The case involves a dispute between FC Steaua Dunarii Galati, the Romanian Football Federation (FRF), FC Steaua Bucarest, and the player Razvan Iulian Ochirosii, which was brought before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The conflict arose over the validity of contracts signed by Ochirosii with both clubs. In 2004, FC Steaua Dunarii Galati entered into a collaboration agreement with LPS Galati, a sports-focused high school, to train junior players, including Ochirosii. The club later transferred him to LPS Galati under an amateur contract and subsequently signed a professional contract with him, registered with the regional football association. However, in 2005, FC Steaua Bucarest registered a new contract with Ochirosii, prompting FC Steaua Dunarii Galati to challenge its validity before the FRF's Player Status Committee. The committee ruled against the club, stating it had failed to register Ochirosii as a professional within six months, reverting his status to amateur and allowing his recruitment by FC Steaua Bucarest.
FC Steaua Dunarii Galati appealed to the FRF's Appeals Commission, which upheld the decision but permitted further appeal to CAS. The club then filed an appeal with CAS, naming only the FRF as the respondent. CAS rejected the appeal, ruling that the FRF was not the proper respondent since the dispute primarily involved the two clubs and the player. CAS emphasized its decisions are final and noted it lacked jurisdiction over cases without an international element, as defined by FRF statutes. The tribunal also highlighted that the club should have directed its appeal against FC Steaua Bucarest and Ochirosii, not the FRF, which had only acted as a decision-making body.
In a subsequent appeal filed in November 2006, FC Steaua Dunarii Galati included all relevant parties, arguing the initial rejection constituted a denial of justice and requesting procedural remedies. CAS dismissed this argument, stating the October 2006 decision was final and the new appeal had to be treated separately. The FRF and FC Steaua Bucarest contested CAS's jurisdiction, citing Article 57(2)(a) of the FRF Statutes, which limits CAS jurisdiction to cases with international elements. Since the dispute was purely domestic, they argued CAS lacked competence. CAS agreed, concluding the new appeal had to be assessed under the FRF Statutes as they stood in November 2006 and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
The final CAS ruling, dated July 4, 2007, reinforced that the November 2006 appeal was distinct from the earlier one and could not be treated as a continuation. It also noted the appeal was inadmissible due to tardiness, as the decision being appealed was issued on January 16, 2006, and the deadline for filing had passed. CAS dismissed the procedural order sent on May 14, 2007, confirming jurisdiction, as only FC Steaua Dunarii Galati had signed it. The ruling underscored the importance of adhering to procedural deadlines and jurisdictional limits, declaring the FRF's January 16, 2006 decision final and binding. The case highlights the necessity of correctly identifying parties and exhausting procedural requirements from the outset to avoid irreparable defects in arbitration proceedings.