The case involves a dispute between CS Pandurii Lignitul TG Jiu, a Romanian football club, and the Romanian Football Federation (RFF) regarding the club's licensing for the 2020/21 season. The RFF initially denied the club a license due to unresolved financial obligations, specifically an outstanding debt to a former coach. The RFF Disciplinary Committee upheld this decision, but the club later entered into a settlement agreement with the coach, leading the RFF Appeal Committee to reverse the denial and grant the license, imposing a financial penalty. However, the coach later claimed he had not signed the agreement, prompting the RFF Secretary General to request a revision of the decision. Although the coach withdrew his objection after receiving full payment, the RFF Appeal Committee revoked the license, reinstating the original denial. The club appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing the RFF's actions violated the principle of legality, which requires lower-level regulations to align with higher-ranking norms.
The CAS examined whether the RFF's internal remedies had been exhausted, noting that extraordinary remedies like revision requests are not required under its rules. The sole arbitrator emphasized that associations must operate within their statutes and higher legal norms. The case highlighted tensions between procedural fairness and regulatory compliance in sports governance, particularly when decisions are revisited based on new evidence. The club argued the revision request was premature, as the initial decision was still subject to appeal, and contested the RFF's authority to file for revision under its regulations. The RFF defended its actions, citing the club's history of financial difficulties and alleging the settlement agreement was fraudulent.
The CAS found the RFF's revision request inadmissible, as the decision was not yet final and irrevocable due to the pending appeal. The arbitrator noted inconsistencies in the RFF's application of its regulations and concluded the revision did not meet the criteria for a "more favorable decision" under the RFF Disciplinary Regulations. The CAS annulled the RFF Appeal Committee's later decision, reinstating the original August 2020 decision that granted the license and imposed a fine. The ruling underscored the importance of hierarchical legal norms in sports governance and clarified the limitations on revision requests. The CAS emphasized the RFF could have pursued other legal avenues, such as filing an appeal or initiating disciplinary proceedings, but its chosen course of action was improper.
Ultimately, the CAS upheld the club's appeal, reinstated the earlier decision, and dismissed all other motions. The case demonstrates the procedural complexities of sports arbitration and the need for clarity in regulatory frameworks to ensure fairness and consistency in decision-making. The final award reinforced the principle that internal legal remedies must be exhausted before external arbitration, but only ordinary remedies are mandatory under CAS jurisdiction. The decision also highlighted the consequences of submitting questionable documentation and the importance of adhering to financial and procedural requirements in sports licensing. The ruling resolved the dispute by affirming the club's eligibility for the license while addressing the regulatory and procedural issues raised by both parties.