HFI Soccer KFT v. S.C.S Fotbal Club CFR 1907 Cluj S.A.

At a glance

Parties

HFI Soccer KFT (Hungary; called "HSI Soccer KFT" in most of the award) v. F.C. CFR 1907 Cluj S.A. (Romania)

Case no.

CAS 2022/A/8725

Forum and rules

Court of Arbitration for Sport, appeals procedure, CAS Code (2021 edition)

Treaty

None. Consultancy Contract of 30 June 2018; RFF Regulations on Working with Intermediaries; Romanian law

Tribunal

Heiner Kahlert (Sole Arbitrator)

Sector

Football; intermediary services

Outcome

Appeal partially upheld (5 April 2023). The Romanian Football Federation Appeal Committee decision of 3 February 2022 was set aside and the club was ordered to pay the fee with 6% interest.

Amount

Claimed: EUR 20,000 net plus 10% interest from 10 July 2018, plus EUR 2,500 and RON 5,000 in costs of the earlier proceedings. Awarded: EUR 20,000 net plus 6% per annum from 30 July 2018. The claim for costs of the earlier proceedings was dismissed. The award's costs rulings are redacted in the published text.

The dispute

The Appellant is a Hungarian consultancy and intermediary company. It represented a football player whom the Romanian club CFR 1907 Cluj wished to sign. On 30 June 2018 the parties signed a Consultancy Contract. Under it, the club was to pay EUR 20,000 net within ten working days of receiving the player's International Transfer Certificate. The player signed with the club on 6 July 2018, and the Romanian Professional Football League registered the contract on 10 July 2018. The club never paid the invoice of 19 July 2018, although it repeatedly promised to pay. The Romanian Football Federation's (RFF) National Dispute Resolution Chamber dismissed the claim, and the RFF Appeal Committee upheld that ruling on 3 February 2022. Both bodies held that the contract was valid but could not be enforced before RFF bodies, because it was not made on the RFF standard form and was not registered with the RFF. On appeal to CAS, the club argued that the contract was unenforceable for those reasons, that no intermediary services had been provided, and that the interest claim was raised too late.

Key holdings

1. CAS has jurisdiction under Article 36(17) of the RSTJF. The 21-day appeal period in that article does not say when it starts, so Article R49 of the CAS Code applies: it runs from receipt of the decision. The decision was received on 11 February 2022, and the appeal filed by email on 4 March 2022, with courier dispatch the same day, was timely. ¶¶ 43–54
2. The club's Answer was filed one day late and the club gave no explanation, so the Answer was inadmissible. A late or missing answer is not an acknowledgement of the claim; the arbitrator must still satisfy himself that the claim is well-founded. ¶¶ 60–62
3. Giving the interest rate and start date on appeal only specified the request for "legal interest and penalties" made at first instance. It did not amend the claim, so the submissions on interest were admissible. ¶¶ 65–67
4. The club's passivity in the RFF proceedings was not an acknowledgement of the debt. Neither the cited FIFA procedural rules nor any other provision says so. ¶¶ 72–75
5. Failure to use the RFF standard form or to register the contract does not make it unenforceable between the parties. The RFF Regulations set no such consequence. Article 5(2) provides only that such a contract is not recorded, cannot be relied on against third parties, and may lead to sanctions. This follows consistent CAS case law (CAS 2012/A/2988, CAS 2016/A/4573). ¶¶ 77–83
6. The Appellant provided the agreed services, so the fee of EUR 20,000 net is owed. The club's denial came late. Under Clause 1.2, registration of the player contract with the League means the services are deemed performed. The club never objected to the invoice and had promised payment. ¶¶ 85–88
7. Interest is 6% per annum under Article 4 of Romanian Regulation no. 13/2011, which applies to relations with a foreign element; the additional penalty interest under Article 3(2) is not added. Interest runs from 30 July 2018, the day after the due date stated on the invoice. Reimbursement of the costs of the earlier proceedings was dismissed because it was not sought before the RFF Appeal Committee. ¶¶ 91–100

Procedural history

1. 23 March 2021The Appellant filed its claim for the fee with the RFF National Dispute Resolution Chamber.
2. 20 May 2021The Chamber declined competence, citing the clause referring disputes to the "competent courts from FIFA".
3. 22 July 2021The RFF Appeal Committee held the Chamber competent and sent the case back to it.
4. 2 November 2021The Chamber dismissed the claim because the contract was not on the standard form and was not registered with the RFF.
5. 3 February 2022The RFF Appeal Committee dismissed the Appellant's appeal (the Appealed Decision).
6. 4 March 2022Statement of Appeal filed with CAS; the Appeal Brief followed on 14 March 2022.
7. 29 April 2022Heiner Kahlert appointed Sole Arbitrator.
8. 10 May 2022The Respondent's late Answer was declared inadmissible.
9. 5 April 2023Award: the appeal was partially upheld and the club was ordered to pay EUR 20,000 net plus 6% interest from 30 July 2018.

Tribunal, counsel and experts

Decided by

• Heiner Kahlert Sole arbitrator, Court of Arbitration for Sport — appointed by the institution (Appointed by the Deputy President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division)

Run a conflict check on these names →

Keywords

• CFR Cluj
• football intermediary
• intermediary fee
• consultancy contract
• Romanian Football Federation
• RFF Regulations on Working with Intermediaries
• standard form contract
• registration of intermediary contract
• enforceability
• pacta sunt servanda
• late answer
• acknowledgement of debt
• modification of prayer for relief
• time limit for appeal
• Article R49 CAS Code
• statutory interest Romania
• International Transfer Certificate

Summary generated with AI from the published documents — refer to the award for the authoritative text.