The case revolves around a dispute between Stefan Crisan, a professional football coach, and S.C. F.C. Universitatea Craiova, a Romanian football club, concerning the termination of Crisan’s employment contract and unpaid salaries. The conflict began when Crisan was laid off in January 2009 without explanation. He subsequently filed claims with the National Chamber for the Settlement of Disputes (CNSL) within the Romanian Football Federation (FRF) on 17 March 2009, seeking unpaid salaries and damages. The CNSL partially ruled in his favor on 23 April 2009, ordering the club to pay a residual amount. The club appealed this decision to the Court of Arbitration for Football (CAF) but failed to pay the required fee, resulting in the dismissal of its appeal on 21 May 2009. Meanwhile, Crisan filed another motion with the Commission for Solving Litigations (CSL) within the Romanian Professional Football League, requesting contract termination and full salary payments until June 2010. This claim was rejected on 25 August 2009, and his appeal to the Appeal Commission (ACSL) was also denied on 18 September 2009.
Crisan had already appealed the CNSL’s 23 April 2009 decision to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 16 May 2009, seeking annulment of the CNSL ruling and payment of salaries and compensation. On 9 October 2009, he attempted to include the ACSL’s 18 September 2009 decision in his existing CAS appeal. The CAS questioned its jurisdiction, as it must be explicitly recognized in the statutes or regulations of the sports body whose decision is being appealed. Crisan argued that CAS jurisdiction derived from specific articles in the FRF statutes, while the club contested this, citing other FRF regulations.
The CAS panel examined whether Crisan had exhausted all internal legal remedies before appealing to CAS, noting that an independent arbitration tribunal under FRF rules was available. The panel also found it procedurally inadmissible to include a later decision (ACSL’s 18 September 2009 ruling) in an earlier appeal (CAS appeal of 16 May 2009), as appeal proceedings require the contested decision to be clearly identified at the outset. The panel ultimately ruled on jurisdiction, stressing the necessity of exhausting internal remedies and the procedural inadmissibility of merging separate appeals.
In a separate jurisdictional analysis, the CAS Panel reviewed its authority under FIFA and CAS regulations, concluding that the FRF Statutes did not explicitly grant CAS jurisdiction over appeals against CNSL decisions. Instead, Article 56(1)(c) of the FRF Statutes designated the CAF as the final appellate body, explicitly excluding CAS jurisdiction. The Panel also noted that Crisan had not exhausted internal remedies by failing to appeal the CNSL decision to the CAF before approaching CAS.
The Panel dismissed both appeals, citing lack of jurisdiction over the first and procedural flaws in the second. The ruling highlights the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and exhausting internal remedies before seeking external arbitration. The case underscores the jurisdictional boundaries between CAS and national sports arbitration bodies under FIFA and FRF regulations.