The case involves a legal dispute between S.C. Sporting Club S.A. Vaslui (the Club) and FIFA, adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The conflict arose from the Club's failure to comply with a FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) decision, which ordered the Club to pay outstanding remuneration and compensation to player Marko Ljubinkovic for breach of contract, totaling EUR 481,535 plus interest. The Club appealed to CAS, which upheld the DRC's ruling in June 2011. Concurrently, the Romanian Professional Football League (RPFL) issued a decision favoring the Club, ordering the player to pay EUR 502,458.50. The Club argued that these mutual debts should offset each other under Romanian law, but FIFA's Disciplinary Committee (DC) disregarded the RPFL decision, focusing solely on enforcing the CAS award. The FIFA DC found the Club guilty of non-compliance under Article 64 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code, imposing a CHF 25,000 fine and a 30-day grace period for payment, with a six-point deduction threat for non-compliance.
The Club appealed to CAS, challenging FIFA's jurisdiction and arguing that the dispute should be governed by Romanian law, citing the RPFL decision and a Romanian civil court ruling. The Club also proposed paying the owed amount into an escrow account under FIFA’s control, but FIFA refused. FIFA maintained that the proceedings were governed by its regulations and Swiss law, dismissing the relevance of Romanian law and emphasizing that the RPFL decision was non-compliant with FIFA regulations. The CAS Panel, constituted in January 2012, proceeded without a hearing, relying on written submissions. The Club sought to nullify the FIFA DC decision and recover legal costs, while FIFA requested the appeal’s dismissal.
The CAS Panel confirmed its jurisdiction based on FIFA statutes and the CAS Code, ruling that the dispute was governed by FIFA regulations and subsidiarily by Swiss law. It emphasized that its review was limited to assessing compliance with the prior CAS decision, not revisiting the merits of the original dispute. The Panel rejected the Club’s argument about offsetting debts, citing the principle of lis pendens to avoid conflicting awards. It upheld the FIFA DC’s enforcement of the CAS decision, disregarding the RPFL ruling, and dismissed the Club’s appeal. The case underscores the hierarchical authority of FIFA and CAS in football disputes, the binding nature of CAS decisions, and the importance of avoiding parallel proceedings that could lead to conflicting outcomes. The ruling reinforces the finality of CAS decisions and FIFA’s role in enforcing them, irrespective of national legal decisions.