitration
clause.
8.
However, the Chamber wished to stress that, even if the contract at the basis of the
present dispute includes an arbitration clause in favour of a national dispute
resolution body, the Respondent was unable to prove that, in fact, the Dispute
Resolution Committee of the CFA meets the minimum procedural standards for
independent arbitration tribunals as laid down in art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players, in the FIFA Circular no. 1010 as well as in the FIFA
National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations.
9.
In this respect, the DRC referred to the general principle of equal representation of
players as well as of clubs, and underlined that this principle was one of the very
fundamental elements to be fulfilled, in order for a national dispute resolution
chamber to be recognised as such.
10.
Indeed, this prerequisite is not only mentioned in the Regulations on the Status and
Transfer of Players, but also in the FIFA Circular no. 1010 as well as in art. 3 par. 1 of
the NDRC Regulations, which illustrates the aforementioned principle as follows:
“The NDRC shall be composed of the following members, who shall serve a four-year
renewable mandate: a) a chairman and a deputy chairman chosen by consensus by
the player and club representatives […]; b) between three and ten player
representatives who are elected or appointed either on proposal of the players’
associations affiliated to FIFPro, or, where no such associations exist, on the basis of
a selection process agreed by FIFA and FIFPro; c) between three and ten club
representatives […].” In this respect, the FIFA Circular no. 1010 states the following:
“The parties must have equal influence over the appointment of arbitrators. This
means for example that every party shall have the right to appoint an arbitrator and
the two appointed arbitrators appoint the chairman of the arbitration tribunal […].
Where arbitrators are to be selected from a predetermined list, every interest group
that is represented must be able to exercise equal influence over the compilation of
the arbitrator list.”
11.
Subsequently, the Chamber acknowledged receipt of the Regulations of the CFA,
provided by the Respondent, and began to analyse their content. In this context, the
DRC noted that, according to art. 22.4 of the aforementioned Cypriot Regulations,
Player Gadacha Charrad Aikel, France / Club Alki Oroklinis, Cyprus
Page 8 of 14
the Dispute Resolution Committee of the CFA, is composed of 5 members, as follows:
a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman, one member appointed by the Executive Committee of
the CFA and two members appointed by the Pancyprian Football Players’ Association.
12.
In view of the aforementioned and taking into account the pre-requisites for the
recognition of the jurisdiction of a Dispute Resolution Chamber at a national level
stipulated in art. 22 lit. b) of the FIFA Regulations, the FIFA Circular no. 1010 and the
FIFA NDRC Regulations, the DRC considered that, in light of the documentation
provided by the CFA and the Respondent, the relevant national deciding body does
not appear to be composed of an equal number of players’ and clubs’ representatives,
since the representation of the clubs, if any, is not evident.
13.
Therefore, the DRC concurred that the Respondent was unable to prove that the
Dispute Resolution Committee of the CFA had met the minimum procedural
standards for independent arbitration tribunals, as laid down in art. 22 lit. b) of the
above-mentioned Regulations, in FIFA Circular no. 1010 as well as in the FIFA NDRC
Regulations.
14.
In view of the above, the Chamber established that the Respondent’s objection to the
competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter – in favour of the Cyprus NDRC
– has to be rejected and that the DRC is in principle competent, on the basis of art. 22
lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, to consider the present
matter as to the substance.
15.
Having established the foregoing, the Chamber noted that the Respondent also
challenged FIFA’s competence to deal with the present dispute with regard to the socalled “image rights agreement”. Thus, the Chamber pointed out that it would also
have to verify whether it would be competent to deal with the player’s claim based
on said agreement.
16.
In this respect, the Chamber, without entering into any discussion regarding the
actual wording of the agreement, which defines the agreement as an image rights
agreement, wished to highlight that said agreement contained elements which led
to believe that it was not in fact an image rights agreement but rather a separate
agreement to the employment contract, i.e. directly linked to the services of the
Claimant as a player.
17.
As a general rule, if there are separate agreements, the DRC tends to consider the
agreement on image rights as such and does not have the competence to deal with
it. However, such conclusion might be different if specific elements of the separate
agreement suggest that it was in fact meant to be part of the actual employment
relationship. In the case at hand, such elements appear to exist. In particular, the
agreement contains inter alia stipulations regarding bonuses directly related to the
Player Gadacha Charrad Aikel, France / Club Alki Oroklinis, Cyprus
Page 9 of 14
achievement of sporting objectives, which are typical for employment contracts and
not for image rights agreements. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the player’s
remuneration as per the so-called image rights agreement (EUR 2,100) is much higher
than the one provided for in the employment agreement (EUR 100). Consequently,
the Chamber decided not to consider the image rights agreement as such, but
determined that said agreement was in fact an additional agreement to the
employment contract instead and was to be considered in the analysis of the
substance of the present claim.
18.
Having established that it is competent to entertain the present dispute, the DRC
analysed which edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber
confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and par. 2 of the said Regulations
and considering that the present claim was lodged in front of FIFA on 12 August 2019,
the June 2019 edition of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.
19.
The competence of the DRC and the applicable regulations having been established,
the DRC entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect, the Chamber started
by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the
documentation submitted by the parties. However, the DRC emphasised that in the
following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary
evidence, which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.
20.
In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that, on 20 June 2018, the Claimant and
the Respondent concluded an employment agreement valid as from the date of
signature until 31 May 2019, according to which his monthly remuneration from
August 2018 until May 2019 was EUR 100 “net”.
21.
The DRC further acknowledged that on 20 June 2018, the Claimant and the
Respondent concluded an image rights agreement, which is to be considered an
integral part of the employment contract, pursuant to which the Claimant was
entitled to the following remuneration:
i. EUR 2,100 net per month from August 2018 until May 2019;
ii. Accommodation, flight ticket and a car;
iii. A salary increase of EUR 100 in case he was chosen for the starting eleven and
played more than 45 minutes in 12 games;
iv. EUR 1,500 as a bonus in case he was chosen for the starting eleven and played
more than 45 minutes in 15 games.
22.
Having recalled the above, the DRC observed that, the Claimant, in his claim,
requested outstanding remuneration in the total amount of EUR 3,800,
corresponding to EUR 100 as basic monthly salary, EUR 100 as salary increase, EUR
Player Gadacha Charrad Aikel, France / Club Alki Oroklinis, Cyprus
Page 10 of 14
2,100 in monthly salary in accordance with the “image rights contract” and EUR 1,500
as participation bonus.
23.
The Respondent, for its part, rejected the Claimant’s claim and argued that the
Claimant is not entitled to any of the claimed amounts.
24.
Having said this, the DRC proceeded with an analysis of the circumstances
surroundings the present matter, the parties’ arguments as well the documentation
on file, bearing in mind art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, in accordance with
which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the burden
of proof.
25.
In this regard, the Chamber noted that the Respondent claims not to have any debts
towards the Claimant based on a document titled “Confirmation of Full payment and
Compliance” signed on 27 March 2019. According to the Respondent, said document
proves that the “Claimant acknowledged that the Club had fulfilled all its contractual
obligations owed to him”. The Claimant, for his part, denied such allegations and
argued that the document refers to all payments that he should have received until
March 2019 and that the salary of March 2019 was never claimed by him.
26.
In this regard, the members of the Chamber wished to point out that any issues
regarding the validity of the “Confirmation of Full payment and Compliance” do not
need to be addressed since it only refers to the Respondent’s financial obligations
towards the Claimant until the date of its signature i.e. 27 March 2019.
27.
The Chamber also noted that the Claimant provided enough evidence that he was
indeed entitled to the salary raise of EUR 100 due as per the “image rights
agreement” as well as to the EUR 1,500 as participation bonus. As to the monthly
salary of May 2019 as per the “image rights contract” (EUR 2,100) and the
employment agreement (EUR 100), the club was not able to discharge its burden of
proof of having either paid it or validly justified its non-payment.
28.
Thus, the Chamber concluded that the total amount of EUR 3,800 had fallen due and
remained outstanding. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal
principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber established that the Respondent is
liable to pay such amount to the Claimant.
29.
In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request as well as the constant
practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the members of the
Chamber decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the
outstanding amount of EUR 3,800 as of 1 June 2019 until the date of effective
payment.
Player Gadacha Charrad Aikel, France / Club Alki Oroklinis, Cyprus
Page 11 of 14
30.
Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II./18. above, the
DRC referred to par. 1 and 2 of art. 24bis of the Regulations, which stipulate that,
with its decision, the pertinent FIFA deciding body shall also rule on the consequences
deriving from the failure of the concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of
outstanding remuneration and/or compensation in due time.
31.
In this regard, the Chamber pointed out that, against clubs, the consequence of the
failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering
any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are
paid and for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration
periods.
32.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that the
Respondent does not pay the amount due to the Claimant within 45 days as from the
moment in which the Claimant, following the notification of the present decision,
communicates the relevant bank details to the Respondent, a ban from registering
any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of
three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become effective on the
Respondent in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the Regulations.
33.
Finally, the DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately
and prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due amount, in accordance
with art. 24bis par. 3 of the Regulations.
34.
The Chamber concluded his deliberations in the present matter by establishing that
the Claimant’s claim is admissible and partially accepted.
III.
Decision of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Gadacha Charrad Aikel, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Alki Oroklinis, has to pay to the Claimant, outstanding
remuneration in the amount of EUR 3,800, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 1 June 2019
until the date of effective payment.
Player Gadacha Charrad Aikel, France / Club Alki Oroklinis, Cyprus
Page 12 of 14
4.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent, immediately and directly, of the
relevant bank account to which the Respondent must pay the amount mentioned
above.
5.
Any further claim of the Claimant is rejected.
6.
The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amounts to FIFA to the
e-mail address [email protected], duly translated, if need be, into one of the official
FIFA languages (English, French, German, Spanish).
7.
In the event that the amount due is not paid by the Respondent w ithin 45 day s as
from the notification by the Claimant of the relevant bank details to the Respondent,
the Respondent shall be banned from registering any new players, either nationally
or internationally, up until the due amount is paid and for the maximum duration of
three entire and consecutive registration periods (cf. art. 24bis of the Regulations on
the Status and Transfer of Players).
8.
The aforementioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving,
once the due amount is paid.
9.
In the event that the aforementioned sum is still not paid by the end of the ban of
three entire and consecutive registration periods, the present matter shall be
submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a
formal decision.
*****
Note related to the publication:
The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the Players’ Status Committee or
the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Where such decisions contain confidential information,
FIFA may decide, at the request of a party within five days of the notification of the
motivated decision, to publish an anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 20 of the
Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute
Resolution Chamber).
Player Gadacha Charrad Aikel, France / Club Alki Oroklinis, Cyprus
Page 13 of 14
Note related to the appeal procedure:
According to article 58 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. 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:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Player Gadacha Charrad Aikel, France / Club Alki Oroklinis, Cyprus
Page 14 of 14