Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 5 December 2019,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thom ps on (England), Chairman
Alex andra Góm ez Bruinew oud (Uruguay ), member
S tijn Boey kens (Belgium ), member
S tefano La Porta (Italy ), member
Abu Nay eem S hohag (Banglades h), member
on the claim presented by the player,
S tojan Vranjes , Bosnia and Herzegovina,
represented by Mr Marcin Kwiecien
as Claimant
against the club,
Legia Wars zaw a, Poland,
represented by Mr Jakub Laskowski & Mr Grzegorz Knap
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties
I.
Facts of the cas e
1.
On 29 August 2015, the Bosnian player, Stojan Vranjes (hereinafter: the
Claimant) and the Polish club, Legia Warszawa (hereinafter: the Respondent)
entered into an employment contract (hereinafter: the contract) valid as of 31
August 2015 until 30 June 2018.
2.
On 5 December 2016, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded a mutual
termination agreement (hereinafter: the termination agreement) by means of
which they agreed to terminate the contract.
3.
Article 1.2 of the termination agreement stipulates that “the Parties undertake
that [the Respondent] is required to pay [the Claimant] remuneration in
accordance with the following provisions:
1.1.1. 80,000 EUR (…) net, to be paid not later than on 31.12.2016;
1.1.2. 70,000 EUR (…) net, to be paid nota later than on 15.07.2017”.
4.
Article 1.3. foresaw that “(…) the payment of the remuneration (…) satisfies
all claims of [the Claimant] related to [the Respondent]”.
5.
Moreover, article 1.5. of the termination agreement provided that “in case of
any delay concerning the payment of the remuneration stipulated in point
1.1.2. above 30 days, [the Respondent] is obliged to pay to [the Claimant] a
contractual penalty amounting to 1,000 EUR (one thousand euro) for every day
of such delay after 15.08.2017” (hereinafter; the penalty clause or penalty).
6.
Furthermore, article 3.1. of the termination agreement underlined that the
agreement “shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the
relevant regulations of [the Polish Football Association (PZPN)] and by Polish
law in the extent not covered by these regulation”.
7.
In addition, the termination agreement provided in its article 3.2. the
following: “All disputes concerning proprietary and non-proprietary rights,
which may be subject to settlement, arising out of or in connection with
conclusion, validity, performance or termination of [the termination
agreement], [the parties] shall exclusively submit for resolution of [the] PZPN”.
8.
Finally, article 3.5. of the agreement provided the Respondent’s applicable
email addresses for “all written notices, letters etc. required under or
connected with [the termination agreement]”.
9.
On 19 December 2016, the amount of EUR 80,000 was duly paid by the
Respondent to the Claimant.
Player Stojan Vranjes, Bosnia and Herzegovina / Club Legia Warszawa, Poland
2
10.
On 19 November 2017, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of
payment of EUR 70,000 “(…) and also all the penalties stated in contract”,
setting a 10 days’ deadline in order to remedy the default.
11.
On 21 November 2017, the Respondent acknowledged the Claimant’s default
notice, referred to a delay of payment due to ownership changes and
recognised that “the payment of the second tranche has not been done” and
confirmed having proceeded to the relevant payment in the amount of EUR
70,000.
12.
On 2 and 14 December 2017, the Claimant acknowledged the payment of EUR
70,000 and requested the Respondent to proceed with the payment of EUR
98,000, in accordance with the penalty clause, and gave a deadline of 10 days
to comply.
13.
On 18 December 2017, the Respondent contacted the Claimant and asked if he
could confirm receipt of the aforementioned sums.
14.
On 28 December 2017, the Respondent proceeded with a bank transfer to the
player amounting to EUR 1,772.05.
15.
On 20 March 2018, the Claimant put the Respondent in default of payment of
EUR 98,000, referring to “(…) a contractual penalty for the delay in the
performance of the financial obligations under [the agreement]”, setting a 7
days’ deadline in order to remedy the default before referring “the case to
Football Arbitration Court”.
16.
On 28 March 2018, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s request by stating
that “(…) the contractual penalty (…) pursuant to (…) item 1.5. of [the
termination agreement] is absolutely invalid by virtue of the Polish law (…) as
reservation of a contractual penalty in respect of monetary obligations is
unacceptable”.
17.
On 5 December 2018, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in
front of FIFA requesting, as outstanding payment, the following:
a. EUR 99,000 as the due amount in accordance with the penalty clause;
b. To determine that said amount is net of any and all deductions such as
taxes.
c. The player also requested 5% interest p.a. on the abovementioned amount
as of the due date.
18.
In his claim, the Claimant first explained that the payment of the second
installment, i.e. EUR 70,000, only occurred after “several default notices”.
Player Stojan Vranjes, Bosnia and Herzegovina / Club Legia Warszawa, Poland
3
19.
Moreover, the Claimant sustained that he also claimed several times the
payment of the penalty clause, however, to no avail as the club explicitly
denied said request.
20.
In its reply to the claim, the Respondent challenged FIFA’s competence to
adjudicate the present matter and held that the PZPN was competent.
21.
In support of its allegations, the Respondent referred to the agreement’s
article 3.2. (cf. I./7. above) allegedly providing that the parties contractually
agreed to submit all disputes to the competent national body.
22.
Moreover, the Respondent provided various arguments and evidence in order
to prove that there is a Chamber (“Football Arbitration Court”, hereinafter:
the Football Arbitration Court or the FAC) inside the PZPN and that it is an
independent national arbitration tribunal, which guarantees fair proceedings
and respects the principle of equal representation of players and clubs.
23.
In this respect, the Respondent provided a copy of the FAC’s regulations. In
particular, article 11 stipulates, inter alia, as follows: “1. The Football
Arbitration Court consists of 25 to 27 arbiters appointed by the Management
Board of PZPN”. In addition, article 15 of the regulations, for its parts,
provides, inter alia, the following: “1. The Chairman, the Vice-Chairman and
the Secretary of the Arbitration Court shall be appointed and dismissed by the
Management Board of PZPN from among the arbiters of the Football Court of
Arbitration”.
24.
In addition, the Respondent submitted a letter of the PZPN dated 7 March
2019, in which, inter alia, the PZPN stated that the FAC was competent to hear
the present dispute. The PZPN however declared that “due to the (…) lack of
national and international legal grounds for the functioning of arbitration in
Poland on the basis of parity, it has not yet been possible to put down in the
PZPN’s statute that the Football Arbitration Court operates taking account the
equal representation of football players and football clubs”.
25.
Furthermore, the Respondent sustained in various explanations that the
national body, referred to in the present matter, has to be differentiated from
the NDRC established at the national level in Poland as “(…) the NDRC does
not have the exclusive jurisdiction in the employment related disputes in
Poland (…)” in contrary to said national body which “(…) holds the exclusive
jurisdiction in respect to disputes concerning pecuniary obligations (...)”.
26.
What is more, the Respondent sustained that the Claimant allegedly
performed “(…) forum shopping in order to get the case heard in front of the
FIFA DRC, which is more likely to provide a more favorable judgement for the
player rather than the [national body]”. In this respect, the Respondent
Player Stojan Vranjes, Bosnia and Herzegovina / Club Legia Warszawa, Poland
4
referred to the Claimant’s correspondence dated 20 March 2018 according to
which he allegedly intended to seize the national body (cf. I./15. above).
27.
Moreover, the Respondent referred to the application of national law to the
present matter as agreed between the parties (cf. I./6. above). As such, the
Respondent deemed that “(…) the parties of [the termination agreement]
intentionally decided to exclude FIFA regulations from the applicable
regulations to [the termination agreement]”. Therefore, the Respondent
reminded that “(…) FIFA DRC should analyze the relevant arrangements made
by the parties of the dispute, including law chosen by the parties to interpret
and govern their contractual relationship (…)” and that ” (…) in case the FIFA
DRC decides that it has a jurisdiction in the present case, it needs to take in
account (…) national laws of Poland”.
28.
As to the substance, and in case FIFA should be competent to decide on the
matter at hand, the Respondent underlined that in its opinion the penalty
clause should be considered as invalid in accordance with Polish law as “in case
contracting parties stipulate for contractual penalty arising from a monetary
obligation it will not be enforceable and should be deemed as null and void”.
29.
Furthermore, the Respondent reminded that it paid on its own initiative late
payment interest over the relevant amount (cf. I./14.), which, on one side
constituted “the standard annual rate of 7%” and, on the other side, clearly
proved its good faith in the present matter.
30.
In addition and notwithstanding its position in accordance with national law,
the Respondent also deemed that the penalty clause is to be considered as
abusive and excessive as “(…) the penalty in the amount of EUR 1,000 for every
day in delay equal to interest rate of 521,4% per annum”.
31.
In support of its arguments, the Respondent referred to the jurisprudence of
FIFA as well as to the Swiss case law, according to which “a penalty clause
exceeding the amount of 18% per annum has to be considered as abusive”,
and requested for said clause to be dismissed.
32.
Finally, the Respondent added that should the penalty clause nevertheless be
considered as validly concluded, said penalty should still be considered as
excessive and therefore proportionally reduced according to Swiss law.
33.
In his replica, the Claimant firstly rejected the Respondent’s argumentation as
to the competence of the national body.
34.
In this respect, the Claimant referred to the regulations of the FAC as to its
composition (cf. I./22. above) and underlined that “nowhere it is mentioned
that the Football Arbitration court is composed of equal represented players
Player Stojan Vranjes, Bosnia and Herzegovina / Club Legia Warszawa, Poland
5
and clubs (…)” and, as a consequence, that the national body “(…) does not
guarantee the equal representation of players and clubs”. The Claimant
pointed out that that the requirements set out in FIFA Circular no. 1010 and
the FIFA NDRC Standard Regulations in this respect were not met.
35.
Furthermore, the Claimant deemed that the proceedings in front of the
national body are fee-based, something which cannot be accepted as “(…)
pursuant to Article 31 of FIFA NDRC Standard Regulations proceedings should
be free of charge”.
36.
Moreover, the Claimant also explained that according to him, “(…) there is no
possibility to appeal from the final decision of the [national body]” to the
arbitration body as referred to in article 33 of the FIFA NDRC Standard
Regulations.
37.
As to the substance, the Claimant firstly reiterated his position as described in
his initial claim.
38.
In addition, the Claimant underlined the following as to sum-up his comments
on the club’s reply to the claim: “[The Parties] mutually agreed the amount of
the contractual penalty. The aim of the penalty was to assure a timely payment
for [the Claimant]. [The Claimant] had bad experiences with [the Respondent]
which did not pay on time. Delay with the payment for more than 30 days is a
serious breach of contract. [The Claimant] was not represented by a lawyer or
an agent. [The Respondent] was not pushed by [the Claimant] to put the
contractual penalty in such amount”.
39.
In its duplica and regarding the issues raised by the player as to why the FAC is
not competent in the present case, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s
entire argumentation explaining that in its opinion, “neither FIFA Circular no.
1010 nor NDRC Standard Regulations (…) do not require to include the
principle of equal representation of players and clubs in the independent
national tribunals by laws ()…”, and also that ”(…) the [national body] does
respect the principle of equal representation of players and clubs”.
40.
In addition, the Respondent held that the NDRC Standard Regulations to
which the Claimant referred to are applicable to the NDRC, not to the FAC.
41.
Moreover, the Respondent deemed that the costs incurred by the parties in
front of the FAC are to be considered reasonable.
42.
As to the substance, the Respondent did not provide further comments and
reiterated the content of its reply to the claim.
Player Stojan Vranjes, Bosnia and Herzegovina / Club Legia Warszawa, Poland
6
II.
Cons iderations of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as
DRC or Chamber) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at
hand. In this respect, the Chamber took note that the present matter was
submitted to FIFA on 5 December 2018. Consequently, the 2018 edition of the
Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the
Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules) is applicable to
the matter at hand (cf. art. 21 of the Procedural Rules).
2.
Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules
and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art.
22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition
October 2019) the DRC shall adjudicate on employment-related disputes
between a club and a player that have an international dimension.
3.
As a consequence, the Chamber, in principle, is competent to decide on the
present litigation which involves a Bosnian player and a Polish club regarding
an employment-related dispute.
4.
However, the DRC acknowledged that the Respondent contested the
competence of FIFA’s deciding bodies on the basis of art. 3.2 of the
termination agreement alleging that the competent body to deal with any
dispute deriving from the relevant employment contract is the Football
Arbitration Court of the PZPN.
5.
On the other hand, the Chamber noted that the Claimant insisted on the
competence of the FIFA DRC to adjudicate on the claim lodged by him against
the Respondent.
6.
Taking into account all the above, the Chamber emphasised that in accordance
with art. 22 lit. b) of the October 2019 edition of the Regulations on the Status
and Transfer of Players it is competent to deal with a matter such as the one at
hand, unless an independent arbitration tribunal, guaranteeing fair
proceedings and respecting the principle of equal representation of players
and clubs, has been established at national level within the framework of the
association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. With regard to the
standards to be imposed on an independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing
fair proceedings, the Chamber referred to the FIFA Circular no. 1010 dated 20
December 2005. Equally, the members of the Chamber referred to the
principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC)
Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008.
7.
In this respect, the DRC turned its attention to the principle of equal
representation of players and clubs and underlined that this principle is one of
Player Stojan Vranjes, Bosnia and Herzegovina / Club Legia Warszawa, Poland
7
the very fundamental elements to be fulfilled, in order for a national dispute
resolution chamber to be recognised as such. Indeed, this prerequisite is
mentioned in the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, 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”.
8.
On account of the above, the Chamber went on to examine the
documentation presented by the Respondent and noted that art. 11 of the
regulations of the FAC stipulates that “the Football Arbitration Court consists
of 25 to 27 arbiters appointed by the Management Board of PZPN”, and that
art. 15 indicates that “the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman and the Secretary of
the Arbitration Court shall be appointed and dismissed by the Management
Board of PZPN from among the arbiters of the Football Court of Arbitration”.
The DRC duly noted in this regard that the PZPN itself declared on 7 March
2019 that “due to the (…) lack of national and international legal grounds for
the functioning of arbitration in Poland on the basis of parity, it has not yet
been possible to put down in the PZPN’s statute that the Football Arbitration
Court operates taking account the equal representation of football players and
football clubs”.
9.
Consequently, the Chamber was unanimous in its conclusion that it is not
possible to establish with utmost certainty that the FAC does respect the
principle of equal representation of players and clubs.
10.
In addition, the DRC noted that it is acknowledged by both parties that the
proceedings conducted in front of the FAC are fee-based. The Chamber found
that the imposition of these costs were not in accordance with art. 32 of the
NDRC Regulations.
11.
As a consequence of the above-mentioned elements, the Chamber concluded
that it could not be concluded that the Football Arbitration Court is indeed an
Player Stojan Vranjes, Bosnia and Herzegovina / Club Legia Warszawa, Poland
8
independent arbitration tribunal guaranteeing fair proceedings and respecting
the principle of equal representation of players and clubs.
12.
On account of all the above, the Chamber established that the Respondent’s
objection towards the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has
to be rejected and that the Dispute Resolution Chamber is 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.
13.
In continuation, the Chamber 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 referred, on the one hand, to art. 26
par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition
June 2019) and, on the other hand, to the fact that the present claim was
lodged on 5 December 2018. Therefore, the DRC concluded that the June 2018
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.
14.
The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been
established, and entering into the substance of the matter, the DRC continued
by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation
contained in the file. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following
considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary
evidence which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at
hand.
15.
First of all, the DRC acknowledged that the Claimant and the Respondent
entered into a termination agreement on 5 December 2016 according to which
the Claimant was entitled to receive EUR 80,000 on or before 31 December
2016 and EUR 70,000 on or before 15 July 2017. What is more, the Chamber
noted that the termination agreement foresaw that should the second
instalment remained unpaid after 15 August 2017, a daily penalty of EUR 1,000
for every subsequent day of delay shall be paid by the Respondent.
16.
The DRC further observed that the Claimant lodged a claim in front of FIFA
against the Respondent seeking payment of the amount of EUR 99,000 plus
5% interest p.a., corresponding to the alleged outstanding penalty clause.
17.
The Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant mainly held that the
Respondent only paid the second instalment of the termination agreement on
21 November 2017 after several default notices.
18.
Furthermore, the DRC observed that the Respondent, for its part, argued that
the penalty clause was disproportionate in line with the Chamber’s
Player Stojan Vranjes, Bosnia and Herzegovina / Club Legia Warszawa, Poland
9
jurisprudence as well as CAS jurisprudence and Swiss Law, and should be
therefore dismissed or at least reduced.
19.
In this respect, the Chamber first pointed out that the parties voluntarily
entered into the termination agreement, and mutually agreed on the
imposition of the penalty clause. Therefore, the DRC concluded that penalty
clauses may be freely entered into by the contractual parties and may be
considered acceptable, in the event that the pertinent written clause meets
certain criteria such as proportionality and reasonableness. In this respect, the
Chamber highlighted that in order to determine as to whether a penalty
clause is to be considered acceptable, the specific circumstances of the relevant
case brought before it shall also be taken into consideration.
20.
In the specific case at hand, the DRC observed that the penalty clause was not
representing a fixed amount, but rather a daily amount of EUR 1,000 per day
of delay as from 16 August 2017 until the date of effective payment. In this
regard, the Chamber underlined that such clause should rather be considered a
hidden interest rate corresponding to an annual interest of around 521.4%.
21.
In line with the Chamber’s jurisprudence, as well as CAS jurisprudence and in
accordance with Swiss Law, the DRC had no other option but to conclude that
the penalty clause was disproportionate, and decided to reduce it to a rate of
18% p.a., a rate that shall be applicable as from 16 August 2017, i.e. the date
upon which the penalty clause was triggered, until 21 November 2017, i.e. the
date of effective payment of the second instalment of EUR 70,000.
22.
The DRC, however, acknowledged that the Respondent made a payment of an
amount of EUR 1,772.05 to the Claimant on 28 December 2017 and decided to
deduct such amount from its calculation of the penalty fee due in the present
matter.
23.
As a result, and in view of all the above, the Chamber determined that the
Respondent has to pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 1,377.95
corresponding to remainder of the penalty fee
24.
Furthermore, in accordance with the constant practice of the DRC, the
Chamber decided to reject the request for interest of the Claimant, as the
amount awarded itself constitutes interest.
25.
The DRC concluded its deliberations in the present matter by establishing that
any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
26.
Furthermore, taking into account the consideration under number II.13 above,
the Chamber 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
Player Stojan Vranjes, Bosnia and Herzegovina / Club Legia Warszawa, Poland
10
the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or compensation in
due time.
27.
In this regard, the DRC 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.
28.
Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that, in the event that
the club does not pay the amounts due to the player within 45 days as from
the moment in which the player, following the notification of the present
decision, communicates the relevant bank details to the club, 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 club in accordance with art. 24bis par. 2 and 4 of the
Regulations.
29.
Finally, the Chamber recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted
immediately and prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due
amounts, in accordance with art. 24bis par. 3 of the Regulations.
*****
Player Stojan Vranjes, Bosnia and Herzegovina / Club Legia Warszawa, Poland
11
III.
Decis ion of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Stojan Vranjes, is admissible.
2.
The claim of the Claimant is partially accepted.
3.
The Respondent, Legia Warszawa, has to pay to the Claimant the amount of
EUR 1,377.95.
4.
Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
5.
The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent, immediately and directly,
preferably to the e-mail addresses as indicated on the cover letter of the
present decision, of the relevant bank account to which the Respondent must
pay the amount mentioned under point 3 above.
6.
The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amount in
accordance with point 3 above 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 in accordance with point 3 above 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 ban mentioned in point 7 above will be lifted immediately and prior to its
complete serving, once the due amount is paid.
Player Stojan Vranjes, Bosnia and Herzegovina / Club Legia Warszawa, Poland
12
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 DRC. 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).
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.
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 Stojan Vranjes, Bosnia and Herzegovina / Club Legia Warszawa, Poland
13