The case involves a dispute between C.S. Concordia Chiajna, the Romanian Football Federation (RFF), and S.C.F.C. Rapid S.A. regarding the licensing system and the allocation of a vacant spot in the first division of the Romanian Football Championship for the 2013/2014 season. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) rendered its final award on 10 October 2013, with the operative part issued on 2 August 2013. The sole arbitrator, Dr. Marco Balmelli, addressed key legal principles, including the validity of rule amendments and the prohibition of arbitrary treatment by national football associations. The dispute arose when Rapid was denied a first-division license due to financial insolvency and outstanding debts, as confirmed by the RFF appeal body on 10 May 2013. This decision became final as Rapid did not challenge it further. Concordia, having finished 15th in the previous season (the first relegated team), contested a subsequent RFF decision on 6 July 2013, which amended the rules to allow a knockout match between Concordia and Rapid to fill the 18th spot in the first division. Rapid won the match on 13 July 2013, prompting Concordia to file an appeal with CAS on 11 July 2013, seeking an urgent suspension of the decision to prevent irreparable harm.
CAS initially rejected Concordia’s request for provisional measures, noting that no irreparable harm had yet occurred. The case proceeded under an expedited procedure, with a hearing held on 31 July 2013. The arbitrator emphasized that rule amendments generally apply prospectively unless proven otherwise and highlighted the established practice that unlicensed clubs cannot compete in the first division. Historically, vacant spots were filled by the best-ranked licensed team relegated in the previous season. The arbitrator also underscored that national federations, due to their monopoly status, must ensure clear, non-arbitrary decisions and equal treatment of all clubs. The RFF had a rule stating that vacant spots in a higher division should be filled by the best-ranking clubs from those relegated in the previous season, a rule withdrawn in 2011 but reinstated on 6 July 2013. However, the RFF deviated from this rule and common practice by allowing Rapid, an unlicensed and insolvent club, to play in the first division without providing a plausible legal basis or justification.
The CAS found that the RFF's decision was arbitrary and violated the principle of equal treatment, as other clubs without licenses had not been allowed to play in the first division in previous years. The RFF also disregarded an irrevocable decision by its own appeal body and lacked the authority to order a knockout match under the amended rules. The arbitrator concluded that a team without a license cannot play in the first division and ruled in favor of Concordia, annulling the RFF's decision and ordering Concordia to be registered in the first division for the 2013/2014 season in place of Rapid. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to established rules and ensuring equal treatment of all clubs under the RFF's jurisdiction, reinforcing the integrity of the licensing system and procedural fairness in sports governance.