The case involves Christian Pouga, a professional football player, who appealed against FIFA's refusal to provide the grounds for a decision dismissing charges against CS Sporting Juniorul Vaslui, a club Pouga believed to be the sporting successor to his former employer, SC Vaslui. The dispute stemmed from a 2010 employment contract between Pouga and SC Vaslui, which Pouga terminated in 2011 due to unpaid wages and breach of contract. FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC) ruled in Pouga's favor in 2015, ordering SC Vaslui to pay outstanding amounts. However, SC Vaslui failed to comply, leading Pouga to request disciplinary proceedings in 2020. FIFA initially opened proceedings but suspended them due to SC Vaslui's bankruptcy. Pouga later argued that Sporting Vaslui was SC Vaslui's successor and requested disciplinary action against them. In August 2021, FIFA's Disciplinary Committee dismissed the charges against Sporting Vaslui without providing grounds, prompting Pouga to request the reasoning. FIFA denied this request, stating Pouga was not a party to the proceedings and thus not entitled to the grounds under Article 51 of the FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC).
Pouga appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), arguing his rights were directly affected and that Article 15 of the FDC entitled him to the grounds. The sole arbitrator ruled that Pouga had standing to appeal FIFA's refusal, as his rights were directly impacted. The arbitrator also determined that Article 15 FDC, interpreted under Swiss law, granted Pouga the right to the grounds, regardless of his status as a party, to prevent speculation about the proceedings' termination. However, the arbitrator noted that the appeal's scope was limited to the right to obtain the grounds and did not extend to imposing sanctions on Sporting Vaslui, as the club was not a party to the proceedings.
The case highlights the tension between procedural rules limiting access to motivated decisions and the rights of third parties affected by such decisions. Pouga's argument centered on the broader implications of the disciplinary proceedings for his ability to enforce a financial claim, while FIFA relied on strict interpretations of its disciplinary framework. The arbitrator's decision balanced legal interpretation with practical considerations, ensuring Pouga could understand the outcome of the proceedings he initiated. The ruling clarifies that creditors or other affected parties have the right to be informed of disciplinary decisions' grounds, reinforcing accountability in FIFA's disciplinary processes.
The CAS partially upheld Pouga's appeal, ordering FIFA to provide him with the grounds of the disciplinary decision. The arbitrator declined to rule on other aspects of the case, such as Pouga's protected interest in the proceedings, and dismissed all further requests. The decision underscores the importance of transparency and due process in disciplinary proceedings, ensuring that parties receive the necessary documentation to understand the basis of decisions affecting them. The case concluded with a focus on the procedural aspects, leaving broader questions about Sporting Vaslui's liability unresolved due to the limited scope of the appeal. The outcome reinforces the principle that even non-parties with a direct interest in disciplinary proceedings have the right to access reasoned decisions, promoting fairness and legal certainty in sports governance.