The case revolves around Adrian Mititelu Marin, the President of Football Club Universitatea Craiova, who appealed against the disciplinary sanctions imposed by the Romanian Football Federation (RFF) for his public statements criticizing the performance of referees in a league match against Steaua Bucuresti. The sanctions included a seven-month suspension and a fine of RON 300,000, based on RFF Disciplinary Regulations, particularly art. 52 para. 5, which penalizes statements prejudicial to football without substantiation.
Marin's statements, published in various media outlets, accused the referees of favoring Steaua Bucuresti during the match, which ended in a 0:0 draw. He criticized the referee Alexandru Tudor and assistant referee Aurel Onita for their decisions during the game, suggesting bias and incompetence. Following these statements, the RFF Disciplinary Commission initiated proceedings against Marin, resulting in the aforementioned sanctions. Marin appealed to the RFF Appeals Commission, which dismissed his appeal, leading him to bring the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS, led by Sole Arbitrator Mr. Bernhard Welten, examined the jurisdiction, admissibility, and merits of the dispute. The jurisdiction was established based on the RFF Statutes and the Code of Sports-related Arbitration, with the appeal deemed admissible within the 21-day deadline. On the merits, the Sole Arbitrator found that while Marin's statements were critical of the referees' performance, they did not constitute an unequivocal prejudice to the image of football as interpreted by the RFF Disciplinary and Appeals Commissions. The Arbitrator highlighted the context of heightened sensitivity to referee performance in Romanian football due to a recent bribery scandal, suggesting that Marin's statements were not beyond the bounds of typical football discourse.
Ultimately, the CAS ruled in favor of Marin, upholding his appeal. The decision issued by the RFF Appeals Commission was annulled, and Marin was not subjected to any sanctions. The ruling emphasized the importance of distinguishing between critical commentary on specific game events and statements that genuinely prejudice the sport. This case underscores the nuanced interpretation of disciplinary regulations in the context of sports administration and the protection of individuals' rights to express criticism within reasonable bounds.