The case involves a dispute between JSC PFC Rostov (the Club) and the Russian Football Union (RFU) over the denial of a UEFA license for the 2014/2015 season. The Club initially applied for both RFU and UEFA licenses but was denied by the RFU Club Licensing Committee due to alleged non-compliance with financial criteria. On appeal, the RFU Club Licensing Appeal Committee granted the domestic license but upheld the denial of the UEFA license, imposing monetary sanctions. The Club then appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking an expedited decision to resolve the matter before the season began.
The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators from the Netherlands, Israel, and Italy, addressed several key legal issues. It clarified that while the RFU's general licensing process complied with UEFA standards, individual decisions could still deviate from requirements. The panel confirmed its authority under Article R57 of the CAS Code to review facts and law comprehensively, noting that procedural flaws could be remedied through a full rehearing. It also ruled that UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations (UEFA CL&FFPR) set minimum criteria, allowing national federations like the RFU to impose stricter rules, including classifying overdue payments to the federation itself as violations.
The dispute centered on whether the Club had overdue payables as of March 31, 2014, which the RFU claimed justified the license denial. The Club contested these allegations, arguing that some payments were deferred or mistakenly classified as overdue. For instance, the Club asserted that solidarity contributions for players like Margasov, Lepsky, and Belyaev were not yet due, as the 12-month period for claiming them had not elapsed by the deadline. The RFU countered that its regulations permitted stricter criteria and that the Club was aware of its financial obligations.
The panel examined each alleged violation, including overdue payments to employees, tax authorities, and extra-budgetary funds. It found that the Club had no overdue salaries or bonuses, as payments were deferred by agreement. Similarly, the pension fund had granted a deferral, and tax authorities confirmed no outstanding debts. The panel dismissed the RFU's claim that the Club violated criterion F.05 by submitting a representation letter late, noting it was actually submitted early. Regarding criterion F.06, the panel acknowledged the Club's late document submission but found the RFU's doubts about its financial viability unsupported by evidence.
Ultimately, the panel ruled that the Club's only violation was the late submission of documents under criterion F.06, which did not warrant denying the UEFA license. It upheld a fine of 400,000 rubles for this infraction but dismissed all other fines. The panel granted the Club a license for the 2014/2015 UEFA competitions, set aside the RFU's denial, and emphasized the need for transparent and fair procedures in licensing decisions. The case highlights the balance between national federations' autonomy and the necessity for predictable, constitutionally valid regulations, particularly when significant consequences like exclusion from competitions are at stake. The decision underscores CAS's role in ensuring due process and fairness in sports governance.