The case involves a dispute between Italian football coaches Giuseppe Giannini, Corrado Giannini, and Pasquale Cardinale (the Appellants) and the Romanian football club S.C. Fotbal Club 2005 S.A. (the Respondent) regarding the termination of their employment contracts. The Appellants had signed contracts with the club in June 2006, which included terms for monthly payments, performance bonuses, and additional benefits. However, the club terminated these contracts prematurely in October 2006, citing alleged breaches, including the lack of professional player licenses. The Appellants contested the termination, arguing it was unlawful and that they were denied access to training facilities. The dispute escalated through multiple judicial bodies within the Romanian Football Federation (RFF), including the Comisia pentru Statul Jucatoruiul (CSP), the Appeal Commission (CA), and the Romanian Court of Arbitration for Football (CAF). Initially, the CSP ruled in favor of the Appellants, but the CA reversed this decision. The CAF later reinstated the contracts but subsequently reversed its stance after the club filed a petition for review, leading the Appellants to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS addressed several key legal issues, including its jurisdiction, the timeliness of the appeal, and the applicable law. It confirmed its authority under Article R47 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration, rejecting the Respondent's argument that the Appellants had waived their right to appeal by first approaching the CAF. The CAS clarified that the term "appeals commissions" in the RFF statutes broadly referred to jurisdictional bodies, including the CAF, and that the dispute had an international character due to the Appellants' nationality. The appeal was deemed timely, as the deadline began only upon full notification of the CAF's decision, which the Appellants received in December 2007. The applicable law was determined to be the sports rules of the RFF, along with FIFA and UEFA regulations, as chosen by the parties during proceedings.
On the merits, the CAS ruled that the CAF lacked the authority to revise its earlier decisions after they had been pronounced as final and binding. It rejected the CAF's attempt to justify the revision using the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure, finding it incompatible with sports regulations. The CAS also examined the validity of the contracts, concluding that the parties never intended for the Appellants to work as professional players, rendering the player license clause a sham. The termination was thus deemed unlawful, as the Appellants held valid coaching licenses recognized under UEFA regulations. The CAS further ruled that poor sporting performance did not constitute "just cause" for termination, as coaches are obligated to provide services, not guaranteed results.
Regarding compensation, the CAS held that the Appellants were entitled to damages equivalent to the full contractual remuneration for the remaining term of their contracts, totaling EUR 86,670 for Giuseppe Giannini and EUR 25,000 each for Corrado Giannini and Pasquale Cardinale. Claims for intangible losses, such as diminished market value, were dismissed due to insufficient evidence. The Respondent was also ordered to pay the amounts without tax deductions, as the Appellants were no longer Romanian residents. The CAS emphasized the importance of contractual stability in football employment disputes and reinforced the applicability of FIFA's Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players to coaches.
In summary, the CAS upheld the Appellants' claims, setting aside the CAF's revised decisions and affirming the unlawful nature of the contract terminations. The ruling provided clarity on procedural timelines, choice of law, and the interpretation of contractual terms in sports-related arbitration, underscoring the CAS's role as the final arbiter in such disputes.