The case revolves around a legal dispute between Romanian professional football player Bobariu Sorin and C.S. Otopeni, a Romanian football club, along with the Romanian Football Federation (FRF). The conflict stemmed from the club's failure to pay the player's salary starting January 2011, leading the player to terminate his contract unilaterally on 18 August 2011, citing financial just cause. He sought compensation for unpaid salaries and breach of contract. The initial claim was filed with the FRF's National Dispute Resolution Chamber (CNSL), which partially upheld the player's claim, ordering the club to pay €8,000 for outstanding contractual rights but rejecting additional compensation under Article 18.9.1 of the FRF Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTJF). The player appealed to the FRF Recourse Commission, which upheld the CNSL's decision, stating that the compensation provisions under Article 18.9.1 RSTJF did not apply since the player, not the club, initiated the termination.
The legal issues centered on the interpretation of contractual obligations under FIFA and FRF regulations, particularly regarding unilateral termination and compensation. The tribunal noted that under Article 17 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), compensation applies regardless of whether the termination was unlawful or due to a serious breach of trust. However, unlike FIFA's RSTP, the FRF's RSTJF does not grant discretion in calculating compensation, mandating payment of the total financial rights due if the club is responsible for termination. The tribunal also emphasized the principle of damage mitigation, placing the burden on the breaching party to justify deductions.
The player's contract, valid from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2013, stipulated monthly salaries and adherence to FIFA, UEFA, and FRF regulations. The club's failure to pay salaries from January 2011 justified the player's termination under Article 18.10 RSTJF. However, the CNSL and Recourse Commission rejected the player's claim for additional compensation, arguing that the relevant provisions applied only to terminations initiated by the club during the protected period. The player then appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which confirmed its jurisdiction and reviewed the case based on written submissions. The Sole Arbitrator found the appeal admissible but ruled that the player lacked sufficient interest in his claim regarding the €8,000, as the Recourse Commission had already acknowledged it represented half of his dues for the specified period.
The Sole Arbitrator concluded that the club breached the contract by failing to pay the player's remuneration, justifying the termination. Under Article 18.9.1 of the RSTJF, the club was obligated to compensate the player for the total financial rights he would have been entitled to until the contract's natural expiry. The player claimed €36,500, representing his unpaid salary for the remaining contract period, which the Sole Arbitrator confirmed, noting the RSTJF's clear stipulations left no room for discretion. The club was ordered to pay the full amount.
The player also alleged that the FRF violated its own regulations by delaying proceedings and failing to notify him of the Recourse Commission's decision. The Sole Arbitrator acknowledged procedural delays but did not find the FRF liable for the club's breach or the player's inability to recover damages. The focus remained on the club's contractual obligations and the player's rightful termination due to non-payment. The Sole Arbitrator dismissed the player's claims against the FRF, ruling that the Romanian bodies were independent and impartial.
The final decision, issued on 10 April 2012, partially upheld the player's appeal, setting aside the Recourse Commission's decision and ordering the club to pay €36,500 in compensation. All other requests for relief were dismissed, closing the matter unless further appealed within the stipulated timeframe. The case underscores the complexities of contractual disputes in sports, particularly regarding unilateral termination, financial rights, and the interplay between regulatory frameworks and national law. It highlights the importance of contractual stability and the enforcement of financial obligations in professional football.