The case revolves around a dispute between CS Building Vanju Mare, a Romanian football club, and the Romanian Football Federation (RFF) regarding the club's promotion to the Second League for the 2007-2008 season. CS Building Vanju Mare had been relegated to the Third League after the 2005-2006 season. During the 2006-2007 season, FC Liberty Oradea, which had previously ceded its First League position to FC UTA Arad, competed in the Third League and finished first, earning promotion to the Second League. CS Building Vanju Mare, finishing second, contested FC Liberty Oradea's eligibility for promotion, citing Article 55.1 of the Romanian football regulations (ROAF), which they argued prohibited promotion due to the cession of rights. The RFF rejected this claim, referencing Article 55.3 ROAF, which did not apply to ceded rights.
The club pursued its grievance through multiple RFF bodies, including the Committee of Urgency and the Commission for Discipline, but all appeals were dismissed. The RFF maintained that the Executive Committee had exclusive authority over such decisions and that disciplinary bodies lacked the power to review them. Frustrated, CS Building Vanju Mare appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking damages of 10,000,000 CHF for financial and emotional distress caused by the RFF's delays and refusal to address the claim before the season began.
The CAS panel examined jurisdictional issues under Article R47 of the CAS Code, which requires exhaustion of internal remedies before an appeal. While the RFF's regulations did not explicitly contradict its statutes, they extended members' rights by allowing CAS appeals under certain conditions. The panel accepted jurisdiction due to the absence of clear guidance from the RFF on the matter. It also affirmed that the RFF's disciplinary bodies had no authority to review decisions made by the Executive Committee or the Committee of Urgency.
On the merits, the panel found no provision granting the Disciplinary Commission the power to review decisions of the Urgency Committee or Executive Board. The alleged breaches were not under the Disciplinary Code but the ROAF, further weakening the club's case. The CAS upheld the RFF's decisions, concluding that the club's arguments did not justify overturning the rulings. The case underscores the importance of exhausting internal remedies and the limited scope of disciplinary bodies in reviewing executive decisions within football federations. It also highlights the jurisdictional complexities in sports arbitration and the interplay between federation statutes and disciplinary regulations.
The CAS panel ultimately dismissed the appeal, reinforcing the jurisdictional boundaries between the RFF's internal bodies and the inadmissibility of the appeal. The decision affirmed the earlier rulings, emphasizing the finality of the Executive Committee's authority and the lack of grounds for disciplinary review in this context. The case serves as a reminder of the procedural and jurisdictional challenges clubs may face when contesting federation decisions.