DRC Overdue Payables
Texto da decisão
Decision of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge
passed on 2 September 2015,
by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge,
on the claim presented by the player,
Player A, country B
as Claimant
against the club,
Club C, country D
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute
between the parties in connection with overdue payables
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 15 July 2014, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter: Claimant), and the
club from country D, Club C (hereinafter: Respondent) signed an employment
contract valid as from 15 July 2014 until 30 June 2015.
2.
In accordance with the employment contract, the Respondent undertook to pay to
the Claimant inter alia monthly remuneration of EUR 6,800 until the 25th day of the
following month as well as bonuses as defined in the club’s internal rules.
3.
By correspondence dated 3 July 2015, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of
payment of his remuneration for March and April 2015 as well as the amount of EUR
4,000 related to bonuses, totalling EUR 17,600, setting a time limit of 10 days as of
receipt of the default notice in order to remedy the default.
4.
On 21 June 2015, with a subsequent amendment on 27 July 2015, the Claimant
lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA asking that the Respondent
be ordered to pay to him overdue payables in the amount of EUR 17,600
corresponding to his salary for March and April 2015 as well as the amount of EUR
4,000 related to bonuses.
5.
The Claimant further asks that he be awarded interest of 5% “as of date of effective
payment” as well as that legal fees be borne by the Respondent.
6.
In spite of having been invited to do so, the Respondent has not replied to the claim.
II.
Considerations of the DRC judge
1.
First of all, the DRC judge analysed whether he was competent to deal with the
matter at hand. In this respect, he took note that the present matter was submitted
to FIFA on 21 June 2015. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the
Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2015;
hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the
Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the DRC judge referred to art. 3 par. 2 and par. 3 of the Procedural
Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 and par. 2 in conjunction
with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition
2015) he is competent to deal with the matter at stake, which concerns an
employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player
from country B and a club from country D.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 2 of 6
3.
Furthermore, 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 par. 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players
(2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 21 June 2015, the 2015
edition of said regulations (hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at
hand as to the substance.
4.
The competence of the DRC judge and the applicable regulations having been
established, the DRC judge entered into the substance of the matter. In this respect,
the DRC judge started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as
the arguments and the documentation on file. However, the DRC judge emphasised
that in the following considerations he will refer only to the facts, arguments and
documentary evidence, which he considered pertinent for the assessment of the
matter at hand.
5.
Having said this, DRC judge acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent
signed an employment contract valid as from 15 July 2014 until 30 June 2015, in
accordance with which the Claimant was entitled to receive from the Respondent,
inter alia, monthly remuneration of EUR 6,800 as well as bonuses as defined in the
club’s internal rules.
6.
The Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA, maintaining
that the Respondent has overdue payables towards him in the total amount of EUR
17,600 corresponding to his remuneration of March and April 2015 amounting to
EUR 13,600 plus the amount of EUR 4,000 in connection with bonuses.
7.
In this context, the DRC judge took particular note of the fact that, on 3 July 2015,
the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of the aforementioned
amounts, setting a time limit of 10 days as of receipt of the default notice in order to
remedy the default.
8.
Consequently, the DRC judge concluded that the Claimant had duly proceeded in
accordance with art. 12bis par. 3 of the Regulations, which stipulates that the
creditor (player or club) must have put the debtor club in default in writing and have
granted a deadline of at least ten days for the debtor club to comply with its
financial obligation(s).
9.
Subsequently, the DRC judge took into account that the Respondent, for its part,
failed to present its response to the claim of the Claimant, in spite of having been
invited to do so. In this way, the DRC judge considered that the Respondent
renounced its right to defence and thus accepted the allegations of the Claimant.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 3 of 6
10.
Furthermore, as a consequence of the aforementioned consideration, the DRC judge
concurred that in accordance with art. 9 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules he shall take a
decision upon the basis of the documents already on file, in other words, upon the
statements and documents presented by the Claimant.
11.
Having said this, the DRC judge acknowledged that, in accordance with the
employment contract provided by the Claimant, the Respondent was obliged to pay
to the Claimant the amount of EUR 6,800 on a monthly basis.
12.
On account of the aforementioned considerations and the documentary evidence
provided by the Claimant, the DRC judge established that the Respondent failed to
remit the Claimant’s remuneration in the total amount of EUR 13,600 corresponding
to the Claimant’s remuneration for March and April 2015.
13.
In addition, the DRC judge established that the Respondent had delayed a due
payment for more than 30 days without a prima facie contractual basis.
14.
Consequently, the DRC judge decided that, in accordance with the general legal
principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant
overdue payables in the total amount of EUR 13,600.
15.
In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant
practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the DRC judge decided that the
Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of EUR
13,600 as from 21 June 2015 until the date of effective payment.
16.
Taking into account the documentation presented by the Claimant in support of his
petition, the DRC judge concluded that the Claimant had not fully substantiated his
claim pertaining to overdue payables with pertinent documentary evidence in
accordance with art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules. Indeed, the employment
contract does not specify any amounts relating to bonus payments and the Claimant
has not presented any other documentation corroborating his allegation relating to
the amount of EUR 4,000 for bonuses. Consequently, the DRC judge decided to
reject the part of the Claimant’s claim relating to bonus payments.
17.
Furthermore, as regards the claimed legal expenses, the DRC judge referred to art.
18 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules as well as to its long-standing and well-established
jurisprudence, in accordance with which no procedural compensation shall be
awarded in proceedings in front of the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Consequently,
the DRC judge decided to reject the Claimant’s request relating to legal expenses.
18.
Moreover, the DRC judge decided that any further request filed by the Claimant is
rejected.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 4 of 6
19.
In continuation, taking into account the consideration under number II./13. above,
the DRC judge referred to art.12bis par. 2 of the Regulations which stipulates that
any club found to have delayed a due payment for more than 30 days without a
prima facie contractual basis may be sanctioned in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4
of the Regulations.
20.
The DRC judge established that in virtue of art. 12bis par. 4 of the Regulations he has
competence to impose sanctions on the Respondent. Bearing in mind that the
Respondent did not reply to the claim of the Claimant and that the Respondent has
previously been found by the Dispute Resolution Chamber to have neglected its
contractual obligations towards players, the DRC judge decided to impose a fine on
the Respondent in accordance with art. 12bis par. 4 lit. c) of the Regulations.
Furthermore, taking into consideration the amount due of EUR 13,600, the DRC
judge regarded a fine amounting to CHF 4,000 as appropriate and hence decided to
impose said fine on the Respondent.
21.
In this context, the DRC judge wished to highlight that a repeated offence will be
considered as an aggravating circumstance and lead to more severe penalty in
accordance with art. 12bis par. 6 of the Regulations.
III.
Decision of the DRC judge
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Player A, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant, within 30 days as from the date
of notification of this decision, overdue payables in the amount of EUR 13,600, plus
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as from 21 June 2015 until the date of effective
payment.
3.
In the event that the amount due to the Claimant is not paid by the Respondent
within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to
the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision.
4.
Any further request filed by the Claimant is rejected.
5.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent immediately and directly of the
account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the DRC judge
of every payment received.
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 5 of 6
6.
The Respondent is ordered to pay a fine in the amount of
CHF 4,000. The fine is to be paid within 30 days of notification of the present
decision to FIFA to the following bank account with reference to case nr.:
UBS Zurich
Account number 366.677.01U (FIFA Players’ Status)
Clearing number 230
IBAN: CH27 0023 0230 3666 7701U
SWIFT: UBSWCHZH80A
*****
Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy):
According to article 67 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:
Markus Kattner
Deputy Secretary General
Encl: CAS directives
Player A, country B / Club C, country D
Page 6 of 6