The case revolves around Cornel Penescu, president and owner of Football Club Arges SA, who faced disciplinary action from the Romanian Football Federation (RFF) for statements he allegedly made about referees before a match against FC Vaslui during the 2008/09 season. These statements, published in Romanian sports media, implied that referees would favor the opposing team, referencing past incidents. The RFF Disciplinary Commission initially imposed a six-month suspension and a fine of RON 300,000, citing violations of Article 52 of the RFF Disciplinary Regulations, which prohibits statements harming another person's honor, reputation, dignity, or public image. The RFF Appeals Commission later reduced the fine to RON 150,000 but upheld the suspension. Penescu denied the accuracy of the reported statements, arguing they were misrepresented by the media to stir controversy. He appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking annulment of the sanctions.
The CAS Sole Arbitrator, Bernhard Welten, examined jurisdiction, admissibility, and the merits of the case. Jurisdiction was confirmed under Article R47 of the Code of Sports-related Arbitration and RFF statutes, as the appeal was timely filed. The arbitrator found that while Penescu’s remarks were critical and possibly exaggerated, they did not constitute an attack on the referees' honor or dignity under the RFF Disciplinary Regulations. The discussion of refereeing performances was deemed a normal part of football discourse, even if controversial. Notably, the original articles containing Penescu's statements were not provided in the case file, only a translated version from another newspaper, raising doubts about their accuracy. Penescu contested the published statements and issued a press release to clarify his position. The RFF Disciplinary Commission had reviewed an audio recording of Penescu's statements, but this evidence was not submitted to the arbitrator, further undermining the RFF's case.
The arbitrator emphasized that the burden of proof lay with the RFF to substantiate the disciplinary charges. Given the lack of conclusive evidence—such as the missing audio recording or any complaint from the referee mentioned in the statements—the arbitrator ruled that the RFF failed to meet this burden. Additionally, the arbitrator concluded that even if the statements were as published, they did not violate Article 52, as criticism of referees is a common and accepted aspect of football and did not harm the referee's honor or reputation. The decision highlighted the importance of distinguishing between harsh criticism and actionable offenses under football regulations.
Ultimately, the CAS annulled the RFF Appeals Commission’s decision, lifting Penescu’s suspension and fine. The ruling underscored the balance between freedom of expression in sports and the need to protect individuals from defamatory remarks. It also reinforced the principle that disciplinary measures must align with specific legal definitions of misconduct, and in this case, the statements did not meet the threshold for sanctionable offenses. The CAS ordered any fines paid to the RFF to be returned to Penescu and rejected all other claims for relief. The decision reflects the tolerance for post-match criticism within football, provided it does not cross into personal offense or defamation.