Decis ion of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber - FIFA
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Decis ion of the
Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 5 December 2019,
in the following composition:
Geoff Thom ps on (England), Chairman
Alex andra Góm ez Bruinew oud (Uruguay ), member
S tijn Boey kens (Belgium ), member
S tefano La Porta (Italy ), member
Abu Nay eem S hohag (Banglades h), member
on the claim presented by the club,
Fos a Juniors FC, Madagascar,
represented by Mr Patrice van Oostaijen
as Claimant
against the player,
Andriam irado Aro Has ina Andrianarimanana, Madagascar
as Respondent I
and the club,
Kaizer Chiefs FC, South Africa
as Respondent II
regarding an employment-related dispute
arisen between the partiesI. Facts of the cas e
1. According to the club Fosa Juniors Fc (hereinafter: the Claimant or Fosa), on 1
November 2016, the player Andriamirado Aro Hasina Andrianarimanana
(hereinafter: the Respondent I or the player) and Fosa signed an employment
contract (hereinafter: the contract), valid as from the date of signature until 31
October 2020. The contract was entitled “contrat de joueur professionnel”.
2. In accordance with the contract, the player was entitled to the following
remuneration:
Malagasy Ariary (MGA) 1,500,000 gross as monthly salary, payable at the end
of each month;
An apartment, transportation, food, sports equipment, provided by the club.
3. Art. 8 of the contract provided that “in case of serious misconduct of the player,
the club may terminate this contract without notice at any time by means of a
simple notification.
The club reserves the right to claim damages and interest as well as to appeal to
any other national or international jurisdiction, within the framework of the
settlement of a dispute involving the player, or a fault of the player, or more
generally for any breach of the obligations related to this contract.
The contract negotiation or the non-renewal of the contract has its due term by
the signature of a contract with another club gives rise to the payment of a
termination indemnity in favor of the club”.
4. On 7 June 2018, the player and the club Kaizer Chiefs FC (hereinafter: the
Respondent II or Kaizer Chiefs) signed a proposal (hereinafter: the proposal) for
the player to join Kaizer Chiefs, “for a duration of 2 years plus 1 year in
option”, with a remuneration of :
South African Rand (ZAR) 60,000 “from 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019”,
ZAR 65,000 “from 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020” and
ZAR 70,000 “from 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021- option”
ZAR 10,000 per month as accommodation
“image & autograph rights: the club shall pay for the services of the player an
amount of ZAR 960,000 for the duration of the contract as follows:
- ZAR 280,000 on or before 31 July 2018;
- ZAR 320,000 on or before 31 July 2019;
- ZAR 360,000 on or before 31 July 2020 – Option”.
5. On 15 and 29 June 2018, Fosa contacted Kaizer Chiefs via email, informing it
that it was aware of its interest in the player’s services, but that Kaizer Chiefs
should contact Fosa directly since the player had a professional contract with
Fosa.
Fosa Juniors FC, Madagascar / Player Andriamirado Aro Hasina Andrianarimanana, Madagascar / Kaizer Chiefs FC, South Africa
26. In reply to the emails of Fosa, on 29 June 2018, Kaizer Chiefs replied that the
player informed it that he was an amateur player, free of any professional
contract. Kaizer Chiefs informed Fosa that the player had agreed and signed the
proposal of Kaizer Chiefs on 1 July 2018. Kaizer Chiefs explained that “the
premier league football in Madagascar is not a professional league and that the
clubs are playing with an amateur status”.
7. On 4 July 2018, Kaizer Chiefs contacted Fosa and made the following offer
(hereinafter: the offer) to Fosa “after consultation with our Board of Directors
and Football Manager the compensation offered to Fosa Juniors Fc is USD
25,000. Thrusting you will accept our offer for which we wish to thank you in
anticipation”.
8. In reply to the offer, Fosa declined the offer as it «is far below the expectation
of our Board of Directors”.
9. On 7 August 2018, the player and Kaizer Chiefs signed an employment contract
(hereinafter: the new contract) valid as from 1 July 2018 until 30 June 2021
according to which he was entitled to the remuneration provided in the
proposal (cf. par. 4 above).
10. According to the information currently available in the Transfer Matching
System (TMS), on 14 August 2018, the South African Football Association (SAFA)
requested the ITC from the Fédération Malagasy de Football (FMF), which was
rejected by the FMF under the explanation that “there has been no mutual
agreement regarding early termination of the employment contract between
the former club and the professional player”.
11. Still according to the information currently available in the TMS, on 12
September 2018, the Single Judge of the Players’ Status Committee passed a
decision authorizing the provisional registration of the player with Kaizer
Chiefs.
12. On 11 December 2018, Fosa lodged a claim in front of FIFA against the player
and Kaizer Chiefs for breach of contract, requesting the total amount of EUR
150,000, plus 5% interest “as from the abovementioned amount is due”,
corresponding to:
EUR 61,000 as the average between the remuneration due until the expiry of
the contract and the remuneration due under the new contract, which Fosa
calculated as follows:
a) MGA 82,000,000 which it corresponded to EUR 21,000, as residual value
of the contract between 1 July 2018 until 31 October 2020. Fosa based
Fosa Juniors FC, Madagascar / Player Andriamirado Aro Hasina Andrianarimanana, Madagascar / Kaizer Chiefs FC, South Africa
3its calculation on the assumption that the player received from the club
on a monthly basis approximatively MGA 3,000,000 including in that
amount salary, various bonuses, the costs for the apartment,
equipment, internet, transportation, “pocket money”, sports insurance;
b) EUR 100,000, from a conversion of ZAR 1,578,330 as “the remuneration
under the new contract […] based on the proposal”;
Compensation due to the specificity of sport;
Sporting sanctions to be imposed on the player and Kaizer Chiefs;
Legal fees reimbursement.
13. The player further requested the imposition of sporting sanctions against the
club.
14. According to Fosa, the player was registered with the same club as a
professional as from April 2016 until 14 March 2018 and also played for the
national team of Madagascar.
15. Moreover, Fosa considered that the player was a professional player with an
employment contract and that therefore, by leaving the club and signing
another contract with another club, he breached the contract.
16. Furthermore, Fosa explained that in accordance with CAS jurisprudence, in
order to assess the remuneration of a player, not only the salary had to be
taken into account but also bonuses, rights such as holidays, accommodation
expenses.
17. Fosa also stated that the player participated in 77 out of 95 matches with Fosa
under his contract, and played CAF confederations matches.
18. Finally, Fosa maintained that it received an offer from Kaizer Chiefs for the
services of the player of an amount of EUR 25,000 (cf. point 7 above), which it
considered meant that Kaizer Chiefs recognized the status of the player as a
professional.
19. In reply to the claim of Fosa, the player denied having signed an employment
contract with Fosa and claimed that the signature on the contract was forged.
20. Moreover, the player denied that Fosa paid for any of his expenses beside his
salary and argued that he was not paid more than the expenses he incurred for
playing football.
21. In its reply, Kaizer Chiefs argued that the proposal was signed by the player on
1 July 2018 and that it was the player’s first professional contract.
Fosa Juniors FC, Madagascar / Player Andriamirado Aro Hasina Andrianarimanana, Madagascar / Kaizer Chiefs FC, South Africa
422. Moreover, Kaizer Chiefs alleged that Fosa had intimidated the player and
confiscated his passport.
23. Furthermore, Kaizer Chiefs held that, should the DRC find the player and Kaizer
Chiefs liable, the compensation should be limited to EUR 32,546.18 which it
calculated as been the average of the earning between the old contract and the
new one.
24. Upon being requested to do, Fosa provided the original of the contract to the
FIFA administration.
25. In its replica, Fosa reiterated its previous arguments, underlining that the player
was receiving the equivalent to EUR 740 as monthly salary, amount which “by
far exceed the costs the player effectively incurred”.
26. In this context, Fosa provided invoices to demonstrate that is paid for the
accommodation of the player.
27. Moreover Fosa further held that Kaizer Chiefs never contacted it to get
information on the status of the player.
28. In their duplica, the player and Kaizer Chiefs held that Fosa did not provide a
proof of the registration of the player within the FMF.
29. The player held that his expenses amounted to MGA 1,600,000 while his salary
was MGA 1,500,000.
30. Finally, Kaizer Chiefs and the player submitted an expert report on the
signature of the contract, which concluded that the contract was forged.
II. Cons iderations of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as:
Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the matter
at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to
FIFA on 11 December 2018. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures
of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition
2018; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are 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
Fosa Juniors FC, Madagascar / Player Andriamirado Aro Hasina Andrianarimanana, Madagascar / Kaizer Chiefs FC, South Africa
5Procedural 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 2019), the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to deal
with the matter at stake, which concerns an employment-related dispute with
an international dimension between a Malagasy club, a Malagasy player and a
South African club.
3. In continuation, the Chamber analysed which regulations 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 (edition 2019), and considering that the present claim was
lodged on 11 December 2018, the June 2018 edition of said regulations
(hereinafter: Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the
substance.
4. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been
established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. In this
respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts
as well as the arguments and the documentation submitted by the parties.
However, the Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will
refer only to the facts, arguments and documentary evidence, which it
considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand. In particular,
the Chamber recalled that in accordance with art. 6 par. 3 of Annexe 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 Transfer Matching System (TMS).
5. Having considered all the argumentation put forward by the parties, the
Chamber acknowledged that the first issue on which it had to decide was
whether the Claimant and Respondent I had in fact concluded an employment
contract on 1 November 2016. The Chamber observed that whereas the
Claimant holds that such contract had indeed been concluded with the player,
the player denied having signed that contract and alleged that his signature
on the contract submitted by Fosa is a forgery.
6. In this respect, the Chamber underlined that, upon request, it was provided
with the alleged original version of the employment contract dated 1
November 2016. 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 of alleged falsified signatures or
documents, and that such affairs fall into the jurisdiction of the competent
national criminal authority.
Fosa Juniors FC, Madagascar / Player Andriamirado Aro Hasina Andrianarimanana, Madagascar / Kaizer Chiefs FC, South Africa
67. In this regard, the DRC recalled that all documentation remitted shall be
considered with free discretion and, therefore, it focused its attention on the
alleged original document. In this context, the Chamber also acknowledged
that it had been provided with an expert report from both Respondents
regarding the handwriting examinations.
8. After a thorough analysis of the aforementioned documents, in particular,
comparing the relevant signature on the contract dated 1 November 2016 to
the other documentation on file, the DRC concluded that for a layman the
player’s signatures on the various documents available, including the proposal
and the contract eventually signed by the player and Kaizer Chiefs, seem to be
alike and genuine.
9. On account of the aforementioned considerations, the members of the DRC
concluded that the Claimant and the player entered into an employment
contract on 1 November 2016 and proceeded to examine the further
argumentations of the parties.
10. In this respect, the Chamber acknowledged that the Claimant argued that the
player terminated the contract without just cause by entering into a new
contract with Kaizer Chiefs valid as of 1 July 2018.
11. Equally, the DRC noted that the Respondents averred that the first
professional employment contract signed by the player was only the one with
Kaizer Chiefs.
12. On account of the above, the members of the Chamber highlighted that the
underlying issue in this dispute, considering the diverging position of the
parties, was to determine whether the Claimant and the player concluded a
professional employment contract on 1 November 2016. In other words,
whether the player was a professional while rendering his services to the
Claimant.
13. In so doing, the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations, which
stipulates that “A professional is a player who has a written contract with a
club and is paid more for his footballing activity than the expenses he
effectively incurs. All other players are considered to be amateurs”.
14. Taking into consideration the criteria set out in art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations
as well as the amounts payable to the player on the basis of the contract, the
members of the Chamber noted that the player did not contest receiving a
salary from Fosa but, rather, that said salary allegedly did not cover his
expenses as football player.
Fosa Juniors FC, Madagascar / Player Andriamirado Aro Hasina Andrianarimanana, Madagascar / Kaizer Chiefs FC, South Africa
715. Consequently, the DRC unanimously concluded that the player received a
salary as per the criteria set out in art. 2 par. 2 of the Regulations, even more
as the player did not provide any evidence in order to prove the contrary.
16. What is more, the members of the DRC wished to recall that Kaizer Chiefs
offered the amount of USD 25,000 as transfer compensation to Fosa, in order
to register the player as a professional.
17. On account of all the above-mentioned considerations, the Chamber concurred
that the player was to be considered a professional when he was under
contract with the Claimant.
18. As a consequence thereof, being undisputed by the parties that the player and
Kaizer Chiefs entered into an employment contract when the player was still
under contract with Fosa, the Chamber had no other option than to conclude
that the player terminated the contract with the Claimant without just cause.
19. Subsequently, the DRC established that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the
Regulations, the player is liable to pay compensation to the Claimant for
breach of contract. Furthermore, in accordance with the unambiguous
contents of art. 17 par. 2 of the Regulations, the Chamber established that the
player’s new club, i.e. Respondent II, shall be jointly and severally liable for the
payment of compensation. In this respect, the Chamber was eager to point out
that the joint liability of Respondent II is independent from the question as to
whether the new club has committed an inducement to contractual breach or
any other kind of involvement by the new club. This conclusion is in line with
the well-established jurisprudence of the Chamber that was repeatedly
confirmed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
20. Having stated the above, the Chamber focussed its attention on the calculation
of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in the case at stake. In
doing so, the members of 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 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. 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
Fosa Juniors FC, Madagascar / Player Andriamirado Aro Hasina Andrianarimanana, Madagascar / Kaizer Chiefs FC, South Africa
8compensation is awarded to the prejudiced party.
21. In application of the relevant provision, the Chamber held that it first of all
had to clarify as to whether the pertinent employment 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 no such
compensation clause was included in the said employment contract at the basis
of the matter at stake.
22. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount
of compensation payable in the case at stake had to be assessed in application
of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations.
23. Consequently, in order to estimate the amount of compensation due to the
Claimant in the present case, the Chamber firstly turned its attention to the
financial terms of the player’s former contract and the new contract, the value
of which constitutes an essential criterion in the calculation of the amount of
compensation in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. In this
context, the members of the Chamber deemed it important to emphasise that
the wording of art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations allows the DRC to take into
consideration both the existing contract and the new contract in the
calculation of the amount of compensation, thus enabling the Chamber to
gather indications as to the economic value attributed to a player by both his
former and his new club.
24. In this regard, the DRC established, on the one hand, that the total value of
the contract signed by the player with Fosa, for the remaining contractual
period, namely as of 1 July 2018 until 31 October 2020, amounted to MGA
42,000,000. On the other hand, the members of the Chamber established that
the value of the new contract concluded by the player with Kaizer Chiefs, for
the same period, was ZAR 1,108,333, approximately equivalent to MGA
273,144,000.
25. Consequently, on account of the above-mentioned considerations and in view
of the specific circumstances of this case, the Dispute Resolution Chamber
decided that the player shall pay to the Claimant compensation for breach of
contract in the total amount of MGA 157,572,000 which is to be considered a
reasonable and justified amount in the case at hand.
26. In addition and with regard to the Claimant's request for interest, the
Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to 5% interest p.a. on said
amount as of 11 December 2018 until the date of effective payment.
Fosa Juniors FC, Madagascar / Player Andriamirado Aro Hasina Andrianarimanana, Madagascar / Kaizer Chiefs FC, South Africa
927. Furthermore, in accordance with the unambiguous contents of art. 17 par. 2 of
the Regulations, the Chamber established that the player’s new club, i.e.
Kaizer Chiefs, shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of the
aforementioned amount of compensation.
28. In continuation, the Chamber focussed its attention on the further
consequences of the breach of contract in question and, in this respect, it
addressed the question of sporting sanctions against the player in accordance
with art. 17 par. 3 of the Regulations. The cited provision stipulates that, in
addition to the obligation to pay compensation, sporting sanctions shall be
imposed on any player found to be in breach of contract during the protected
period.
29. In this respect, the members of the Chamber referred to item 7 of the
“Definitions” section of the Regulations, which stipulates, inter alia, that the
protected period shall last “for three entire seasons or three years, whichever
comes first, following the entry into force of a contract, where such contract is
concluded prior to the 28th birthday of the professional, or two entire seasons
or two years, whichever comes first, following the entry into force of a
contract, where such contract is concluded after the 28th birthday of the
professional”. In this regard, the DRC pointed out that the player, whose date
of birth is 21 April 1991, was 25 years of age when he signed his employment
contract with the Claimant on 1 November 2016, entailing that the unilateral
termination of the contract occurred within the applicable protected period.
30. With regard to art. 17 par. 3 of the Regulations, the Chamber emphasised that
a suspension of four months on a player’s eligibility to participate in official
matches is the minimum sporting sanction that can be imposed for breach of
contract during the protected period. This sanction, according to the explicit
wording of the relevant provision, can be extended in case of aggravating
circumstances. In other words, the Regulations intend to guarantee a
restriction on the player’s eligibility of four months as the minimum sanction.
Therefore, the relevant provision does not provide for a possibility to the
deciding body to reduce the sanction under the fixed minimum duration in
case of mitigating circumstances.
31. With the above in mind, the members of the Chamber wished to recall the
sequence of the events of the present matter. First, the DRC recalled that, on
15 and 29 June 2018, the Claimant informed Respondent II that the player was
under contract with Fosa. Then, on 4 July 2018, Respondent I presented an
offer to the Claimant for the transfer of the player, which was rejected by
Fosa. Finally, on 7 August 2018, the player signed an employment contract
Fosa Juniors FC, Madagascar / Player Andriamirado Aro Hasina Andrianarimanana, Madagascar / Kaizer Chiefs FC, South Africa
10with Respondent II.
32. Having stated that, the DRC was eager to emphasise that the player raised his
income considerably by concluding an employment contract with Respondent
II.
33. Consequently, taking into account the circumstances surrounding the present
matter, the DRC decided that, by virtue of art. 17 par. 3 of the Regulations, the
Respondent player is to be sanctioned with a restriction of four months on his
eligibility to participate in official matches.
34. Finally, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the question of
whether, in view of art. 17 par. 4 of the Regulations, the player’s new club, i.e.
Respondent II, must be considered to have induced the player to unilaterally
terminate his contract with the Claimant without just cause during the
protected period and, therefore, shall be banned from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, for two entire and consecutive
registration periods.
35. In this respect, the Chamber recalled that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 4 of
the Regulations, it shall be presumed, unless established to the contrary, that
any club signing a professional player who has terminated his previous
contract without just cause has induced that professional to commit a breach.
Consequently, the Chamber pointed out that the party that is presumed to
have induced the player to commit a breach carries the burden of proof to
demonstrate the contrary.
36. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber took note that, based
on the documentation submitted by the parties, it appears that Respondent II
presented an offer for the transfer of the player to Fosa on 4 July 2018.
However, despite such offer being eventually rejected by the Claimant, the
Respondent II nevertheless concluded an employment contract with the player.
37. In light of the aforementioned, and given that Respondent II did not provide
any other specific or plausible explanation as to its possible non-involvement in
the player’s decision to unilaterally terminate his employment contract with
the Claimant, the DRC had no option other than to conclude that Respondent
II had not been able to reverse the presumption contained in art. 17 par. 4 of
the Regulations and that, accordingly, the latter had induced the player to
unilaterally terminate his employment contract with the Claimant.
38. In view of the above, the Chamber decided that, in accordance with art. 17
par. 4 of the Regulations, Respondent II shall be banned from registering any
Fosa Juniors FC, Madagascar / Player Andriamirado Aro Hasina Andrianarimanana, Madagascar / Kaizer Chiefs FC, South Africa
11new players, either nationally or internationally, for the two entire and
consecutive registration periods following the notification of the present
decision. Respondent II shall be able to register new players, either nationally
or internationally, only as of the next registration period following the
complete serving of the relevant sporting sanction. In particular, it may not
make use of the exception and the provisional measures stipulated in art. 6
par. 1 of the Regulations in order to register players at an earlier stage.
39. The Dispute Resolution Chamber concluded its deliberations in the present
matter by establishing that any further claim lodged by the Claimant is
rejected.
III. Decis ion of the Dis pute Res olution Cham ber
1. The claim of the Claimant, Fosa Juniors FC, is partially accepted.
2. Respondent I, Andriamirado Aro Hasina Andrianarimanana, is ordered to pay
to the Claimant, w ithin 30 day s as from the date of notification of this
decision, compensation for breach of contract in the amount of MGA
157,572,000 plus 5% interest p.a. as from 11 December 2018 until the date of
effective payment.
3. Respondent II, Kaizer Chiefs FC, is jointly and severally liable for the payment
of the aforementioned compensation.
4. In the event that the aforementioned amount plus interest 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.
5. Any further claim lodged by the Claimant is rejected.
6. The Claimant is directed to inform the Respondent I and Respondent II,
immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to
be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment
received.
7. A restriction of four months on his eligibility to play in official matches is
imposed on the Respondent I, Andriamirado Aro Hasina Andrianarimanana.
This sanction applies with immediate effect as of the date of notification of
the present decision. The sporting sanction shall remain suspended in the
period between the last official match of the season and the first official
match of the next season, in both cases including national cups and
Fosa Juniors FC, Madagascar / Player Andriamirado Aro Hasina Andrianarimanana, Madagascar / Kaizer Chiefs FC, South Africa
12international championships for clubs.
8. Respondent II, Kaizer Chiefs FC, shall be banned from registering any new
players, either nationally or internationally, for the two next entire and
consecutive registration periods following the notification of the present
decision.
*****
Note related to the publication:
The FIFA administration may publish decisions issued by the Players’ Status Committee
or the DRC. Where such decisions contain confidential information, FIFA may decide, at
the request of a party within five days of the notification of the motivated decision, to
publish an anonymised or a redacted version (cf. article 20 of the Rules Governing the
Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber).
Note related to the appeal procedure:
According to article 58 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against
before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent
to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall
contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS.
Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of
appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise
to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives).
The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following:
Court of Arbitration for Sport
Avenue de Beaumont 2
1012 Lausanne
Switzerland
Tel: +41 21 613 50 00
Fax: +41 21 613 50 01
e-mail: info@tas-cas.org
www.tas-cas.org
For the Dispute Resolution Chamber:
Emilio García Silvero
Chief Legal & Compliance Officer
Fosa Juniors FC, Madagascar / Player Andriamirado Aro Hasina Andrianarimanana, Madagascar / Kaizer Chiefs FC, South Africa
13You can also read
