The case centers on Adrian Mititelu Marin, President of Football Club Universitatea Craiova, who faced disciplinary action from the Romanian Football Federation (RFF) for statements he made in October 2008 criticizing referee Aurel Bogaciu and alleging corruption within the RFF. Marin claimed Bogaciu was sent to "destroy" his team, pointing to broader issues of refereeing misconduct. The RFF Disciplinary Commission initially imposed a six-month suspension and a fine of RON 300,000, later reduced to RON 150,000 on appeal while upholding the suspension. Marin then appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking annulment of the sanctions.
The CAS examined whether Marin’s statements were defamatory or reflected probable truths about corruption in Romanian football. The key issue was whether the likelihood of corruption outweighed the possibility that his remarks were merely offensive. The CAS noted ongoing criminal investigations into bribery in Romanian football, lending credibility to Marin’s claims. The Sole Arbitrator, Bernhard Welten, concluded that Marin could not be sanctioned for statements likely truthful and in the public interest. The CAS affirmed its jurisdiction under RFF Statutes and FIFA regulations, which allow appeals within 21 days of a disciplinary decision. Despite the RFF’s lack of response, the arbitration proceeded, with the Sole Arbitrator dismissing Marin’s request for provisional measures but ultimately ruling in his favor.
The dispute stemmed from Marin’s comments in a 2008 article where he criticized the RFF and refereeing standards, implying corruption. The RFF sanctioned him under its Disciplinary Regulations for harming football’s image, but the Appeals Commission’s application of these rules was contradictory. The Sole Arbitrator questioned whether Marin’s statements truly harmed anyone’s reputation, noting one was an opinion about the game, which falls within acceptable discourse. The RFF also failed to prove Marin authored the first statement, violating its own burden of proof requirements.
The case gained context from a 2009 bribery scandal involving referees and officials, including Bogaciu and Gheorghe Constantin, who resigned as head of the Referee Central Commission. The Sole Arbitrator found it more probable that Marin’s statements reflected genuine concerns about corruption rather than malicious intent. Given the lack of evidence and the broader scandal, the sanctions were deemed unjustified. The decision highlights the importance of evidence in disciplinary cases and the need for proportionality, especially when public discourse intersects with institutional criticism.
The CAS ruled that Marin could not be sanctioned for likely truthful statements, upholding his appeal and annulling the RFF’s 2008 decision. No sanctions were imposed, and any fines paid were ordered to be returned. The ruling underscores the seriousness of corruption allegations while affirming the right to disclose probable truths without punitive measures. The case emphasizes the balance between disciplinary authority and transparency in sports governance.