The case involves an appeal by Emilian Hulubei, president of the Romanian football players’ union (AFAN) and a member of the Executive Committee of the Romanian Football Federation (RFF), against decisions made by the RFF’s Executive Committee regarding the transfer of rights between football clubs in Romania. The dispute specifically concerns the transfers involving CSM Corona Brasov and ACS Dacia Unirea Braila, which were approved by the RFF’s Legal Department and subsequently ratified by the Executive Committee despite Hulubei’s opposition. Hulubei filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing procedural and substantive violations of the RFF Statutes and regulations.
The CAS addressed several legal questions, including Hulubei’s standing to sue, the validity of the RFF’s decisions, and the necessity of including affected clubs as co-respondents. The panel confirmed its jurisdiction under the RFF Statutes, which allow ExCo members to challenge decisions they opposed, provided their dissent was recorded. The appeal was deemed admissible as Hulubei filed within the required timeframe. However, the panel noted that the RFF alone could not adequately defend the substantive issues, as the appeal directly impacted the rights of the clubs involved—Corona Brasov, FC Brasov, ACS Dacia, and 1919 Dacia—who were not included in the proceedings.
Hulubei’s arguments centered on procedural breaches, such as the lack of prior documentation before the Executive Committee meeting, and substantive violations, including the alleged unlawful transfer of participation rights between clubs. The RFF countered that the decisions were unanimously approved (except for Hulubei’s dissent) and defended the procedural practices, such as oral presentations during meetings. The RFF also questioned Hulubei’s legal interest in the appeal, noting he was not directly affected and had previously agreed with similar procedures.
The Sole Arbitrator found that while the procedural irregularities did not warrant annulment, the substantive issues required input from the affected clubs, which was lacking. Consequently, the Arbitrator ruled that the RFF lacked standing to be sued alone on substantive grounds and dismissed the appeal due to the absence of necessary parties. The decision upheld the RFF’s original rulings and dismissed all other relief requests, emphasizing the importance of including all relevant parties in arbitration to ensure a fair and comprehensive resolution. The case highlights the complexities of sports governance, particularly the balance between procedural adherence and substantive fairness in administrative decisions.