The case involves Clubul Sportiv Municipal Râmnicu Vâlcea (CSM Râmnicu Vâlcea) challenging the Romanian Football Federation (RFF) and the Romanian Professional Football League (RPFL) over the promotion and relegation rules in the Romanian football league system. The dispute arose after the 2013-2014 season, during which CSM Râmnicu Vâlcea competed in Liga 2, finishing third in its group. CS Universitatea Craiova and ASA 2013 Târgu Mureș secured the top two spots and were promoted to Liga 1. CSM Râmnicu Vâlcea contested the promotion, arguing that the RFF amended its statutes after the season ended, removing the "three-year rule" that previously required clubs to be affiliated with the RFF for at least three consecutive years to be eligible for promotion. The club claimed CS Universitatea Craiova did not meet this requirement under the old rules but was promoted under the new statutes, violating the principle of non-retroactivity. CSM Râmnicu Vâlcea sought annulment of the promotion decision and compensation of €1,000,000 for lost television rights revenue.
The RFF Disciplinary Committee rejected the club's claims, ruling that CSM Râmnicu Vâlcea lacked standing to request promotion, as vacancies due to promotion failures would be filled by relegated teams or left vacant. The Committee also dismissed the monetary claim due to lack of jurisdiction. The RFF Appeal Committee upheld this decision, stating that only the RFF Secretary General could petition for disputes related to promotion and relegation. CSM Râmnicu Vâlcea then appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), seeking annulment of the RFF Appeal Committee's decision and its own promotion to Liga 1 for the 2015-2016 season, along with financial compensation.
The CAS ruled on several key legal principles. It emphasized the fundamental importance of the promotion/relegation system in European football and addressed the issue of standing, stating that a party must have a direct and present interest in the outcome of a case to sue. The CAS found that CSM Râmnicu Vâlcea lacked standing because even if the appealed decision were annulled, there was no legal basis to promote the club to Liga 1. The CAS upheld the principle of non-retroactivity, ruling that rules governing promotion and relegation cannot be applied retroactively if they alter the legal position of clubs after a season has concluded. The tribunal noted that applying new rules retroactively would undermine the legitimate expectations of clubs that relied on the rules in force during the season. The CAS also clarified the limits of its review powers, stating it cannot adjudicate claims for compensation if the original appellate body lacked jurisdiction over monetary claims.
The Sole Arbitrator dismissed the appeal, concluding that CSM Râmnicu Vâlcea failed to demonstrate a "present interest" in annulling the decision, as there was no legal basis for its admission to the 2015-2016 Liga 1 competition under its new format. The Arbitrator also noted that the club did not establish that the dispute could arise again under similar circumstances, nor was there a significant public interest in resolving the issue. The decision underscored the importance of procedural fairness and the non-retroactive application of rules affecting team eligibility in sports competitions. The ruling reinforced the RFF's regulatory framework and the principles of sporting merit in determining league participation, finalizing the arbitration process with no further action required.