The case involves a protracted legal dispute between FC Politehnica Timisoara (the Appellant) and the Romanian Football Federation (RFF) along with SC FC Timisoara (the Respondents), centered on compliance with prior decisions by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The initial conflict arose from allegations that SC FC Timisoara's name, colors, and logo created confusion with FC Politehnica Timisoara, violating the latter's personality rights. The first CAS award (2006/A/1109) mandated SC FC Timisoara to change its name, cease using similar branding, and pay compensation. Partial compliance led to further disputes, resulting in a second CAS award (2007/A/1355), which reinforced the earlier rulings and imposed additional conditions, including financial penalties and point deductions for non-compliance. The case underscores CAS's jurisdiction over FIFA decisions and the binding nature of its awards (res judicata).
Subsequent proceedings revealed ongoing disputes over club identity, financial obligations, and regulatory enforcement. In 2008, SC FC Timisoara was fined and ordered to reimburse FC Politehnica Timisoara, with a six-point deduction threatened for non-compliance. Although the club changed its name and colors, FIFA later deemed the color change insufficient, enforcing the point deduction. The club's appeal was rejected due to procedural issues, but a 2009 CAS ruling partially upheld the appeal, canceling the point deduction while allowing financial penalties. FIFA later closed disciplinary proceedings after the club made payments, but FC Politehnica Timisoara filed another appeal in 2009, seeking enforcement of prior awards, including compensation for matches played and compliance with branding restrictions.
The dispute escalated with conflicting claims over the club's identity and financial liabilities. FC Timisoara argued the appeal was inadmissible and sought legal cost reimbursement, while Asociata Sportiva "Fotbal Club Politehnica Timisoara" (ASFC) intervened, claiming ownership of the club's historical rights and requesting authorization for FC Timisoara to use them. The CAS panel faced complex jurisdictional and procedural questions, including whether FIFA's 2009 letter halting enforcement constituted an appealable decision. The panel affirmed its jurisdiction over the appeal but rejected the counterclaim and joinder request, applying FIFA's regulations and Swiss law.
On the merits, the panel found the first and second CAS awards binding but noted the third award did not apply to the appellant. The appellant failed to prove non-payment of compensation, leading the panel to uphold FIFA's decision to close the case. The panel dismissed broader allegations as outside the appeal's scope and highlighted procedural flaws, such as improperly targeting FIFA's decision instead of the Disciplinary Committee's ruling. Ultimately, the panel dismissed the admissible part of the appeal, upheld FIFA's 2009 decision, and rejected all other claims. The case illustrates the complexities of sports arbitration, emphasizing procedural adherence and the finality of arbitral decisions under Swiss law.