The case involves a prolonged legal dispute between SC Fotbal Club Timisoara (the Appellant), FIFA, and the Romanian Football Federation (RFF) over compliance with decisions issued by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The dispute originated from a 2006 CAS ruling that required the Appellant to change its name, colors, and logo to avoid confusion with another club, SC FC Politehnica Timisoara SA, and to pay compensation. When the Appellant failed to comply, FIFA initially closed the case in 2007, but this decision was overturned by CAS in 2008, which ordered the Appellant to make the required changes by June 30, 2008, or face a six-point deduction.
The key legal issues revolved around the definition of a "decision," CAS jurisdiction over FIFA decisions, standing to appeal, FIFA's authority to enforce CAS awards, and the validity of FIFA's disciplinary actions. The CAS panel ruled that a letter resolving a legal situation in a binding manner qualifies as a decision, regardless of its form. They confirmed that FIFA Disciplinary Committee decisions under Article 71 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC) are final and directly appealable to CAS. The panel also held that a club materially affected by a FIFA decision, even if not the direct addressee, has standing to appeal.
The Appellant changed its name and colors by the deadline, but FIFA questioned compliance after receiving claims from FC Politehnica Timisoara SA. The RFF provided proof of the changes, and UEFA approved the new kits. However, FIFA imposed additional financial penalties for matches played under the old name between December 2006 and July 2008 and instructed the RFF to deduct six points from the Appellant for allegedly failing to remove violet as its dominant color. The Appellant appealed, arguing the sanctions were unjustified and that it had complied with the CAS rulings.
The CAS panel examined whether the FIFA Decision adhered to procedural and substantive requirements under Article 71 FDC, which outlines a two-stage enforcement process for non-compliance with CAS awards. The panel concluded that the Appellant did not breach its obligations regarding colors or name changes, as there was no convincing evidence of continued use of violet or the old name after the deadline. The panel also found that the RFF Decision, which enforced the FIFA Decision, was invalid because the FIFA Decision itself was erroneous.
The panel partially upheld the appeal, setting aside both the FIFA and RFF Decisions and canceling the six-point deduction. However, it dismissed the Appellant's request to block future disciplinary actions related to previous CAS awards, clarifying that the Appellant remains bound by its obligations under the 2007 CAS award. The panel also noted that FIFA retains the right to enforce specific obligations from the 2006 CAS award, such as compensation payments for matches played before the name change was effected.
The case underscores the complexities of enforcing CAS rulings in football disputes and highlights the importance of procedural fairness and clear evidence in disciplinary actions. It also reaffirms FIFA's role in upholding CAS awards and the broad jurisdiction of CAS in resolving football-related disputes. The outcome emphasizes the need for clubs to comply with CAS decisions promptly and thoroughly to avoid prolonged legal battles and potential sanctions.