The case involves a dispute before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) between the Association Ecole de Football Miroslav Giuchici (the Appellant), SC Fotbal Club Timisoara (Timisoara), and SC Dinamo 1948 (Dinamo). The dispute arose from the Appellant's claim for a solidarity payment of €100,000 related to the transfer of a player, T., from Timisoara to Dinamo in 2008. The Appellant argued it had acquired the rights to this payment through a transfer agreement with SC Srbianka Giuchici, the player's former club, which included T. among the listed players. The Appellant contended this agreement transferred all financial and sporting rights, granting it standing to pursue the claim.
The Romanian Football Federation's Commission initially rejected the claim, ruling the Appellant lacked procedural standing as it was not a party to the original proceedings before the National Dispute Resolution Chamber. The Commission emphasized the Appellant could not substitute itself for Srbianka Giuchici, the original claimant, and noted key procedural documents were missing. The Appellant appealed to CAS, arguing it validly acquired the rights through the transfer agreement and had participated in the initial proceedings by paying required fees.
Timisoara defended its position by asserting the Appellant lacked standing as a separate legal entity from Srbianka Giuchici and had not been involved in the first-instance proceedings. Dinamo argued the claim was time-barred under FRF regulations and that the Appellant had no rights over the player’s transfer. Both respondents sought dismissal of the appeal.
The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators from Switzerland, Greece, and France, examined whether the Appellant had legal standing to bring the appeal and whether the solidarity payment claim was valid. The key issue was whether the transfer agreement granted the Appellant the right to act independently in the appeal despite not being a party to the original proceedings. The panel upheld the Commission's decision, ruling the Appellant lacked procedural standing. It concluded the transfer agreement did not authorize the Appellant to substitute the original claimant in the appeal, and paying fees did not establish standing. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Commission's decision that the claim was inadmissible.
The case highlights the importance of procedural requirements in sports arbitration, particularly regarding the transfer of rights and standing in dispute resolution. The Appellant's argument that paying fees granted standing was rejected, as the payment alone did not confer legal rights, especially since the original party, Srbianka Giuchici, was the only entity entitled to appeal. The panel found no evidence supporting the Appellant's claim and noted its failure to demonstrate participation in the initial proceedings. Consequently, the substantive issue of the solidarity payment remains unresolved, as the court did not address it. The CAS declared the appeal admissible but ultimately dismissed it, upholding the Romanian Football Federation's decision and rejecting all other claims by the parties.