The case involves a dispute between two Romanian football clubs, S.C. FC Sportul Studentesc SA (Appellant) and Asociatia Club Sportiv Rapid CFR Suceava (Respondent), over disciplinary sanctions imposed by the Romanian Football Federation (RFF). The Appellant challenged an RFF Appeal Commission decision that declared its revision application inadmissible for missing the ten-day filing deadline. The Appellant argued new evidence proved its initial appeal was timely, but the Appeal Commission dismissed the request. The case escalated to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), where the Appellant sought to overturn the RFF's decisions and avoid reimbursing the Respondent's travel expenses.
The CAS proceedings were governed by Swiss law, applying the principle jura novit curia, meaning the tribunal independently interprets and applies the law. The case also addressed standing under Swiss law, requiring a party to be personally obligated by the disputed right to be a proper defendant. Initially, the Appellant named the RFF as a respondent but later clarified it was contesting only the decision involving the Respondent club. The dispute stemmed from a canceled match between the clubs, rescheduled due to the Appellant's alleged unpaid financial obligations. The RFF Disciplinary Commission ordered the Appellant to reimburse the Respondent's expenses, a decision upheld as the Appellant's appeal was deemed untimely.
The CAS procedure involved appointing a sole arbitrator despite the RFF's objection. The Appellant filed its appeal brief late, citing administrative errors, and corrected its initial misidentification of the RFF as a respondent. The CAS Court Office managed procedural steps, including extensions and communications. The Respondent refused to pay its share of costs, calling the procedure "abusive," and failed to meet deadlines, leading to multiple extensions. A hearing was scheduled, but only the Appellant attended, where it argued the ten-day review deadline was misapplied and sought to overturn the decision barring its participation in the second division championship.
The CAS confirmed jurisdiction under Article R47 of its Code, which allows appeals against sports bodies' decisions if statutory remedies are exhausted. The Appellant cited Article 36.17 of Romanian Regulations, permitting CAS appeals within 21 days of communication. The Sole Arbitrator found the appeal admissible, meeting CAS Code requirements, and determined the applicable law was RFF and Romanian Professional Football League regulations, with Romanian law as subsidiary. However, the Arbitrator noted the appeal should have targeted the RFF, not the Respondent, as the RFF issued the contested decision and the proceedings did not directly affect the Respondent. The absence of the RFF raised due process concerns, as it could not defend its position.
Ultimately, the CAS dismissed the appeal, ruling the Respondent lacked standing to be sued, rendering the Appellant's claims meritless. The RFF Appeal Commission's September 19, 2013, decision was upheld, and all other motions were rejected. The case underscored procedural complexities in sports arbitration, including jurisdictional issues, standing, and the application of Swiss legal principles in international disputes. The ruling confirmed the original decision, concluding the Appellant's arguments were unfounded and no further action was necessary. The case was resolved in favor of the Respondent, with the initial decision remaining in effect.