FIFA - Decisión disputa Paez Zea 11052023

REF. FPSD-8677

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed on 11 May 2023 regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Karen Stefanny Paez Zea

COMPOSITION:

Clifford J. HENDEL (USA/France), Deputy Chairperson Alejandro ATILIO TARABORELLI (Argentina), member Stella MARIS JUNCOS (Argentina), member

CLAIMANT:

Karen Stefanny Paez Zea, Colombia Represented by Ivan Bykovskiy

RESPONDENT:

Ñañas, Ecuador Represented by Celso Vásconez Ojeda pg. 2

REF. FPSD-8677

I. Facts of the case

1. On 15 September 2021, the Claimant and the Respondent concluded an employment contract

(hereinafter: the Contract).

2. Clause 8 of the Contract reads as follows: El sueldo mensual que "LA JUGADORA" recibirá debido al servicio prestado asciende a la suma USD$700, valor que incluye elsalario, proporcional de décimo tercer y décimo cuarto sueldo y horas extras. Además, a "LA JUGADORA" se le ofrece hospedaje, costo que será cubierto por el

"CLUB ÑAÑAS".

Por otra parte, "LA JUGADORA" recibirá un préstamo de USD$3000 (TRES MIL DÓLARES DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS DE AMÉRICA) por parte del "CLUB ÑAÑAS", mismo que se descontará a "LA JUGADORA" en 14 cuotas de USD$214,29 (DOSCIENTOS CATORCE DÓLARES DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS DE AMÉRICA CON VEINTE Y NUEVE CENTAVOS DE DÓLAR AMERICANO).”

Free translation into English: The monthly salary that "THE PLAYER" will receive due to the service rendered amounts to USD$700

(SEVEN HUNDRED UNITED STATES DOLLARS), a value that includes salary, proportional to the thirteenth and fourteenth salary and overtime. In addition, "THE PLAYER" is offered housing, a cost that will be covered by the "CLUB ÑAÑAS." [..] On the other hand, "THE PLAYER" will receive a loan of USD$3000 (THREE THOUSAND UNITED STATES DOLLARS) from "CLUB ÑAÑAS," which will be discounted to "THE PLAYER" in 14 installments of USD$214.29 (TWO HUNDRED AND FOURTEEN DOLLARS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND

TWENTY-NINE CENTS OF AMERICAN DOLLAR)."

3. Clause 9 of the Contract reads as follows: El presente contrato se encuentra vigente a partir de su firma, sin embargo, la ejecución del mismo

(inicio de pagos, afiliación, los demás compromisos del "CLUB ÑAÑAS") empezará a partir de que la jugadora empiece sus entrenamientos regulares con el club con una duración mínima de 2 temporadas o la participación del "CLUB ÑAÑAS" en los campeonatos en los que "LA JUGADORA" sea inscrita durante el año 2022, 2023 o que sean pertinentes a la temporada 2022, 2023 incluyendo la participación del Club en Copa Libertadores, en caso de clasificación tras jugar la Superliga Femenina 2022, 2023, que se podrá jugar posterior al 2023 y solo terminará una vez que la participación del "CLUB ÑAÑAS" en dichos campeonatos haya concluido, indistintamente de la fecha que sea.”

Free translation into English:

This contract is in force as of its signing, however, its execution (start of payments, affiliation, the other commitments of the "CLUB ÑAÑAS") will begin as soon as the player begins her regular training with the club with a minimum duration of 2 seasons or the participation of the "CLUB ÑAÑAS" in the championships in which "THE PLAYER" is registered during the year 2022, 2023 or that are relevant to the 2022, 2023 season including the participation of the Club in Copa pg. 3

REF. FPSD-8677

Libertadores, in case of classification after playing the 2022, 2023 Women's Super League, which can be played after 2023 and will only end once the participation of the "CLUB ÑAÑAS" in said championships has concluded, regardless of the date it is."

4. Clause 13 of the Contract reads as follows: Para los efectos que se deriven de la aplicación del presente Contrato, las Partes renuncian a fuero y domicilio y señalan como jueces únicos y competentes a los miembros del Tribunal de Arbitraje Especial de la Federación Ecuatoriana de Fútbol, renunciando expresamente a los jueces que administran la justicia ordinaria en el Ecuador.” Free translation into English: For the effects derived from the application of this Contract, the Parties waive jurisdiction and domicile and appoint as sole and competent judges the members of the Special Arbitration Court of the Ecuadorian Football Federation, expressly waiving the judges who administer the ordinary justice in Ecuador."

5. On 1 December 2022, the Claimant sent a default notice to the Respondent requesting the payment of two monthly salaries and requested instructions for her reincorporation after vacations granting a deadline of 15 days to remedy the default, to no avail.

6. On 19 December 2022, the Claimant terminated the Contract adducing just cause.

7. On 23 February 2023, the Claimant concluded an employment contract with the Colombian club Independiente del Valle valid until 31 December 2023.

II. Proceedings before FIFA

8. On 23 December 2022, the Claimant filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.

a. Position of the Claimant

9. The Claimant acknowledges the existence of Clause 13 of the Contract, however the Claimant “renounces its application in virtue of the existing CAS jurisprudence, which stated clearly and expressly that the Special Arbitration Court of the Ecuadorian Football Federation could not be considered an independent arbitration tribunal that has been established at national level within the framework of the association and/or a collective bargaining agreement in the sense of article 22 of the FIFA RSTP”.

10. Therefore, in the view of the Claimant, the FIFA DRC is competent to hear the dispute at hand.

11. The Claimant sustains that at the moment of termination, two monthly salaries were unpaid

(October and November 2022) in full, and several more bonuses were outstanding. However, the pg. 4

REF. FPSD-8677

Club did nothing to remedy its financial breach toward the Player.

12. The Claimant states that at the time of the termination by the Player on December 19, 2022, two monthly salaries were unpaid. Therefore, the amount due is USD 1.400.

13. Additionally, the Club undertook to pay two bonuses as per the employment contract: USD 120 for two appearances in October in the matches of Copa Libertadores Feminina and USD 60 in the concept of an additional bonus. Total bonuses outstanding – USD 180.

14. The Claimant states that as per clause 8 of the Contract, the Club gave a player a loan of USD 3.000, which the Player was obliged to return during the validity of the employment contract. The Loan payment was divided into 14 instalments of USD 214,29. At the moment of contractual

termination, the Player had amortized eight instalments. Therefore, two instalments (for October and November 2022) shall be directly deducted from the outstanding salaries and bonuses.

15. Based on the above, the Claimant deems that the total amount of salaries and bonuses outstanding at the termination date (with deduction of loan reimbursement) equals USD 1,151.42

16. The Claimant sustains that at the moment of termination on December 19, 2022, the residual value of the contract is equal to 10 more months until the end of September 2023. Therefore, the contract's residual amount is USD 7.000

17. However, at the time of the termination of the contract, four more instalments of the Loan remain outstanding and are to be returned to the Club. Therefore, the amount is 214,29 x 4 = USD 857,16 shall be deducted.

18. The Claimant also claims additional compensation.

19. The Claimant filed the following requests for relief:

1. The Claim of the Claimant, Ms. Karen Stefanny Páez Zea, is accepted.

2. The Respondent, Club de Fútbol Ñañas, Ecuador, is obliged to pay the following amounts: - USD 1.151,42 in a concept of outstanding salaries and bonuses; - USD 8.242,84 as compensation for breach of the contract and termination without just cause based on art. 17.1. of FIFA RSTP;

3. The interest at 5% p.a. is applied on any outstanding payment from the date of the due payment until the effective date of payment on any amount, being salaries, bonuses, or compensation for breach of the employment contract, as the penalty for the delay of payment and per the longstanding jurisprudence of FIFA DRC: - 5% p.a. applies on USD 9,394.26 from 19.12.2022 until the effective date of payment;

pg. 5

REF. FPSD-8677

b. Position of the Respondent

20. In its reply, the Respondent states that FIFA DRC is not competent to hear the dispute.

21. According to the Respondent, “on 19 December 2022, we requested to the he Chamber for Mediation and Dispute Resolution of the Ecuadorian Football Association (…) the consignation of the dues toward the player”.

22. The Respondent sustains that it made the consignment of the cheque in the name of the player, for a value corresponding to the last two months of the season, “that Miss Karen Stefanny Páez Zea, by her own decision and explicitly has not withdrawn from the Club”.

23. The Respondent states that this cheque corresponds to “the months of October and November, with the relevant the pertinent discount for her personal contribution to the IESS and for the loan that she maintains in force with the Club in the amount of with the Club for the amount of $966.24“.

24. The Respondent further states that “on January 18, 2023, the Secretary of the First Chamber of the CMRD of the FEF notified the player Karen Stefanny Páez Zea of the opening of the file No. 231-2022 that follows the CLUB DEPORTIVO ESPORTIVO ESPECIALIZADO FORMATIVO "ÑAÑOS". is being pursued by the CLUB DEPORTIVO ESPORTIZADO ESPECIALIZADO FORMATIVO "ÑAÑOS" against the player KAREN STEFANNY PÁEZ ZEA in which the claim presented by our Club is qualified as clear and complete, as it meets the our Club as it meets the regulatory requirements as established in Art. 27 of the Regulations of the Mediation and Dispute Resolution Chamber of the Ecuadorian Football Federation.”

25. The Respondent further states that between September 2021 and February 2022, the player was temporarily transferred to the club Gokulam Kerala FC of the Indian League.

26. The Respondent filed the following requests for relief:

1.- That the Club Deportivo Especializado Formativo "ÑAÑOS", has fulfilled all the contractual obligations with the player Karen Stefanny Paez Zea. 2.- That in a timely manner the Club Deportivo Especializado Formativo "ÑAÑOS" filed a claim for fulfilment of the contract against the player Karen Stefanny Páez Zea in December 2022, before receiving your kind communication. 3.- That once the claim was qualified and accepted in its entirety at the Chamber of Mediation and Dispute Resolution of the Ecuadorian Football Federation, the jurisdiction of this case shall be of this case was placed in the Ecuadorian Football Federation, that is to say, in Ecuador. Therefore, we request that any proceedings or claims that may be brought before FIFA's bodies be filed with the FIFA bodies. c. Replica of the Claimant

27. The Claimant states that indeed she “received a notification from the mentioned body on January 18, 2023, a jurisdiction that she did not recognize.” pg. 6

REF. FPSD-8677

28. According to the Claimant, the Respondent did not prove that the body complies with the requisites set by FIFA to be considered independent and impartial.

29. The Claimant sustains that “the so-called "deposit" of a cheque is not per se a payment of outstanding amounts and can't be accepted by the FIFA DRC as valid proof. As far as the interests of the Player are concerned, the outstanding amounts as per her claim are not yet paid by the Club. The Respondent knew the details of the Claimant's bank account and had all opportunities to comply“.

30. The Claimant further sustains that she first knew of such a "deposit" on January 18, 2023, when she received a notification from the FEF DRC. Therefore, it is clear that at the time of termination of the employment contract, the Claimant was unaware of any alleged payment of the outstanding amounts.

31. As for her loan to the Indian club, the Claimant states that she did not file any claim for outstanding amounts for the mentioned period.

32. The Claimant reiterated her previous requests for relief.

d. Duplica of the Respondent

33. The Respondent failed to submit its final comments in a timely manner.

III. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber

a. Competence and applicable legal framework

34. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber (hereinafter also referred to as Chamber or DRC) analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was presented to FIFA on 23 December 2022 and submitted for decision on 11 May 2023. Taking into account the wording of art. 34 of the March 2023 edition of the Procedural Rules Governing the Football Tribunal (hereinafter: the Procedural Rules), the aforementioned edition of the Procedural Rules is applicable to the matter at hand.

35. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 2 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and observed that in accordance with art. 23 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (March 2022 edition), 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 Colombian player and an Ecuadorian club.

36. Subsequently, 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 (March 2023 edition) and considering that the present claim was lodged on 23 December 2022, the October 2022 edition of said regulations

(hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance.

pg. 7

REF. FPSD-8677

37. The Chamber however noted that the Respondent appear to challenge the competence of FIFA to hear the dispute at stake, as it is allegedly affected by lis pendens. In particular, the Respondent points out that it had already lodged a claim against the Claimant in front of the “Camara de Mediacion y Resolucion de Disputas” (hereinafter: the CMRD) on 19 December 2022.

38. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Chamber started to analyse the documentation provided by the Respondent in support of the allegation of lis pendens. In this regard, the Chamber observed that according to the evidence submitted by the Respondent itself, the claim at the CMRD was filed on 11 January 2023. Therefore, the Respondent had failed to discharge its burden of proof regarding the date in which the said claim was allegedly filed.

39. The Chamber emphasised that the claim in front of the FIFA DRC was filed on 23 December 2023 and sent to the Respondent on 3 January 2023. Thus, the Respondent was already aware of the existence of the current claim at the time it filed the alternative claim in front of the CMRD.

40. Consequently, the Chamber was comforted on the fact that since based on the evidence on file, the first claim filed was the current one at the FIFA DRC, FIFA is competent to hear the dispute.

41. The Dispute Resolution Chamber further noted the contents of art. 13 of the Contract according to which “the Parties waive jurisdiction and domicile and appoint as sole and competent judges the members of the Special Arbitration Court of the Ecuadorian Football Federation” (free translation from original in Spanish).

42. Taking into account all the above, the Dispute Resolution Chamber emphasised that in accordance with art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, FIFA is, in principle, competent to hear an employment-related dispute between a club and a player of

an international dimension. Nevertheless, the parties may explicitly opt in writing for such dispute to be decided by an independent arbitration tribunal that has been established at national level within the framework of the association and/or a collective bargaining agreement. Any such arbitration clause must be included either directly in the contract or in a collective bargaining agreement applicable on the parties. The independent national arbitration tribunal must guarantee fair proceedings and respect the principle of equal representation of players and clubs. Equally, the Chamber referred to the principles contained in the FIFA National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) Standard Regulations, which came into force on 1 January 2008.

43. Having established the foregoing, the Chamber turned its attention to the further pre-requisites for establishing the competence of a NDRC. The Chamber namely referred to principle of equal representation of players and clubs and underlined that this principle is one of the very fundamental elements to be fulfilled, in order for a national dispute resolution chamber to be recognised as such. Indeed, this prerequisite is mentioned in the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, in the FIFA Circular no. 1010 as well as in art. 3 par. 1 of the NDRC Regulations, which illustrates the aforementioned principle as follows: “The NDRC shall be composed of the following members, who shall serve a four-year renewable mandate: a) a chairman and a deputy chairman chosen by consensus by the player and club representatives (…); b) between three and ten player representatives who are elected or appointed either on proposal of the players’ associations affiliated to FIFPro, or, where no such associations exist, on the basis of a selection process agreed by FIFA and FIFPro; c) between three and ten club representatives (…).” In this respect, the FIFA Circular no. 1010 states the following: “The parties must have equal influence over the appointment of arbitrators. pg. 8

REF. FPSD-8677

This means for example that every party shall have the right to appoint an arbitrator and the two

appointed arbitrators appoint the chairman of the arbitration tribunal (…). Where arbitrators are to be selected from a predetermined list, every interest group that is represented must be able to exercise equal influence over the compilation of the arbitrator list”.

44. With the aforementioned principles in mind, the Chamber underlined that the Respondent had failed to submit any supporting evidence in respect to the functioning and composition of the Special Arbitration Court of the Ecuadorian Football Federation. As a consequence, the Chamber was of the opinion that the club failed to prove that the Special Arbitration Court of the Ecuadorian Football Federation is the same body in which it filed the alternative claim (i.e. the CMRD), that the Special Arbitration Court constitutes an NDRC under the applicable regulations and that it complied with the requirements of the FIFA Circular no. 1010.

45. On account of all the above, the Chamber established that the Respondent’s objection to the competence of FIFA to deal with the present matter has to be rejected and that the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent, on the basis of art. 22 par. 1 lit. b) of the Regulations, to consider the present matter as to the substance.

b. Burden of proof

46. The Chamber recalled the basic principle of burden of proof, as stipulated in art. 13 par. 5 of the Procedural Rules, according to which a party claiming a right on the basis of an alleged fact shall carry the respective burden of proof. Likewise, the Chamber stressed the wording of art. 13 par. 4 of the Procedural Rules, pursuant to which it may consider evidence not filed by the parties, including without limitation the evidence generated by or within the Transfer Matching System

(TMS). c. Merits of the dispute

47. Its competence and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the merits of the dispute. In this respect, the Chamber started by acknowledging all the above-mentioned facts as well as the arguments and the documentation on file. However, the

Chamber emphasised that in the following considerations it will refer only to the facts, arguments, and documentary evidence, which it considered pertinent for the assessment of the matter at hand.

1. Main legal discussion and considerations

48. The foregoing having been established, the Chamber moved to the substance of the matter, and took note of the fact that the parties dispute the justice of the early termination of the contract by the Claimant, based on the alleged non-payment of certain financial obligations by the Respondent as per the contract, in accordance with art. 14bis of the Regulations.

49. In this context, the Chamber acknowledged that its task was to determine, based on the evidence presented by the parties, whether the claimed amounts had in fact remained unpaid by the Respondent and, if so, whether the formal pre-requisites of art. 14bis of the Regulations had in fact been fulfilled. pg. 9

REF. FPSD-8677

50. The Chamber then referred to the wording of art. 14bis par. 1 of the Regulations, in accordance with which, if a club unlawfully fails to pay a player at least two monthly salaries on their due dates, the player will be deemed to have a just cause to terminate her contract, provided that he has put the debtor club in default in writing and has granted a deadline of at least 15 days for the debtor club to fully comply with its financial obligation(s).

51. The Chamber noted that the Claimant claims not having received her remuneration corresponding to the salaries and performance bonuses for the months of October and November 2022. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Claimant has provided written evidence of having put the Respondent in default on 1 December 2022, i.e. at least 15 days before unilaterally terminating the contract on 19 December 2022.

52. The Chamber also noted that in the case at hand the Respondent bore the burden of proving that it indeed complied with the financial terms of the contract concluded between the parties.

Nonetheless, the Respondent has admitted not having paid the amounts claimed, although it

adduces that it deposited a cheque at the Ecuadorian FA.

53. In this regard, the Chamber referred to the consistent jurisprudence of the DRC according to deposits at third parties alien to the Contract are seldom accepted as valid means of payment unless explicitly acknowledged by the creditors. Furthermore, based on the evidence on file, the Chamber noted that the alleged deposit was made after the termination of the Contract by the

Claimant.

54. Thus, the Chamber concluded that the Claimant had a just cause to unilaterally terminate the contract, based on art. 14bis of the Regulations. ii. Consequences

55. Having stated the above, the members of the Chamber turned their attention to the question of the consequences of such unjustified breach of contract committed by the Respondent.

56. The Chamber observed that the outstanding remuneration at the time of termination, coupled with the specific requests for relief of the player, are equivalent to 3 salaries (October to December) under the contract, amounting to USD 2,100 and an uncontested performance bonus in the amount of USD 180. Furthermore, the Chamber took into consideration the loan payments to be made by to the Claimant to the Respondent USD 642.87.

57. As a consequence, and in accordance with the general legal principle of pacta sunt servanda, the Chamber decided that the Respondent is liable to pay to the Claimant the amounts which were outstanding under the contract at the moment of the termination, i.e. USD 1,637.13 (i.e. 2,100 + 180 – 642.87).

58. In addition, taking into consideration the Claimant’s request, the latter decided to award the Claimant interest at the rate of 5% p.a. on the outstanding amounts as from 19 December 2022 until the date of effective payment. pg. 10

REF. FPSD-8677

59. Having stated the above, the Chamber turned to the calculation of the amount of compensation

payable to the player by the club in the case at stake. In doing so, the Chamber firstly recapitulated that, in accordance with art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations, the amount of compensation shall be calculated, in particular and unless otherwise provided for in the contract at the basis of the dispute, with due consideration for the law of the country concerned, the specificity of sport and further objective criteria, including in particular, the remuneration and other benefits due to the player under the existing contract and/or the new contract, the time remaining on the existing contract up to a maximum of five years, and depending on whether the contractual breach falls within the protected period.

60. 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 employment contract at the basis of the matter at stake.

61. As a consequence, the members of the Chamber determined that the amount of compensation payable by the club to the player had to be assessed in application of the other parameters set out in art. 17 par. 1 of the Regulations. The Chamber recalled that said provision provides for a non-exhaustive enumeration of criteria to be taken into consideration when calculating the amount of compensation payable.

62. Bearing in mind the foregoing as well as the claim of the player, the Chamber proceeded with the calculation of the monies payable to the player under the terms of the contract from the date of its unilateral termination until its end date. Consequently, the Chamber concluded that the amount of USD 6,300 (i.e. the residual value) serves as the basis for the determination of the amount of compensation for breach of contract.

63. In continuation, the Chamber verified as to whether the player had signed an employment

contract with another club during the relevant period of time, by means of which he would have been enabled to reduce her loss of income. According to the constant practice of the DRC as well as art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, such remuneration under a new employment contract shall be taken into account in the calculation of the amount of compensation for breach of contract in connection with the player’s general obligation to mitigate her damages.

64. Indeed, the player found employment with Independiente del Valle. In accordance with the pertinent employment contract, the player was entitled to USD 1,800 (salary from March to September 2023) and USD 6,000 (guaranteed bonuses from March to September 2023).

Therefore, the Chamber concluded that the player fully mitigated her damages in the total amount of USD 7,800.

65. Subsequently, the Chamber referred to art. 17 par. 1 lit. ii) of the Regulations, according to which a player is entitled to an amount corresponding to three monthly salaries as additional compensation should the termination of the employment contract at stake be due to overdue payables. In the case at hand, the Chamber confirmed that the contract termination took place due to said reason i.e. overdue payables by the club, and therefore decided that the player shall receive additional compensation. pg. 11

REF. FPSD-8677

66. In this respect, the DRC decided to award the amount of additional compensation of USD 2,100, i.e. three times the monthly remuneration of the player.

67. Consequently, on account of all of the above-mentioned considerations and the specificities of the case at hand, the Chamber decided that the club must pay the amount of USD 2,100 to the player, which was to be considered a reasonable and justified amount of compensation for breach of contract in the present matter.

68. Lastly, taking into consideration the player’s request as well as the constant practice of the Chamber in this regard, the latter decided to award the player interest on said compensation at

the rate of 5% p.a. as of 19 December 2022 until the date of effective payment. iii. Compliance with monetary decisions

69. Finally, taking into account the applicable Regulations, the Chamber referred to art. 24 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations, which stipulate that, with its decision, the pertinent FIFA deciding body shall also rule on the consequences deriving from the failure of the concerned party to pay the relevant amounts of outstanding remuneration and/or compensation in due time.

70. In this regard, the DRC highlighted that, against clubs, the consequence of the failure to pay the relevant amounts in due time shall consist of a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, up until the due amounts are paid. The overall maximum duration of the registration ban shall be of up to three entire and consecutive registration periods.

71. Therefore, bearing in mind the above, the DRC decided that the Respondent must pay the full amount due (including all applicable interest) to the Claimant within 45 days of notification of the decision, failing which, at the request of the Claimant, a ban from registering any new players, either nationally or internationally, for the maximum duration of three entire and consecutive registration periods shall become immediately effective on the Respondent in accordance with art. 24 par. 2, 4, and 7 of the Regulations.

72. The Respondent shall make full payment (including all applicable interest) to the bank account provided by the Claimant in the Bank Account Registration Form, which is attached to the present decision.

73. The DRC recalled that the above-mentioned ban will be lifted immediately and prior to its complete serving upon payment of the due amounts, in accordance with art. 24 par. 8 of the

Regulations. d. Costs

74. The Chamber referred to art. 25 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules, ac