The case involves FC Otelul Galati S.A. (the Club) appealing against a decision by the Romanian Football Federation (RFF) and Codoban Tatar Ionel (the Agent) regarding unpaid financial obligations. The dispute arose from unpaid fees owed by the Club to the Agent for services rendered under several contracts, including a Payment Agreement and three representation contracts. The Agent filed a claim with the RFF's National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC), which ruled in favor of the Agent on 3 April 2012. The Club acknowledged the debt but did not appeal the decision, making it final and binding by 9 April 2012. Despite warnings, the Club failed to meet the 30-day payment deadline, prompting the RFF Disciplinary Commission to impose sanctions, including a transfer ban and a points deduction.
On 9 May 2012, the Club and Agent privately signed a Debt Rescheduling Agreement, stipulating payment in two installments by July 2012. This agreement was not disclosed to the Disciplinary Commission, which proceeded to issue sanctions on 30 May 2012. The Club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the RFF failed to apply mandatory FIFA rules. The CAS panel, led by Sole Arbitrator Manfred Nan, clarified key legal principles: CAS does not have a general power to review national regulations unless they conflict with FIFA provisions; FIFA rules are not automatically applicable at the national level unless incorporated into the federation's regulations; CAS operates as an independent judicial body conducting a full review of the merits; and parties may introduce new evidence on appeal unless done in bad faith.
The CAS upheld the RFF's decision, emphasizing that the Club had acknowledged the debt and failed to comply with the NDRC's ruling. The private Debt Rescheduling Agreement did not absolve the Club of its obligations under the enforceable NDRC decision, especially since it was not presented to the Disciplinary Commission in a timely manner. The Club argued that the RFF Disciplinary Commission lacked jurisdiction and misapplied regulations, but the CAS found that the RFF's amended regulations, published on its official website, granted the Disciplinary Commission proper authority. The Club also contended that the sanctions were disproportionate and violated FIFA's gradual sanctioning system, but the CAS noted that FIFA's rules set minimal requirements, allowing national associations to adopt stricter measures.
The CAS rejected the Club's claims of procedural flaws and bad faith, highlighting the Club's failure to disclose the Debt Rescheduling Agreement to the RFF authorities. The Sole Arbitrator concluded that the RFF's sanctions were justified under its regulations and dismissed the appeal, upholding the point deduction and transfer ban. The case underscores the importance of adhering to contractual and regulatory obligations in football governance and the limited scope for challenging national federation decisions unless they violate higher-level rules. The CAS's decision reinforces the authority of football governing bodies to enforce financial discipline and the necessity for clubs to act transparently and in good faith during disciplinary proceedings.