The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) issued a ruling on July 16, 2010, in a dispute between an Italian football coach, referred to as N., and S.C.F.C. Universitatea Craiova (the Club) and the Romanian Football Federation (RFF). The case stemmed from disciplinary sanctions imposed by the Club on N. after his employment contract had ended. The CAS panel, composed of Lars Hilliger, Jean-Philippe Rochat, and Clifford Hendel, addressed several legal issues, including jurisdictional matters, procedural fairness, and the validity of the disciplinary actions taken against N.
The dispute began when a Romanian newspaper published an interview allegedly given by N., in which he commented on the Club and its management. The Club claimed the interview was unauthorized and imposed an €18,000 fine on N., citing a breach of his contract, which prohibited press interviews without written approval. N. denied giving the interview, and questions arose about whether the Club’s decision was properly delivered to him. The Club submitted the decision to the Romanian Professional Football League’s (RPFL) Disciplinary Committee, which upheld the sanction without providing reasons, as N. did not attend the hearing. N. appealed to the RPFL Appeal Commission, which dismissed his appeal, arguing it was inadmissible because he had not first requested the reasons for the initial decision.
N. then filed an appeal with CAS, seeking to overturn the Club’s decision and the RPFL rulings, as well as demanding payment of contractual bonuses, salaries, and compensation for damages. The Club challenged the appointment of one of the arbitrators, but the challenge was rejected. The RFF argued it lacked jurisdiction, as disciplinary matters fell under the RPFL’s authority. A hearing took place on May 20, 2010, where N. confirmed he had no objections to the proceedings.
The CAS panel clarified that the RPFL was a separate legal entity from the RFF, meaning the RFF could not be sued for decisions made by the RPFL. It emphasized the importance of procedural fairness, noting that the RPFL Committee failed to inform N. of his right to request reasons for their decision, a violation of RFF regulations. The panel also confirmed its authority under Article R57 of the CAS Code to issue a new decision instead of referring the case back, citing procedural efficiency.
On the substantive issue, the panel examined whether the Club had the authority to impose the fine after N.’s contract had ended. N. claimed he was dismissed on May 15, 2009, while the Club argued the contract expired on June 30, 2009. The panel found that disciplinary authority over an employee ceases after termination unless specific post-contractual obligations exist, which were absent in this case. The contract’s clause prohibiting unauthorized interviews applied only during employment, and the Club failed to prove the interview occurred while the contract was still active. The panel concluded the fine was unjustified and annulled the Club’s decision.
The CAS upheld N.’s appeal in part, setting aside the RPFL Appeal Commission’s decision and annulling the fine. However, it dismissed N.’s claims for unpaid bonuses and other contractual benefits, as these had not been raised in prior proceedings. The ruling underscored the limits of employer authority post-employment and the importance of procedural fairness in disciplinary actions. The case highlighted the need for clear communication of procedural rights and the jurisdictional boundaries between sports governing bodies.