Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge

Transcription

1 Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 November 2015, by Philippe Diallo (France), 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

2 I. Facts of the case 1. On 24 May 2013, the Player A from country B (hereinafter: player or Claimant) and the Club C from country D (hereinafter: club or Respondent) signed an employment contract valid as from 24 May 2013 until 24 September 2013 (hereinafter: the contract). 2. According to article 4 of the contract, the player was entitled to receive the total amount of 255,000,000, as follows: a sign-on fee of 50,000,000, due When the Player Signs this Agreement ; 3 monthly salaries of 35,000,000, due on the 10 th day of the month; a player agent management fee of 100,000,000, due after Player Registration is authorized by league E. 3. Further, article 4 of the contract stipulates: Payment of the sums due under this Agreement shall be made according to the following Schedule [ ] Furnish Player Welfare Facility (such as accommodation, transportation etc.) shall be provided when the Player signs this Agreement. 4. Article 6 of the contract provides for the following: The Club has the duty to: [ ] Player Welfare Facilities and other obligation as set out in Article 4 [ ] Reimburse the Player for all sums spent on behalf of the Club with the agreement of the Club. (for instance: KITAS, airplane ticket, etc.). 5. On 29 April 2014, the player lodged a claim before FIFA against the club, claiming payment of outstanding remuneration, requesting the total amount of 390,000,000, as follows: a signing fee of 50,000,000; 4 monthly salaries of 35,000,000; a player agent management fee of 100,000,000; welfare facilities and reimbursement in the amount of 100,000,000. The player further asked 5% interest on the abovementioned amounts as from the due dates of the payments. 6. The player states that he never received any kind of payment, any kind of assistance, and any kind of reimbursement of sums spent on behalf of the Club as consequence of the labor relationship, although he complied with all the obligations for the duration of the contract. Player A, country B / Club C, country D 2/6

3 7. Despite having been invited to do so, the club did not present its position 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 29 April Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2012; 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. 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 (edition 2015), and considering that the present claim was lodged on 29 April 2014, the 2012 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 submitted by the parties. 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. In this respect, the DRC judge acknowledged that the parties to the dispute had signed a valid employment contract on 24 May 2013, in accordance with which the club would pay the player a sign-on fee in the amount of 50,000,000, three monthly salaries of 35,000,000 each and a player agent management fee in the amount of 100,000,000. Further, the club would provide the player with Furnish Player Welfare Facility, after the signature of the contract. Player A, country B / Club C, country D 3/6

4 6. Subsequently, the DRC judge noted that the club failed to present its response to the claim of the player, in spite of having been invited to do so. By not presenting its position to the claim, the DRC judge was of the opinion that the club renounced its right of defence and, thus, accepted the allegations of the player. 7. 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 documentation on file; in other words, upon the statements and documents presented by the player. 8. In continuation, the DRC judge took into consideration that according to the player, the club had failed to pay his remuneration in the total amount of 390,000,000, corresponding to four unpaid salaries of 35,000,000 per month, as well as a sign-on fee of 50,000,000, a player agent management fee of 100,000,000 and welfare facilities and reimbursement in the amount of 100,000, Taking into account the documentation presented by the player in support of his petition, the DRC judge concluded that the player had substantiated his claim pertaining to the sign-on fee and the player management fee with sufficient documentary evidence. 10. Subsequently, the DRC judge noted that the player did not submit any documentary evidence that he actually made costs in the amount of 100,000,000, which amount is claimed by him as welfare facilities and reimbursement. In continuation, with respect to the four salaries of 35,000,000 each as claimed by the player, the DRC judge took note that the contract clearly stipulates that the player was only entitled to receive three monthly salaries of 35,000,000 each from the club. 11. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the DRC judge established that the club failed to remit the player s monthly remuneration in the total amount of 105,000,000 (corresponding to 3 monthly salaries of 35,000,000 each), as well as a player agent management fee in the amount of 100,000,000 and a sign-on fee in the amount of 50,000, Consequently, the DRC judge decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the club is liable to pay to the player outstanding remuneration in the total amount of 255,000,000. Player A, country B / Club C, country D 4/6

5 13. In addition, taking into account the player s request as well as the constant practice of the Dispute Resolution Chamber, the DRC judge decided that the club must pay to the player interest of 5% p.a. on the amount of 255,000,000 as from the due dates of each payment, until the date of effective payment. 14. Finally, the DRC judge concluded his deliberations in the present matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the player is rejected. ***** 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, the amount of 255,000,000 plus 5% interest p.a. until the date of effective payment as follows: a. 5% p.a. as of 25 May 2013 on the amount of 50,000,000; b. 5% p.a. as of 11 June 2013 on the amount of 35,000,000; c. 5% p.a. as of 11 July 2013 on the amount of 35,000,000; d. 5% p.a. as of 11 August 2013 on the amount of 35,000,000; e. 5% p.a. as of 29 April 2014 on the amount of 100,000, In the event that the aforementioned sums plus interest are not paid within the stated time limits, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA s Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 4. Any further claim lodged 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 5/6

6 ***** Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 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: For the DRC judge: Court of Arbitration for Sport Avenue de Beaumont Lausanne Switzerland Tel: Fax: info@tas-cas.org Markus Kattner Acting Secretary General Encl. CAS directives Player A, country B / Club C, country D 6/6