The case involves Sports Club "Gaz Metan" Medias appealing against disciplinary sanctions imposed by the Romanian Football Federation (RFF) and the Romanian Professional Football League (RPFL) for violating financial regulations. The dispute originated from a debt of €83,484 owed to Bulgarian club PSFC Chernomoretz Burgas, as ordered by FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) due to a player's breach of contract. The RFF Licensing Committee imposed a three-point deduction and a financial penalty for non-compliance with the Romanian Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations. The Appellant argued the debt did not qualify as an overdue payable under the regulations, but its appeal was rejected, leading to proceedings before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).
The CAS Sole Arbitrator examined two main issues: the admissibility of new documents submitted post-hearing and whether the debt qualified as an overdue payable under the RFF Licensing Regulations. The Arbitrator ruled against admitting the new documents, citing Article R56 of the CAS Code, which permits such submissions only under exceptional circumstances. On the substantive issue, the Arbitrator referenced UEFA's interpretation of similar regulations, concluding that debts arising from FIFA's Article 17 (player transfer disputes) do not qualify as overdue payables under financial fair play rules. Since the Romanian regulations aligned with UEFA's framework, the same interpretation applied.
The Appellant's arguments, including its ongoing insolvency proceedings and attempts to contact the Bulgarian club for payment details, were dismissed. The Arbitrator emphasized that the debt existed before the insolvency declaration and that financial discipline in football must be upheld. The RFF defended its sanctions, stating the debt was registered as overdue before the insolvency proceedings and that the Appellant failed to challenge the underlying FIFA decision. The RPFL supported the RFF's position, stressing the importance of financial fairness among clubs.
The CAS partially upheld the appeal, annulling the three-point deduction as the debt did not stem from transfer activities under the RFF Licensing Regulations. However, the fine for late financial reporting was upheld due to the Appellant's lack of a valid defense. The ruling highlighted the strict enforcement of financial monitoring in football and the limited grounds for challenging disciplinary measures. The case underscores the tension between national insolvency laws and football governing bodies' regulations, with the CAS balancing these competing interests while maintaining the sport's integrity. The final decision, issued on 9 August 2017, confirmed the earlier operative part of 15 February 2017, reinforcing the importance of compliance with financial fair play rules in football governance.