Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber"

Transcription

1 Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 21 May 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Alejandro Marón (Argentina), member Rinaldo Martorelli (Brazil), member Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member on the matter between the player, Player A, country B as Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the club, Club C, country D as Respondent / Counter-Claimant and the club, Club E, country F as Intervening Party regarding an employment-related dispute arisen between the parties

2 I. Facts of the case 1. On 3 February 2011, the player from country B, Player A (hereinafter, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent), born on 5 April 1983, signed an employment contract (hereinafter, the contract) with the club from country D, Club C (hereinafter, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant), valid as from the date of signature until 31 July According to clause 8 of the contract, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was entitled to a monthly salary in the amount of 18, In addition, Appendix 1 of the contract included the following clauses: 1. Since February, 03rd 2011 on July, 31st 2012g. (Inclusive) the Club monthly pays to the Player on euro at a Central Bank rate of the country D at date of payment Till March, 10th, 2011 it is in addition paid ( ) euro at a Central Bank rate of the country D at date of Payment. 2. Since August, 01st 2012 on July, 31st 2013g. (Inclusive) the Club monthly pays to the Player on ( ) euro at a Central Bank rate of the country D at date of payment Till September 01st, 2012 it is in addition paid ( ) euro at a Central Bank rate of the country D at date of payment. 3. Since August 01st 2013 on July 31st 2014g. (Inclusive) the Club monthly pays to the Player on euro at a Central Bank rate of the country D at date of payment Till September, 01st, 2013 it is in addition paid ( ) euro at a Central Bank rate of the country D at date of payment. ( ) 6. The club pays to the Football player habitation rent for the command location monthly at a rate of 300 US dollars at a Central Bank rate of the country D at date of payment. 4. On 13 December 2012, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent lodged a claim before FIFA against the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, and requested his contract to be declared as terminated with just cause. In addition, he requested the payment of the following amounts: - 63,000, representing outstanding half salaries from June 2012 until November 2012, in accordance with the contract; - 18,000, representing the outstanding salary for December 2012, in accordance with the contract; - EUR 145,831, corresponding to outstanding half salaries between June 2012 and November 2012, in accordance with Appendix 1 of the contract; - EUR 41,666, corresponding to the outstanding salary for December 2012, in accordance with Appendix 1 of the contract; Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country F 2

3 - EUR 300,000 for the additional payment payable on 1 September 2012; - 342,000 and EUR 1,091,654 for damages for breach of contract, equaling to the income the Claimant / Counter-Respondent would have earned until the original date of termination of the contract; - EUR 35,100 for operation and rehabilitation expenses. 5. In addition, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent requested sanctions to be imposed on the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. 6. According to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, from June 2012 until November 2012, the [Respondent / Counter-Claimant] without any valid reason deducted the half (50%) of the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] s salary and/or benefits, claiming that the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] was injured, and that he complained about this immediately and many times. 7. In this respect, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent declared that he was injured during a football match of the National Team of country B and that, following this injury, he went to country G for treatment and was operated on 14 June Subsequently, he stated that he had to undergo a recovery treatment in country H. According to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, he had to bear all treatment costs. 8. On 4 December 2012, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent sent a fax via his lawyer to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to request the payment of an outstanding amount of EUR 405, Subsequently, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent stated that, on 9 December 2012, he was forced to sign a statement dated 6 December 2012 by means of which he renounced to have any financial claim against the Respondent / Counter-Claimant for the period comprised between 1 March 2012 and 31 October According to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, he was forced to sign this document in the language of country D following an attack in his flat by unknown persons. 10. On 12 December 2012, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent left country D, according to him for his own safety and sent a termination letter to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant on 13 December Furthermore, on 10 January 2013, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent sent an information request to FIFA, in which he asked if, following his claim, he could start negotiations with another club. 12. On 17 January 2013, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant wrote to FIFA and stated that after the vacation the Claimant / Counter-Respondent did not report to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant s mandatory training camp in country I, nor returned to its location in place J, country D. According to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, this unilateral decision is a gross breach of sporting and labor discipline. Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country F 3

4 13. On 28 January 2013, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent apparently sent an , with copy to FIFA, in which he expressed that the signing of the appendix no. 2 to the labor contract and statement dated 06/12/2012 ( ) was against his will. 14. On 11 February 2013, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant replied to the claim. According to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, at all times during the employment of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent it has performed its payment obligations. In this regard, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant stated that, on 1 March 2012, the parties concluded an Appendix 2 to the contract due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent s injury. In accordance with this Appendix 2, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent s salary had been established in the following manner: 1. ( ) clauses of Appendix #1 is redrafted to read as follows: - clause 1 of Appendix #1 to the Labour contract # _/11 of February 03, 2011: From March 01, 2012 till July 31, 2012 (inclusive) the Club pays monthly to the Football player ( ) Euro in accordance with the exchange rate of the Central Bank of country D on the date of payment From August 01, 2012 till October 31, 2012 (inclusive) the Club pays monthly to the Football player ( ) Euro in accordance with the exchange rate of the Central Bank of country D on the date of payment -clause 2.1 of Appendix #1 to the Labour contract # _/11 of February is cancelled 15. According to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the Claimant / Counter- Respondent left the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in June 2012 without giving any preliminary notice or explanation to the latter, although it assumed that it was due to medical reasons. In this regard, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant stated that medical assistance was performed independently from the Respondent / Counter-Claimant s preferences. More specifically, the Respondent / Counter- Claimant highlighted that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent never requested the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to be involved in his rehabilitation. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant acknowledged that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent rejoined the Respondent / Counter-Claimant s squad in November In addition, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant lodged a counterclaim both against the Claimant / Counter-Respondent on 11 February 2013 and against his new club, Club E (hereinafter: the Intervening Party) on 14 October In this respect, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant requested the DRC to establish that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent unlawfully, unilaterally and prematurely terminated the contract, and to determine an amount for the compensation that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent should pay in joint liability with the Intervening Party to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant as well as to impose sporting sanctions on both. 17. In reference to the document dated 6 December 2012 and apparently signed by the Claimant / Counter-Repondent, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant stated that it is Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country F 4

5 a standard practice that, before the winter break, all players are requested to sign a declaration of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant s compliance with financial obligations, and that by signing it, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent declared that he has no financial claims towards the respondent for the period comprised between 1 March 2012 and 31 October of the same year. 18. In relation to the allegations about the document apparently signed on 6 December 2012, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant attached a witness statement signed by another player of the team, who apparently stayed in the same hotel room as the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, which reads as follows: I stayed in same room with [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] and during that stay nothing happened to him. Handwritten on Consequently, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant considered that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated the contract without just cause during the protected period. In this regard, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant requested the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to pay the amount of EUR 1,500,000, plus 5% interest as of 14 December 2012, in joint liability with the Intervening Party, as well as sporting sanctions against both. 20. In particular, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant made this request on the grounds that it lost its key player during the most crucial part of the season 2012/13 and the opportunity to negotiate the transfer [of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent] at the end of the season. The amount is calculated on the basis of the residual value of the contract, estimated by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant in the amount of EUR 1,091,654, as well as the estimated transfer price that under normal circumstances a club would have to spend to hire the services like the ones of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant made this estimation on the basis of the amounts it paid for the Claimant / Counter- Respondent to his previous club, Club E, in the amount of USD 2,000,000, minus its amortization. 21. In addition, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant requested the Claimant / Counter- Respondent to refund the amount of EUR 79,177 plus interest for payments allegedly made in excess during the period covered by Appendix 2, calculated as follows: Month Amount due Amount actually paid Amount to be refunded March 2012 EUR 25,000 EUR 50,000 EUR 25,000 April 2012 EUR 25,000 EUR 50,000 EUR 25,000 May 2012 EUR 25,000 EUR 50,000 EUR 25,000 August 2012 EUR 20,833 EUR 25,000 EUR 4, In his replica, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent insisted that the document apparently signed on 9 December 2012 and dated 6 December 2012 shall not be considered, since it was signed under threats and physical aggressions. In this Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country F 5

6 respect, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent explained that he was threatened in a hotel by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant s president and his bodyguards. Moreover, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent declared that he never signed the Appendix 2, since at the moment of its signature, on 1 March 2012, he was in country K. 23. Furthermore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent referred to the alleged treatment in country G and stated that he had to assume the costs of this treatment, but he was authorized to do so by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. 24. In reference to the salary reduction, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent considered that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant unilaterally reduced his salary in June 2012, and consequently breached the contract. 25. Furthermore, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent insisted that the document apparently signed on 9 December 2012 and dated 6 December 2012 was made under coercion as a reply to the fax sent on 4 December As a consequence, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated the contract on 13 December 2012 and lodged a claim before FIFA on the same date. 26. In its final comments, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant reiterated its arguments. In this respect, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant insisted that the Intervening Party shall be considered as jointly liable in this case for inducement to the breach of the contract. 27. In reference to the facts, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant considered the allegations of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent as defamatory and false, as well as not supported by any evidence. In this context, the Respondent / Counter- Claimant argued that never any player of Club C s team complained about facing any aggression from the management of the team. 28. In relation to the signature of the Appendix 2, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant provided a document from its Human Resources Department in order to prove that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was at the disposal of [the Respondent / Counter-Claimant]. 29. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant also considered that, from March 2012 until December 2012, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent never addressed any complaints or objections with respect to the salary, and that there is no document of the case proving any dissatisfaction of the [Claimant / Counter-Respondent] ( ) in the said period. 30. Regarding the alleged higher amounts paid between March 2012 and August of the same year, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant admitted that they corresponded to the Appendix 1, but that they were done as a gesture of good will. Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country F 6

7 31. Concerning the alleged attack on 9 December 2012, the Respondent / Counter- Claimant pointed out that there are some inconsistencies in the Claimant / Counter- Respondent s description of the facts, specifically in relation to the individuals who took part and its location. In addition, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant declared that if the allegations of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent were true, he would have referred to the medical institutions and to the police authorities, instead of leaving country D and repudiating and terminating the employment relationship without just cause. 32. In relation to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent s treatment, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant insisted that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent voluntarily and without authorization preferred to leave for medical care to country G, and that no corroborating evidence was ever produced in this respect. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant declared that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had at all times at his disposal its professional medical staff. 33. Moreover, and despite being invited to do so, the Intervening Party, did not provide any comments during the course of the investigation to the counterclaim lodged by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. 34. Lastly, and after being requested to do so, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant provided the alleged original copy of the Appendix Finally, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent confirmed that, on 1 July 2013, he concluded a new employment contract with the Intervening Party, and that said contract was mutually terminated on 31 October In addition, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent informed that, on 24 December 2014, he concluded an employment contract with the club from country K, Club L. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 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, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 13 December Consequently, the 2012 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 2012, 2014 and 2015 editions 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 in combination with art. 22 lit. b of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, edition 2015, the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal with Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country F 7

8 the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with an international dimension between a player from country B, a club from country D and a club from country F. 3. The competence of the Chamber having been established, 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, it confirmed that, in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (editions 2012 and 2014), and considering that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 13 December 2012, the 2012 edition of the aforementioned regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. Having established the foregoing, and entering into the substance of the matter, the Chamber continued by acknowledging the above-mentioned facts as well as the documentation contained in the file in relation to the substance of the matter. However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence which it considered for the assessment of the matter at hand. 5. In this respect, the members of the DRC took note that on 3 February 2011, an employment contract was concluded between the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant for the period from 3 February 2011 until 31 July In continuation, the Chamber acknowledged that it had been uncontested by the parties that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent prematurely terminated the employment contract on 13 December 2012 via a termination letter. 7. Within this context, the members of the DRC took note that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent considered the contract as terminated with just cause as from 13 December 2012, on the grounds that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant apparently had a debt of EUR 405,000 towards the Claimant / Counter- Respondent, corresponding to outstanding salaries. 8. On the other hand, the Chamber acknowledged the Respondent / Counter- Claimant s argument, according to which the Claimant / Counter-Respondent prematurely terminated the contract without just cause. 9. In this regard, the members of the Chamber noted that the Respondent / Counter- Claimant confronted the Claimant / Counter-Respondent s argument on the existence of the aforementioned debt in the amount of EUR 405,000 since, according to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, the Claimant s remuneration was Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country F 8

9 reduced during the period comprised between 1 March 2012 until 31 October 2012 due to the signature of an Appendix 2 to the contract. 10. Moreover, the DRC also observed the Claimant / Counter-Respondent s allegation, according to which he never signed the Appendix 2, since at the moment of its signature, on 1 March 2012, he was in country K. 11. In view of aforementioned dissent between the parties in respect of the basic question as to whether or not the Appendix 2 had been properly concluded, the members of the Chamber firstly referred to art. 12 par. 3 of the Procedural Rules, according to which any party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. The application of the said principle in the present matter led the members of the Chamber to conclude that it was up to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent to prove that he did not sign the Appendix At this stage, the DRC considered it appropriate to remark that, as a general rule, FIFA s deciding bodies are not competent to decide upon matters of criminal law, such as the ones related to the possible forgery of a document, and that such affairs fall into the jurisdiction of the competent national criminal authority. 13. In this regard, the Chamber recalled that all documentation remitted shall be considered with free discretion and, therefore, it focused its attention on the other documents containing the Claimant / Counter-Respondent s signature, provided by the parties in the context of the present dispute. In this regard, the Chamber pointed out that the alleged original version of Appendix 2 was provided by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. 14. After a thorough analysis of the aforementioned documents, in particular, comparing the relevant signatures of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent in the various documents provided in the present affair, the members of the Chamber had no other option but to conclude that, for a layman, the signatures on such documents appear to be the same. 15. Furthermore, the Chamber concurred that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent did not provide any evidence in support of his allegation that he was in country K at the moment the Appendix 2 was apparently signed, and that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent had been unable to provide sufficient evidence in order to prove his lack of consent in relation to the signature of the "Appendix 2". 16. In view of the above, the members of the Chamber unanimously agreed that they had no other option than to consider that the aforementioned Appendix 2 was properly concluded by the parties. Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country F 9

10 17. Subsequently, the Chamber took note that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant claimed that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent signed a document, dated 6 December 2012, by means of which he acknowledged that he had no financial claims against the Respondent / Counter-Claimant for the period comprised between 1 March 2012 to 31 October In view of the above, the members of the Chamber took note of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent s allegation, stating that said document was signed under coercion and against his will. 19. In this regard, referring to 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, the DRC took into account that the Claimant / Counter- Respondent failed to present documentary evidence in support of his allegation that he had been coerced, by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, into signing the above-mentioned document. Thus, the DRC decided that the Claimant / Counter- Respondent s allegations in this regard cannot be accepted. 20. In addition, the Chamber wished to highlight the contradicting declarations of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, according to which, firstly, he was attacked in his flat by unknown persons, whereas later on, he declared that he was attacked in a hotel by the president of the club and his bodyguards. 21. Consequently, the members of the Chamber had no other possibility than to deem that the document dated 6 December 2012 was validly signed by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 22. Having determined the validity of the document dated 6 December 2012, the members of the Chamber took note that, according to said document, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent abdicated from any financial claim against the Respondent / Counter-Claimant for the period comprised between 1 March 2012 and 31 October In view of the foregoing, the members of the Chamber concluded that the Claimant / Counter-claimant cannot make any claim for salaries that fell due during said period. 24. In this context, the members of the Chamber then turned their attention to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent s argument, who maintains that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is to be held liable for breach of contract for having, inter alia, outstanding salaries towards the Claimant / Counter-Respondent during the period comprised between June and December In consideration of the fact that the Claimant / Counter-Claimant was not entitled to make any claim for salaries that fell due between 1 March 2012 and 31 October Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country F 10

11 2012, the Chamber highlighted that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent terminated the contract on 13 December In this regard, the Chamber concluded that the payment for the month of December 2012 had clearly not fallen due yet on the date of the termination, i.e. 13 December At this stage, considering the lack of evidence to the contrary, the Chamber concluded that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had failed to pay the salary for the month of November 2012, i.e. EUR 41,666 and 18,000, in accordance with Appendix In this respect, the members of the Dispute Resolution Chamber wished to emphasize that, according to the principle of contractual stability, the unilateral termination of a contract must be considered as an absolute last resort, where, given the particularities of the situation at stake, it could not be expected that one of the parties could reasonably continue to be bound by the contractual relationship. In what concerns financial obligations, one of the consequences of the aforementioned principle is that only a persistent and substantial noncompliance of these obligations could justify the unilateral termination of a contract. 27. In view of the above, the Chamber was of the opinion that the Claimant / Counter- Respondent did not have just cause to prematurely terminate the employment contract with the Claimant, since there would have been other measures to be taken, in order to find a remedy to the situation which is at the basis of the termination of the employment contract by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 28. Overall, the Chamber decided that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was no just cause to unilaterally terminate the employment relationship between him and the Respondent / Counter-Claimant and that, therefore, the Claimant / Counter- Respondent had breached the employment contract without just cause. 29. Bearing in mind the previous considerations, the Chamber went on to deal with the consequences of the early termination of the employment contract without just cause by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 30. In doing so, the DRC first of all established that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is liable to pay compensation to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. Furthermore, in accordance with art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations, the Chamber established that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent s new club, i.e. the Intervening Party, shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of compensation. 31. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber 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 a player under an existing contract and/or Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country F 11

12 the new contract(s), the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years as well as the fees and expenses paid or incurred by the former club (amortised over the term of the contract) and whether the contractual breach falls within a protected period. In addition, the DRC recalled that the list of objective criteria is not exhaustive and that the broad scope of criteria indicated tends to ensure that a just and fair amount of compensation is awarded to the prejudiced party. 32. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment contract contains a provision by which the parties had beforehand agreed upon an amount of compensation payable by either contractual party in the event of breach of contract. Upon careful examination of said contract, the members of the Chamber assured themselves that this was not the case in the matter at stake. 33. The Chamber further recalled that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had claimed compensation in the amount of USD 2,000,000 minus its amortization, calculated on the basis of the residual value of the contract, as well as the estimated transfer price that under normal circumstances a club would have to spend to hire the services like the ones of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 34. In the calculation of the amount of compensation due by the Claimant / Counter- Respondent, the Chamber firstly turned its attention to the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent under the existing contract and/or any new contract(s), a criterion which was considered by the Chamber to be essential. The members of the Chamber deemed it important to emphasise that the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows the Chamber to take into account both the existing contract and any new contract(s) in the calculation of the amount of compensation. 35. Following the documentation provided by the parties, it appears that in accordance with the contract, which was to run for nineteen more months at the moment when the breach of contract occurred, the Claimant / Counter- Respondent was to receive a total remuneration equalling to EUR 1,105,904. On the other hand, the value of the new employment contract, concluded between the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and the Intervening Party, over the aforementioned period of time, appears to amount to EUR 190,000. On the basis of the aforementioned financial contractual elements at its disposal, the Chamber concluded that the remuneration of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent during the remaining contractual period of time amounted to the average of sum of EUR 647, The members of the Chamber then turned to the essential criterion relating to the fees and expenses paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant for the acquisition Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country F 12

13 of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent s services in so far as these have not yet been amortised over the term of the relevant contract. The Chamber recalled that a transfer compensation of USD 2,000,000 had been paid by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant to the club from country F, Club E, for the Claimant / Counter- Respondent s transfer, documentation of which has been presented by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant. According to article 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, this amount shall be amortised over the term of the relevant employment contract. As stated above, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was still bound to the Respondent / Counter-claimant by nineteen further months of contract when he terminated the relevant contract, which was signed by the parties to remain contractually bound to each other during a total of forty-two months (i.e. 3.5 years). As a result of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent s breach of contract on 13 December 2012, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant has thus been prevented from amortising the amount of USD 905,000, approximately EUR 692,000, relating to the transfer compensation that it paid in order to acquire the Claimant / Counter- Respondent s services, which, at that time, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant counted to be able to make use of during forty-two months. This part of the compensation is not contested by the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 37. Thus, the Chamber considered that the basis for the amount of compensation for breach of contract without just cause to be paid by the Claimant / Counter- Respondent to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is composed of the amount of EUR 692,000 related to non-amortised expenses incurred by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant when engaging the services of the Claimant / Counter- Respondent and EUR 647,952 being the reflection of the remuneration and other benefits due to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent under the previous and the new contract, leading to a total amount of EUR 1,339, Notwithstanding the above, the members of the Chamber considered on the basis of the documentation on file and as uncontested by any of the parties, that the Claimant / Counter-Respondent was injured after the breach of the contract, and that it appears that he was able to fully come back to the practice of football only in January In consideration of the fact that, due to his injury, the Respondent / Counter- Claimant would have been unable to make use of the services of the Claimant / Counter-Claimant, the members of the Chamber unanimously agreed to reduce the amount of the compensation to a final amount of EUR 900, In sum, the Chamber decided that the Claimant / Counter-Claimant should pay compensation in the amount of EUR 900,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as of the date of the termination of the contract, until the effective date of payment to the Respondent / Counter-Claimant, as compensation for breach of contract without just cause. Moreover, in strict application of art. 17 of the Regulations, the Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country F 13

14 Intervening Party is jointly and severally liable for the payment of the relevant compensation. 41. In continuation, the members of the Chamber noted that that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant had not yet paid the Claimant / Counter-Respondent his salary for the month of November 2012, corresponding to the amounts of EUR 41,666 and 18,000, as established by the parties in the contract. The Chamber decided that, in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Claimant / Counter-Respondent is entitled to those aforementioned payments. The Chamber concurred that, therefore, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant shall pay the amounts of EUR 41,666 and 18,000 to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent. 42. In view of the above, the DRC concluded that the Respondent / Counter-Claimant failed to pay to the Claimant / Counter-Respondent the amounts corresponding to the month of November 2012 as agreed upon between the parties in the Appendix 1 to the contract. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Respondent / Counter-Claimant must fulfil its obligations as per private agreement concluded with the Claimant / Counter-Respondent and, consequently, is to be held liable to pay the outstanding amounts of EUR 41,666 and 18,000 to the Claimant in relation to the referred salary of November Finally, the Chamber concluded its deliberations by rejecting any further claim lodged by the parties. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country F 14

15 1. The claim of the Claimant / Counter-Respondent, Player A, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant, Club C, has to pay to the Claimant / Counter- Respondent within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, outstanding remuneration in the amounts of EUR 41,666 and 18, In the event that the aforementioned sums are not paid within the stated time limit, interest of 5% p.a. will fall due as of expiry of the stipulated time limit and 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 / Counter-Respondent is rejected. 5. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent is directed to inform the Respondent / Counter-Claimant immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittances under point 2. are to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received. 6. The counter-claim of the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is partially accepted. 7. The Claimant / Counter-Respondent has to pay to the Respondent / Counter- Claimant, within 30 days as from the date of notification of the present decision, compensation for breach of contract without just cause in the amount of EUR 900,000, plus 5% interest p.a. as from 13 December 2012 until the date of effective payment. 8. The Intervening Party, Club E, is jointly and severally liable for the payment of the aforementioned amount. 9. In the event that the amount plus interest due to the Respondent / Counter- Claimant is not paid within the stated time limit, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee for consideration and a formal decision. 10. Any further claim lodged by the Respondent / Counter-Claimant is rejected. 11. The Respondent / Counter-Claimant is directed to inform the Claimant / Counter- Respondent immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance under point 7. is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received. Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country F 15

16 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: Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) Avenue de Beaumont 2 CH-1012 Lausanne Switzerland Tel: Fax: info@tas-cas.org For the Dispute Resolution Chamber: Markus Kattner Acting Secretary General Enclosed: CAS directives Player A, country B / Club C, country D / Club E, country F 16

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 19 April 2018, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member Tomislav Kasalo

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 30 July 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 20 August 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 21 May 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Alejandro Marón

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 17 January 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Damir Vrbanovic

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 17 January 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Damir Vrbanovic

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 31 July 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Ivan Gazidis

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 September 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 6 June 2018, by Jon Newman (United States of America), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player A,

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 31 July 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Ivan Gazidis

More information

Decision of the. Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the. Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 18 December 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Philippe Piat (France), member Damir

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 25 October 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman David Mayebi (Cameroon), member Guillermo

More information

Decision of the. Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the. Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 15 June 2017, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Guillermo

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 6 November 2014, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands),

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 13 August 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (Engand), Chairman Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Jon Newman

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 17 May 2018, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman John Bramhall (England), member Stijn Boeykens

More information

Decision of the. Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the. Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 10 August 2018, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Carlos González Puche (Colombia), member Eirik

More information

Decision of the. Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the. Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 29 July 2016, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Santiago Nebot (Spain), member John Bramhall

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 17 January 2014, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player V,

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 17 January 2014, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player N,

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 21 May 2010, in the following composition: Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Johan van

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 19 January 2017, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Wouter

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge 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

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 29 March 2018, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Roy Vermeer (the Netherlands), member

More information

Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee

Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 17 April 2018, by Geoff Thompson (England), Single Judge of the Players Status Committee, on the claim presented

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC)

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 16 November 2012, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 2 March 2017, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Pavel Pivovarov

More information

Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee

Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 24 November 2015, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players Status Committee, on the claim presented

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed on 26 November 2018, by Jon Newman (USA), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player A, Country B as Claimant against the club,

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed on 26 October 2018, by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player A, Country B as Claimant against the

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 15 May 2009, in the following composition: Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Caio Cesar Vieira

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 24 August 2018, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Johan van Gaalen (South Africa), member Joaquin

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed on 28 January 2019, by Jon Newman (USA), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player A, Country B as Claimant against the club,

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 19 April 2018, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Takuya Yamazaki (Japan), member Tomislav Kasalo

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed on 5 October 2018, by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player A, Country B as Claimant against the

More information

Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee

Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 23 April 2013, by Single Judge of the Players Status Committee, on the claim presented by the club Club R,

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed on 16 August 2018, by Jon Newman (USA), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player A, Country B as Claimant against the club,

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 October 2006, in the following composition: Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Gerardo

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 17 June 2016, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Theodore Giannikos (Greece), member Carlos González

More information

Decision of the Single Judge. of the Players Status Committee

Decision of the Single Judge. of the Players Status Committee Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 28 August 2013, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players Status Committee, on the claim presented

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 31 August 2017, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Wouter Lambrecht (Belgium), member Todd Durbin

More information

Decision of the. Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the. Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 23 February 2007, in the following composition: Mr Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman Mr Philippe Diallo (France), member Mr Essa

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 18 December 2012, by Mr Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player Player F, from

More information

Decision of the Single Judge. of the Players Status Committee

Decision of the Single Judge. of the Players Status Committee Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 22 November 2016, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players Status Committee, on the claim presented

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 23 October 2009, in the following composition: Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Carlos

More information

Decision of the. Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the. Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 15 March 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Joaquim Evangelista (Portugal), member Carlos

More information

Decision of the Single Judge of the. Players Status Committee

Decision of the Single Judge of the. Players Status Committee Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 30 January 2012, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players Status Committee, on the claim presented

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 2 November 2007, in the following composition: ALOULOU Slim (Tunisia), Chairman DIDULICA John (Australia), member MOVILLA Gerardo

More information

Decision of the. Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the. Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 24 April 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Leonardo Grosso (Italy), member Theo van Seggelen

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 13 August 2015, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Jon Newman (USA), member Mario Gallavotti (Italy),

More information

Decision of the. Players Status Committee

Decision of the. Players Status Committee Decision of the Players Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 16 February 2012, in the following composition: Theo Zwanziger (Germany), Chairman V. Manilal Fernando (Sri Lanka), Deputy Chairman

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 6 March 2013, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player T, from

More information

Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee

Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 8 May 2017, by Raymond Hack (South Africa) Single Judge of the Players Status Committee, on the claim presented

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 14 September 2007, in the following composition: Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (the Netherlands), member

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 February 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Todd Durbin (USA) Mohamed Al Saikhan (Saudi

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 15 December 2016, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 14 September 2007, in the following composition: Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (the Netherlands), member

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 23 January 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Damir Vrbanovic (Croatia), member Todd Durbin

More information

Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee

Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 21 November 2011, by Chuck Blazer (USA) Single Judge of the Players Status Committee, on a claim presented

More information

Decision of the. Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the. Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 18 March 2016, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Philippe Piat (France), member John Bramhall

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 7 June 2018, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Roy Vermeer (the Netherlands), member Jon Newman

More information

Decision of the. Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the. Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 13 July 2017, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Mario Gallavotti (Italy), member Theo van Seggelen

More information

Decision of the. Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the. Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 15 February 2018, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Eirik Monsen (Norway), Member Stéphane

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 October 2006, in the following composition: Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman Gerardo Movilla (Spain), member Joaquim Evangelista

More information

Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee

Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 24 April 2012, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players Status Committee, on the claim presented

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 11 March 2011, by Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), DRC judge on the claim presented by the club O, as Claimant against

More information

Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee

Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 8 May 2017, by Raymond Hack (South Africa) Single Judge of the Players Status Committee, on the claim presented

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 October 2006, in the following composition: Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman Gerardo Movilla (Spain), member Joaquim Evangelista

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 9 January 2009, in the following composition: Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (The Netherlands), member Carlos

More information

Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee

Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 July 2016, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players Status Committee, on the claim presented

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) judge passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 2 September 2015, by Philippe Diallo (France), DRC judge, on the claim presented by the player, Player A, Country

More information

Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee

Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 15 January 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players Status Committee, on the claim presented

More information

Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee

Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 15 January 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players Status Committee, on the claim presented

More information

Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee

Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 23 September 2014, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players Status Committee, on the claim

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 24 March 2004, in the following composition: Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), member Michele

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 31 July 2013, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Ivan Gazidis (England), member Joaquim Evangelista

More information

Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee

Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee Decision of the Single Judge of the Players Status Committee passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 16 March 2016, by Geoff Thompson (England) Single Judge of the Players Status Committee, on the claim presented

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 26 October 2006, in the following composition: Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman Mario Gallavotti (Italy), Member Peter Friend

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 21 November 2006, in the following composition: Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman Paulo Amoretty Souza (Brazil), member Ivan

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 27 February 2014, in the following composition: Geoff Thompson (England), Chairman Todd Durbin (USA), member Mohamed Al Saikhan

More information

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 15 February 2018, in the following composition: Thomas Grimm (Switzerland), Deputy Chairman Eirik Monsen (Norway), member Stéphane

More information

Panel: Mr Mark Hovell (England), President; Mr Olivier Carrard (Switzerland); Mr Hendrik Kesler (The Netherlands)

Panel: Mr Mark Hovell (England), President; Mr Olivier Carrard (Switzerland); Mr Hendrik Kesler (The Netherlands) Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration CAS 2010/A/2317 & CAS 2011/A/2323 Panel: Mr Mark Hovell (England), President; Mr Olivier Carrard (Switzerland); Mr Hendrik Kesler (The

More information

Panel: Mr Rui Botica Santos (Portugal), President; Mr Jahangir Baglari (Islamic Republic of Iran); Mr François Carrard (Switzerland)

Panel: Mr Rui Botica Santos (Portugal), President; Mr Jahangir Baglari (Islamic Republic of Iran); Mr François Carrard (Switzerland) Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration CAS 2008/A/1708 Football Federation Islamic Republic of Iran (IRIFF) v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), Panel:

More information

Arbitration CAS 2015/A/4333 MKS Cracovia SSA v. Bojan Puzigaca & Féderation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), award of 10 April 2017

Arbitration CAS 2015/A/4333 MKS Cracovia SSA v. Bojan Puzigaca & Féderation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), award of 10 April 2017 Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration CAS 2015/A/4333 MKS Cracovia SSA v. Bojan Puzigaca & Féderation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), Panel: Mr Patrick Lafranchi

More information

Arbitration CAS 2011/A/2662 Bobariu Sorin v. C.S. Otopeni & Romanian Football Federation, award of 10 April 2012

Arbitration CAS 2011/A/2662 Bobariu Sorin v. C.S. Otopeni & Romanian Football Federation, award of 10 April 2012 Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration Bobariu Sorin v. C.S. Otopeni & Romanian Football Federation, Panel: Mr Manfred Nan (The Netherlands), Sole Arbitrator Football Unilateral

More information

Arbitration CAS CAS 2010/O/2132 Shakhtar Donetsk v. Ilson Pereira Dias Junior, award of 28 September 2011

Arbitration CAS CAS 2010/O/2132 Shakhtar Donetsk v. Ilson Pereira Dias Junior, award of 28 September 2011 Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration CAS CAS 2010/O/2132, award of 28 September 2011 Panel: Mr. José Juan Pintó Sala (Spain), President; Mr. Michele Bernasconi (Switzerland);

More information

Arbitration CAS 2016/A/4450 Iván Bolado Palacios v. PFC CSKA Sofia, award of 24 January 2017

Arbitration CAS 2016/A/4450 Iván Bolado Palacios v. PFC CSKA Sofia, award of 24 January 2017 Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration CAS 2016/A/4450 award of 24 January 2017 Panel: Mr Manfred Nan (The Netherlands), Sole Arbitrator Football Termination of contract

More information

Arbitration CAS 2017/A/5374 Jaroslaw Kolakowski v. Daniel Quintana Sosa, award of 10 April 2018

Arbitration CAS 2017/A/5374 Jaroslaw Kolakowski v. Daniel Quintana Sosa, award of 10 April 2018 Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration award of 10 April 2018 Panel: Mr Mark Hovell (United Kingdom), President; Mr Fabio Iudica (Italy); Mr João Nogueira da Rocha (Portugal)

More information

ARBITRAL AWARD FIBA ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL (FAT)

ARBITRAL AWARD FIBA ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL (FAT) ARBITRAL AWARD (0042/09 FAT) rendered by FIBA ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL (FAT) Mr Stephan Netzle in the arbitration proceedings Ms Anda Jelavic, - Claimant 1 - Mr Itzhak (Huky) Nir, Data Plus, - Claimant 2 - Mr

More information

Arbitration CAS 2015/A/4195 FK Senica v. PFC Ludogorets 1945 & Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), award of 15 February 2016

Arbitration CAS 2015/A/4195 FK Senica v. PFC Ludogorets 1945 & Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), award of 15 February 2016 Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration CAS 2015/A/4195 FK Senica v. PFC Ludogorets 1945 & Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), Panel: Mr Manfred Nan

More information

FIFA TO THE MEMBERS OF FIFA. Circular no Zurich, 23 January 2015 SG/mav/oon

FIFA TO THE MEMBERS OF FIFA. Circular no Zurich, 23 January 2015 SG/mav/oon FIFA For the Came. For the World. TO THE MEMBERS OF FIFA Circular no. 1468 Zurich, 23 January 2015 SG/mav/oon Amendments to the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players; and the Rules Governing

More information

Arbitration CAS 2014/A/3742 US Città di Palermo S.p.A. v. Goran Veljkovic, award of 7 April 2015

Arbitration CAS 2014/A/3742 US Città di Palermo S.p.A. v. Goran Veljkovic, award of 7 April 2015 Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration CAS 2014/A/3742 award of 7 April 2015 Panel: Mr Manfred Nan (The Netherlands), President; Mr Bernhard Welten (Switzerland); Mr Efraim

More information

GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE BY-LAW TABLE OF CONTENTS

GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE BY-LAW TABLE OF CONTENTS GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE BY-LAW TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. STATUS 2 INTERPRETATION 2 PURPOSE 2 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 2 REPEAL OF THE FFA GRIEVANCE RESOLUTION REGULATIONS 3 CONSTITUENT EXCLUSION

More information

Arbitration CAS 2007/A/1322 Giuseppe Giannini, Corrado Giannini & Pasquale Cardinale v. S.C. Fotbal Club 2005 S.A., award of 15 April 2008

Arbitration CAS 2007/A/1322 Giuseppe Giannini, Corrado Giannini & Pasquale Cardinale v. S.C. Fotbal Club 2005 S.A., award of 15 April 2008 Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration CAS 2007/A/1322 Giuseppe Giannini, Corrado Giannini & Pasquale Cardinale v. S.C. Fotbal Club 2005 S.A., Panel: Prof. Ulrich Haas (Germany),

More information

Federal Judge CORBOZ, Presiding Federal Judges KLETT (Mrs) and ROTTENBERGER LIATOWITSCH (Mrs) Clerk of the Court: LEEMANN

Federal Judge CORBOZ, Presiding Federal Judges KLETT (Mrs) and ROTTENBERGER LIATOWITSCH (Mrs) Clerk of the Court: LEEMANN 4A_176/2008 1 Judgement of September 23 rd, 2008 First Civil Law Court Federal Judge CORBOZ, Presiding Federal Judges KLETT (Mrs) and ROTTENBERGER LIATOWITSCH (Mrs) Clerk of the Court: LEEMANN X. and Y.,

More information

The Rules of the Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Serbia

The Rules of the Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Serbia The Rules of the Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Serbia ( Official Journal of the Republic of Serbia, no. 2/2014) I GENERAL PROVISIONS Definition and Status

More information

ARBITRAL AWARD FIBA ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL (FAT)

ARBITRAL AWARD FIBA ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL (FAT) ARBITRAL AWARD (0091/10 FAT) by the FIBA ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL (FAT) Mr. Klaus Reichert in the arbitration proceedings between Antonio D. Graves, 526 Bowman street, Mansfield, OH 44903, USA represented by

More information

Arbitration CAS 2009/A/1909 RCD Mallorca SAD & A. v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) & UMM Salal SC, award of 25 January 2010

Arbitration CAS 2009/A/1909 RCD Mallorca SAD & A. v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) & UMM Salal SC, award of 25 January 2010 Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration CAS 2009/A/1909 RCD Mallorca SAD & A. v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) & UMM Salal SC, Panel: Prof. Luigi

More information

ECA STATUTES EDITION 2017

ECA STATUTES EDITION 2017 ECA STATUTES EDITION 07 ECA STATUTES )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) I GENERAL

More information

ICC Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration 1975

ICC Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration 1975 ICC Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration 1975 (in force as from 1st June 1975) Optional Conciliation Article 1 (ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION. CONCILIATION COMMITTEES) 1. Any business dispute

More information