The case involves a dispute between professional football player Cinu Gabriel and S.C. Sporting Club S.A. (FC Vaslui), along with the Romanian Professional Football League (RPFL), adjudicated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) under sole arbitrator Markus Manninen. The conflict arose from contractual and disciplinary issues after Gabriel signed a one-year contract with FC Vaslui in August 2012, which stipulated a €120,000 net salary in 12 installments. In October 2012, Gabriel suffered an injury, leading to a 14-day treatment. Despite medical clearance after an MRI in December 2012, Gabriel claimed he was still unfit to play, prompting a contractual dispute. He petitioned the RPFL's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) in January 2013, seeking contract termination and unpaid salaries. The DRC ruled in his favor, ordering FC Vaslui to pay €60,000. Both parties appealed, and the Appeal Committee (AC) increased the award to €90,608. FC Vaslui failed to pay the advance costs for a CAS appeal, making the AC decision binding.
Simultaneously, FC Vaslui initiated disciplinary proceedings against Gabriel for refusing to play, imposing a financial penalty of 25% of his yearly salary. The RPFL's Disciplinary Committee dismissed the club's claim, and the AC upheld this decision due to procedural non-compliance. FC Vaslui did not appeal but later filed a motion for revision, which Gabriel contested as untimely under the RFF Disciplinary Code. The CAS examined the case, emphasizing its limited jurisdiction to the facts and law in the appealed decision. The arbitrator noted that a defending party must have a direct interest in the dispute to be sued. The prerequisites for revising a decision under the RFF Disciplinary Code include discovering new evidence that could not have been found earlier, submitted within 10 days of acknowledgment.
The dispute escalated through various arbitration and appeal processes. Initially, the AC issued Decision no. 150, which FC Vaslui did not appeal within the 21-day limit. However, the club later filed a motion to revise this decision, arguing for a reversal and requesting a 25% penalty on Gabriel's contract. Gabriel contested the motion as inadmissible, citing late filing and procedural issues. The AC dismissed his objections and granted the club's motion, ratifying the disciplinary sanction. Gabriel then appealed to CAS, filing a Statement of Appeal against the AC's Decision no. 168. The CAS proceedings involved disputes over the number of arbitrators, with the club and RPFL preferring a three-member panel, while the CAS President appointed a sole arbitrator.
The case highlighted jurisdictional disputes, with Gabriel arguing CAS had jurisdiction under Article 36.17 of the RFF's Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), while FC Vaslui contended the dispute should be resolved by the National Committee for Sports Disputes (NCSD) under Romanian law. The Sole Arbitrator ruled CAS had jurisdiction, as the RFF's regulations explicitly allowed appeals to CAS, and Gabriel complied with procedural requirements. The arbitrator dismissed FC Vaslui's argument, emphasizing the parties' agreement to CAS jurisdiction under RFF regulations.
The central issue was whether FC Vaslui's motion for revision was valid, particularly regarding the timing of their receipt of an MRI report. Gabriel argued the club had access to the report much earlier, while FC Vaslui claimed it only obtained the report on June 19, 2013, one day before filing the motion. The arbitrator found FC Vaslui likely possessed the MRI results soon after the November 2012 examination, casting doubt on the club's claim of late discovery. The arbitrator concluded FC Vaslui's motion to revise was unfounded, as the club had long been aware of the MRI results and failed to demonstrate newly discovered evidence.
Ultimately, the Sole Arbitrator upheld Gabriel's appeal, set aside the appealed decision, and rejected FC Vaslui's motion to revise the earlier ruling. The CAS partially upheld Gabriel's appeal, emphasizing FC Vaslui's failure to meet the necessary conditions for a revision and the unjustified disciplinary actions. The case underscores the complexities of sports arbitration, jurisdictional conflicts, and the importance of procedural correctness in resolving contractual and disciplinary disputes.