The case involves S.C. FC Steaua Bucuresti (the Club) and Mirel Radoi (the Second Appellant) appealing against a decision by the Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The dispute originated from UEFA's allegations that the Club and Mr. Radoi violated UEFA regulations by allowing Mr. Radoi, who lacked the required coaching qualifications, to act as a head coach during UEFA Champions League matches, despite his formal title as Sporting Director. UEFA's Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body (CEDB) initially imposed sanctions, including fines and a ban on Mr. Radoi from performing coaching functions until he met the necessary qualifications. The Club appealed this decision to the UEFA Appeals Body, which declared the appeal inadmissible due to the late filing of the grounds of appeal and the appeal fee.
The key issue before the CAS was whether the Club's appeal to the UEFA Appeals Body was filed on time. The Club argued it had submitted the appeal documents by registered mail on September 22, 2015, within the deadline, while UEFA contended that the submission was only received on September 23, 2015, making it late. The CAS Sole Arbitrator ruled that the Club failed to provide conclusive evidence proving the appeal was filed on September 22, and thus the appeal was deemed inadmissible due to the late submission. The Arbitrator emphasized that in cases where the filing date is disputed, the appellant must provide reliable and unequivocal evidence to establish compliance with deadlines. Since the Club could not definitively prove the earlier filing date, the appeal was dismissed.
The case further involved a dispute over the submission date of the Statement of Appeal to the CAS. The Appellants claimed they had filed it on October 5, 2015, evidenced by a stamped envelope and a handwritten note from a Romanian Post Office (RPO) employee. However, UEFA contested this, arguing that the document was posted on October 7, 2015, as indicated by conflicting date stamps and an online tracking service provided by the RPO. The Sole Arbitrator found the Appellants' evidence unreliable due to discrepancies and lack of verification, while UEFA's evidence, including the RPO’s online tracking service, was deemed more credible. Despite multiple opportunities to clarify, the Appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim of timely submission.
The Sole Arbitrator concluded that the appeal was filed late, rendering it inadmissible under Article 63 of the UEFA Statutes and Article R32 of the CAS Code. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the UEFA Appeals Body’s decision was upheld. The ruling underscored the importance of strict adherence to procedural deadlines in sports arbitration and the burden on appellants to provide clear and credible evidence of timely submissions. The case highlights the procedural complexities and evidentiary challenges in determining submission deadlines in arbitration proceedings. The final decision reinforced the need for meticulous compliance with regulatory requirements to avoid dismissal on procedural grounds.