The case revolves around a legal dispute between FC Sportul Studentesc SA, a Romanian football club, and several players, including Valentin Marius Lazar, Daniel-Cornel Lung, Sebastian Marinel Ghinga, Leonard Dobre, Octavian Dorin Ormenisan, Sebastian Cioranu Codrut, and Andrei Lungu. The conflict arose from unpaid salaries and the players' termination of their contracts between 2010 and 2011. In 2013, the Romanian Football Federation's National Dispute Resolution Chamber (RFF NDRC) ruled in favor of the players, ordering the club to pay outstanding salaries and recognizing the termination of their contracts. The club appealed, but the Romanian Football Federation Appeal Committee largely upheld the decisions in March 2015, only modifying the amount owed to Codrut. The club then took the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing that the salaries had been paid in 2012 and presenting new payment slips as evidence. However, CAS dismissed the appeal in March 2014, upholding the earlier decisions and rejecting the late submission of payment slips under Article R57 of the CAS Code.
The principle of res judicata, a legal doctrine preventing relitigation of the same issue once a final decision has been made, was central to the case. The CAS panel found that the club's new claims were barred by res judicata because they involved the same parties, object, and cause as the earlier proceedings. The club's attempt to introduce new evidence was rejected, as it could have been presented during the initial proceedings. The panel emphasized that the identity of claims is determined by their substance, not just their wording, and that the club's arguments had either already been addressed or could have been raised earlier.
In July 2014, the club filed new claims with the RFF NDRC, alleging overpayment and seeking reimbursement from the players under the doctrine of unlawful enrichment. These claims were also rejected by the RFF NDRC and the Appeal Committee, which cited res judicata, as the matter had already been conclusively decided by CAS. The club appealed again to CAS in April 2015, but the sole arbitrator upheld the prior rulings, reinforcing the finality of the earlier CAS decision. The arbitrator confirmed that the CAS Award 2014 was binding when the club filed its new claims, despite a partial annulment by the Swiss Federal Tribunal concerning three players, which did not affect the current proceedings. The arbitrator concluded that the new claims involved the same factual question—whether the club had paid salaries from February 2012 to January 2013—which had already been adjudicated.
The club's argument that the new claims were based on unlawful enrichment was dismissed, as resolving them would require re-examining the same factual issue already decided. The arbitrator ruled that allowing the new claims would risk contradictory rulings and interfere with ongoing proceedings for the three players whose case was reopened. Ultimately, the arbitrator upheld the Appeal Committee’s decision, ruling that the club’s new claims were barred by res judicata and dismissing the appeals. The case underscores the strict application of legal principles in sports arbitration to ensure procedural fairness and finality in dispute resolution, highlighting the importance of presenting all relevant evidence and arguments in initial proceedings.