Labour Disputes
Texto da decisão
Decis ion of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
passed on 14 May 2020,
in the following composition:
Clifford J. Hendel (US A & France), Chairman
Alex andra Gómez Bruinew oud (Uruguay & Netherlands ), member
S tefano La Porta (Italy ), member
on the claim lodged by the player,
Paul-George Ntep de Mabida, Cameroon
represented by Mr Rhadamès Killy & Mr Alvyn Gobardhan
as Claimant
against the club,
Kay seris por Kulübü Derneği, Turkey,
represented by Mr Mert Can Ocel, Mr Mehmet Ayhan Copuroglu & Mr Batu Mosturoglu
as Respondent
regarding an employment-related dispute
between the parties
I.
Facts of the case
1.
On 7 January 2017, the Cameroonian player, Mr Paul-George Ntep de Mabida (hereinafter: the
player or the Claimant), and the German club, VfL Wolfsburg, concluded an employment
contract, valid as from the date of signature until 30 June 2021.
2.
On 26 August 2019, the Claimant and the Turkish club, Kayserispor Kulübü Derneği
(hereinafter: the club or the Respondent) signed an employment contract on the basis of a
loan (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from the date signature until the end of the football
season 2019/2020.
3.
According to the contract, the Claimant was entitled to a total remuneration of
EUR 880,000, broken down as follows:
4.
EUR 150,000 “is to be paid to the Player by the Club as an advance payment on
26.08.2019. This payment is made in consideration of the whole service period of the
Player during 2019/2020 football season and it shall be a progressed amount at the end
of the football season”;
EUR 730,000 “is to be paid to the Player by the Club as the monthly salary in 10 (ten)
equal installments between the period August 2019 – May 2020. The monthly salaries
are to be paid the last day of the relevant months”.
Pursuant to art. 5 of the contract, the Claimant agreed to abide by the following rules:
“a. The Player commits himself to perform in the best manner for the success of the Football
Team including without limitation the local and international competitions.
b. The Player is obliged to abide by the written or oral orders / instructions of the Authorized
Person literally, without any alibi and reasons.
c. The Player is obliged to attend the training sessions and training camps, to be determined
by the Club (including place and dates) and he shall strictly abide by the related instructions of
the Authorized Person, he shall participate in every competition both friendly and official
games and/or he shall be ready to attend. The Player is obliged to attend scheduled programs,
to be determined by the Club.
d. The Player is obliged to take care of his health and physical fitness in maximum meaning
and he shall attend the medical examination, to be set by the Club and Administrators at the
related medical institutions and staff determined by the Club as well, he is obliged to follow
medical instructions of the related health authorities as described above. Although the Player
has a right to determine the medical institutions and medical staff to be examined, at his own
cost, risk and responsibility, following the prior written consent of the Club.
Player Paul-George Ntep De Mabida, Cameroon / Club Kayserispor Kulübü Derneği, Turkey
2
e. Annual leave period of the Player and using conditions of those leavings are to be
determined by the Club in exclusive manner. However, aforementioned annual leaving period
is to be used during the holiday break of the professional football team.
f. The Player may not travel abroad without approval of the Club including his annual leaving.”
5.
Art. 7. B. of the contract set out the possibility for the Claimant to terminate the contract in
the event of a payment default by the Respondent, as follows:
“In case the club fails into a default for any payment for more than thirty (30) days, the player
shall notify the club in writing and provide ten (10) days to the club for payment. If the club
does not pay the unpaid amount then the player bas the option to terminate the contract
unilaterally with just cause. In this case the player shall be entitled to take legal actions before
CAS competent bodies in order to claim his remuneration/compensation etc”.
6.
By means of a letter dated 7 November 2019, the Claimant granted the Respondent 10 days to
pay the salary due on 30 September 2019.
7.
On 22 November 2019, the Claimant unilaterally terminated the contract, invoking
art. 7. B. of the contract.
8.
On 9 December 2019, the Claimant lodged a claim against the Respondent in front of FIFA.
9.
In his claim, the Claimant deemed to have terminated the contract with just cause pursuant to
art. 7. B. of the contract.
10. In view thereof, the Claimant requested the total amount of EUR 657,000, broken down as
follows:
EUR 73,000 as outstanding remuneration for the salary due on 30 September 2019;
EUR 584,000 as compensation for breach of contract;
11. In addition, the Claimant requested the payment of interest on the aforementioned amount
and asked that his legal costs be borne by the Respondent.
12. In its reply, the Respondent rejected the Claimant’s claim.
13. First, the Respondent deemed that the Claimant had breached art. 5 lit. a., b., c., d. and f. of
the contract. In this regard, the Respondent argued that after a game on 31 October 2019, the
Claimant claimed to be injured “and left the city without consulting the club medical staff and
management”. Moreover, the Respondent stated that it “made numerous attempts on
recalling Mr. Ntep de Madiba to Kayseri in order to provide the player with treatment and
physiotherapy. However Mr. Ntep de Madiba never replied to the efforts shown by the club”.
Player Paul-George Ntep De Mabida, Cameroon / Club Kayserispor Kulübü Derneği, Turkey
3
14. As a consequence of the above, the Respondent mentioned that it had decided to impose a
fine on the Claimant on 21 November 2019, in the amount of EUR 72,000. In addition, the
Respondent considered that the Claimant had failed to “meet with the fitness level required
by the nature of Professional football”.
15. Furthermore, the Respondent stressed that the Claimant “failed to perform all contractual
duties after 31.11.2019 due to his absence” and therefore “the club is not obliged to pay the
player”.
16. Finally, the Respondent stated that the Claimant and the German club, VFL Wolfsburg, had
decided to mutually terminate their employment contract. According to the Respondent, this
is a “sign of player’s incapableness for performing as a Professional football player and being
regarded as a liability by the parent club Wolfsburg”. In this regard, the Respondent stressed
that “as the Player has terminated the Professional Football Player’s Contract with VFL
Wolfsburg on 10.02.2020 with mutual consent, the player is not entitled to make any further
claims arising from the aforementioned Professional Football Player’s Contract”.
17. After being requested, the Claimant informed FIFA of his contractual situation. On
7 February 2020, the Claimant and VfL Wolfsburg signed a termination agreement, according
to which the employment contract was terminated “by mutual consent with effect on February
7th, 2020”. According to art. 4 of the termination agreement, VfL Wolfsburg undertook to pay
to the Claimant “an amount of € 2,300,000,-- gross, due and payable on February 28th, 2020”.
II.
Cons iderations of the Dis pute Resolution Chamber
1.
First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as: the DRC or the
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 first submitted to FIFA on 9 December 2019.
Consequently, the 2019 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 members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 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 (March 2020 edition), it is competent
to decide on the present litigation, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an
international dimension between a Cameroonian player and a Turkish club.
3.
Furthermore, the DRC analysed which edition of the Regulations 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 2 of the Regulations (March 2020 edition) and considering that the present
matter was submitted to FIFA on 9 December 2019, the October 2019 edition of said
Regulations is applicable to the present matter as to the substance.
Player Paul-George Ntep De Mabida, Cameroon / Club Kayserispor Kulübü Derneği, Turkey
4
4.
With the above having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the
matter. In doing so, it started to acknowledge the facts of the case as well as the documents
contained in the file. However, the Chamber emphasized that in the following considerations
it will refer only to facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered pertinent
for the assessment of the matter at hand. In particular, the Chamber recalled that, in
accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annex 3 of the Regulations, FIFA may use, within the scope of
proceedings pertaining to the application of the Regulations, any documentation or evidence
generated or contained in the FIFA Transfer Matching System (hereinafter: TMS).
5.
In this respect, the Chamber firstly acknowledged that it was undisputed that the Claimant and
the Respondent had signed an employment contract on the basis of a loan on
26 August 2019, valid as from the date of signature until the end of the 2019/2020 football
season. In continuation, the Chamber noted that it was also undisputed that the Claimant was
entitled, inter alia, to remuneration as set out at point I./3. above.
6.
What is more, the Chamber further noted that on 22 November 2019, the Claimant unilaterally
terminated the employment contract with the Respondent, alleging that the salary due on
30 September 2019 had remained outstanding, despite the default notice sent to the
Respondent on 7 November 2019.
7.
Summarising the parties’ respective positions in this dispute, the Chamber noted that the
Claimant, on the one hand, claimed that he had terminated the contract with just cause
pursuant to art. 7. B. of the contract, as the Respondent had failed to pay him the salary due
on 30 September 2019, whilst on the other hand, the Respondent affirmed that the Claimant
had breached art. 5 lit. a., b., c., d. and f. of the contract. In this context, the Chamber also
noted that the Respondent declared to have imposed a fine on the Claimant in the amount of
EUR 72,000 and considered not being obliged to pay the Claimant’s salaries in light of the
aforementioned breaches.
8.
In view of the foregoing, the Chamber established that the main issue to be analysed in the
present case is whether the Claimant in fact had a just cause to unilaterally and prematurely
terminate the contract with the Respondent on 22 November 2019 or not. Subsequently, the
Chamber shall establish the financial and/or sporting consequences to be borne by the party
found to be in breach of contract.
9.
In this respect, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that only a breach or misconduct which is
of a certain severity justifies the termination of a contract. In other words, only when there are
objective criteria which do not reasonably permit to expect a continuation of the employment
relationship between the parties, a contract may be terminated prematurely. Hence, if there
are more lenient measures which can be taken, such measures must be taken before
terminating an employment contract. A premature termination of an employment contract can
only ever be an ultima ratio measure.
Player Paul-George Ntep De Mabida, Cameroon / Club Kayserispor Kulübü Derneği, Turkey
5
10. Furthermore, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to recall the basic principle of burden of
proof, as stipulated in art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming
a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof.
11. At this stage, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to recall that the Claimant considered to
have terminated the contract with just cause, pursuant to art. 7. B. of the contract, which reads
as follows: “(i)n case the club fails into a default for any payment for more than thirty (30) days,
the player shall notify the club in writing and provide ten (10) days to the club for payment. If
the club does not pay the unpaid amount then the player bas the option to terminate the
contract unilaterally with just cause. In this case the player shall be entitled to take legal actions
before CAS competent bodies in order to claim his remuneration/compensation etc.”
12. In this context, the Chamber thoroughly analysed the position of the Respondent. First, the
Chamber observed the Respondent’s argument that the Claimant had breached art. 5 lit. a., b.,
c., d. and f. of the contract by claiming to be injured after a game and leaving “the city without
consulting the club medical staff and management”. In this respect, the Chamber further
observed the Respondent’s position that it “made numerous attempts on recalling Mr. Ntep de
Madiba to Kayseri in order to provide the player with treatment and physiotherapy. However
Mr. Ntep de Madiba never replied to the efforts shown by the club”. Accordingly, the members
of the DRC further noted that the Respondent decided to impose a fine on the Claimant on
21 November 2019, in the amount of EUR 72,000.
13. Irrespective of the foregoing consideration, the Chamber wished to point out that the
imposition of a fine, or any other available financial sanction in general, shall not be used by
clubs as a means to set off outstanding financial obligations towards players.
14. With this being said, the Chamber observed the timing and the amount of the fine imposed on
the Claimant. In this respect, the Chamber pointed out that the Claimant put the Respondent
in default on 7 November 2019, claiming EUR 73,000, whilst the Respondent imposed a fine on
the Claimant in the amount of EUR 72,000, i.e. almost the same amount as requested by the
Claimant, and that said fine was imposed less than 15 days after the default letter, i.e. on
21 November 2019.
15. Furthermore, the Chamber was eager to emphasise that the Respondent never contested that
the salary of September 2019 was due to the Claimant and that it had submitted no
corroborating evidence which demonstrated that the Claimant had breached any contractual
provision.
16. In continuation, the Chamber noted that the Respondent deemed that the Claimant failed to
“meet with the fitness level required by the nature of Professional football”. In this regard, the
Chamber referred to its jurisprudence in accordance with which a decrease in, or deduction
from, payments to a player by a club on the basis of a player’s alleged low performance cannot
be accepted, due to the unilateral and arbitrary character of the club’s decision.
Player Paul-George Ntep De Mabida, Cameroon / Club Kayserispor Kulübü Derneği, Turkey
6
17. In view of all the above and based on the information and documentation on file, the members
of the Chamber agreed that the arguments put forward by the Respondent to justify the nonpayment of remuneration and the deduction from the salaries of the Claimant cannot be
accepted as valid.
18. With this being established, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant had put the Respondent
in default on 7 November 2019, granting 10 days for the payment of the salary due on
30 September 2019, i.e. more than 30 days after the due date, and that he had terminated the
contract following the absence of any payment within the stated deadline.
19. Therefore, the DRC highlighted that, at the moment the Claimant terminated the contract, he
had fully complied with the criteria set out in article 7.B of the contract. In these circumstances
and taking into account the default notice sent to the Respondent, the Chamber considered
that the Claimant could have legitimately lost faith in the ability and will of the Respondent to
fulfill its contractual obligation in due course.
20. In this regard, the Chamber deemed it appropriate to point out that from the documentation
and information on file, it appears that at the moment of termination of the contract, i.e.
22 November 2019, the monthly salaries of September and October remained unpaid. This is
irrespective of the fact that the Claimant terminated the contract for the non-payment of the
monthly salary of September 2019 only.
21. Consequently, and considering the situation of the player at the time of termination, the
Chamber was of the opinion that the objective circumstances at the time did provide the
Claimant with just cause to terminate the employment contract.
22. In light of all of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC came to the conclusion that the
Claimant had terminated the contract on 22 November 2019 with just cause, pursuant to
art. 7. B. of the contract.
23. Having established that the Respondent is to be held liable for the early termination of the
employment contract, the Chamber focused its attention on the consequence of such
termination. Taking into consideration art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Chamber decided
that the Claimant is entitled to receive from the Respondent an amount of money as
compensation for breach of contract in addition to any outstanding payments on the basis of
the relevant employment contract.
24. First of all, the Chamber reverted to the Claimant’s claim in which he requested outstanding
remuneration in the amount of EUR 73,000 and EUR 584,000 as compensation for breach of
contract. This being said, the Chamber noted that the Claimant did work for almost the entire
month of November 2019 and therefore, an amount equal to his salary for November should
be considered as part of the outstanding remuneration due to him, instead of compensation.
Player Paul-George Ntep De Mabida, Cameroon / Club Kayserispor Kulübü Derneği, Turkey
7
25. Consequently, taking into account that the contract was terminated on 22 November 2019, and
in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided
that the Respondent is liable to pay the Claimant the amount of EUR 219,000 as outstanding
remuneration, corresponding to the salaries of September, October and November 2019.
26. In addition, taking into account the Claimant’s request as well as the constant practice of the
Dispute Resolution Chamber in this regard, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must
pay to the Claimant interest of 5% p.a. on the total amount of outstanding remuneration, i.e.
EUR 219,000. However, taking into consideration that the Claimant failed to specify as from
when he requested interest, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay interest as of
the date of claim, i.e. 9 December 2019, until the date of effective payment.
27. In continuation, the Chamber focused its attention on the calculation of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber firstly
recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of
compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the
contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country
concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including, in particular, the
remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new
contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and
depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.
28. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to
whether the pertinent contract contained a provision by means of which the parties had
beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by the contractual parties in the
event of breach of contract. In this regard, the Chamber established that the contract did not
contain such a provision.
29. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation
payable by the Respondent to the Claimant had to be assessed in application of the other
parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision
provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when
calculating the amount of compensation payable.
30. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the Claimant, the Chamber proceeded
with the calculation of the monies payable to the Claimant under the terms of the contract
until its term, i.e. the end of the football season 2019/2020. According to the information
available on the TMS, the 2019/2020 season in Turkey started on 20 June 2019 and ended on
31 May 2020.
31. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of EUR 438,000 (i.e. salaries of
December 2019 to May 2020) serve as basis for the determination of the amount of
compensation for breach of contract.
Player Paul-George Ntep De Mabida, Cameroon / Club Kayserispor Kulübü Derneği, Turkey
8
32. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the Claimant had signed an agreement
with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been
able to reduce his loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC, such
remuneration under a new agreement shall be taken into account in the calculation of the
amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general
obligation to mitigate his damages.
33. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant and VfL Wolfsburg signed a
termination agreement on 7 February 2020, thereby mutually terminating the employment
contract valid until 30 June 2021 with immediate effect and agreeing upon the payment of
EUR 2,300,000 to the Claimant.
34. However, the DRC deemed that it remained unclear whether the Claimant had in fact returned
to VfL Wolfsburg following the termination of the contract with the Respondent. This being
said and taking into account the lack of documentation on file as well as the specific
circumstances of the present matter, a majority of the members of the Chamber were of the
opinion that the conclusion of the termination agreement had to be observed as a decisive
indicator that the Claimant had in fact returned to VfL Wolfsburg following the termination
of the contract on 22 November 2019.
35. As such and based on a majority decision among the members, the DRC came to the conclusion
that the amount as provided in the termination agreement should be taken into account to
calculate the mitigated compensation, and this is irrespective of the fact that the termination
agreement (considered as a “new contract” for purposes of art. 17 of the Regulations) was
signed some 2.5 months after the termination of the employment contract with the
Respondent.
36. As a result, the majority of the members of the Chamber were of the opinion that it could be
established that the Claimant had received per month a compensation of EUR 135,295
(EUR 2,300,000 / 17 months). For the period between February and May 2020, this corresponds
to a total mitigation of EUR 676,470, whereas the residual value of the contract with the
Respondent amounted to EUR 438,000. As a result, the majority of the members of the
Chamber deemed that the value of the termination agreement signed by the Claimant and Vfl
Wolfsburg in the relevant period was higher than the residual value of the contract, as
determined in point II./31. above.
37. Consequently, the majority of the members of the DRC decided that the Claimant had been
able to mitigate his damages in full and therefore, he shall not be entitled to compensation
for breach of contract.
38. Having established the above, taking into account art. 17 par.1 (ii), the DRC recalled that it had
found that the player had unilaterally terminated the contract due to overdue payables and
took note that the player had been able to mitigate his damages. Consequently, the Chamber
Player Paul-George Ntep De Mabida, Cameroon / Club Kayserispor Kulübü Derneği, Turkey
9
decided that the Claimant should be entitled to an additional compensation in the amount of
EUR 219,000 corresponding to the equivalent of 3 monthly salaries.
39. In addition, taking into account the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber in
this regard, the Chamber decided that the Respondent must pay to the Claimant interest of
5% p.a. on the amount of EUR 219,000, as of the date of claim, i.e. 9 December 2019, until the
date of effective payment.
40. Furthermore, 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.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present matter by
establishing that any further request filed by the Claimant is rejected.
Player Paul-George Ntep De Mabida, Cameroon / Club Kayserispor Kulübü Derneği, Turkey
10
III. Decis ion of the Dispute Resolution Cham ber
1.
The claim of the Claimant, Paul-George Ntep de Madiba, is partially accepted.
2.
The Respondent, Kayserispor Kulübü Derneği, has to pay to the Claimant outstanding
remuneration in the amount of EUR 219,000, plus interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as from 9
December 2019 until the date of effective payment.
3.
The Respondent has to pay to the Claimant compensation in the amount of EUR 219,000 plus
interest at the rate of 5% p.a. as from 9 December 2019 until the date of effective payment.
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 address as indicated on the cover letter of the present decision, of the relevant bank
account to which the Respondent must pay the amounts mentioned under points 2 and 3
above.
6.
The Respondent shall provide evidence of payment of the due amounts in accordance with
points 2 and 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 plus interest in accordance with points 2 and 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 Paul-George Ntep De Mabida, Cameroon / Club Kayserispor Kulübü Derneği, Turkey
11
9.
In the event that the aforementioned sum plus interest 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 relating 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 Paul-George Ntep De Mabida, Cameroon / Club Kayserispor Kulübü Derneği, Turkey
12