CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2022/A/9191 — CS AL Armatei Steaua v. Federatia Rômană de Fotbal (FRF) & Dinamo 1948 SA

"Steaua v. FRF & Dinamo" · CAS upheld FRF sanctions on Steaua for supporter misconduct, confirming strict liability and proportionate cumulative penalties.

What happened in Steaua v. FRF & Dinamo

On 9 September 2022, a Liga II derby between Dinamo and Steaua in Bucharest descended into serious disorder. Steaua supporters in the visitors' stand threw torches and smoke bombs onto the pitch before kick-off (delaying the start), engaged in obscene chanting throughout, and at half-time attacked police with chairs, fire extinguishers and metal fences, forcing officers to deploy tear gas. The FRF Disciplinary Committee fined Steaua RON 22,500 (pyrotechnics, recidivism), RON 50,000 (conflict with law enforcement/destruction of property) and RON 11,250 (obscene chanting), plus a four-match ban on hosting games at its own stadium. The FRF Recourse Committee confirmed those sanctions on 6 October 2022. Steaua appealed to CAS, arguing it bore no responsibility because it had pre-notified Dinamo that any ticket sales to visiting fans would be Dinamo's liability, that no formal supporter group attended, and that the sanctions were disproportionate and wrongly cumulated. CAS Sole Arbitrator Benoît Pasquier dismissed the appeal in full. He found Steaua's supporters were demonstrably present and involved, that a pre-match disclaimer cannot override strict liability under FRF Disciplinary Regulations Articles 9(2) and 82(2), that the four-match stadium ban was within the permitted range and proportionate given two prior offences, and that arithmetic cumulation of different-natured sanctions under Article 45(3) was correctly applied. The award matters as a clear restatement of strict club liability for supporter misconduct in domestic Romanian football proceedings reviewed at CAS.

Procedural history of CAS 2022/A/9191

The FRF Disciplinary Committee issued its operative decision on 16 September 2022, imposing on Steaua fines totalling RON 83,750 and a four-match ban on hosting matches at its own stadium. The reasoned decision was notified on 22 September 2022. Steaua appealed to the FRF Recourse Committee on 23 September 2022, raising misinterpretation of facts, disproportionate sanctions, failure to provide timely grounds, and non-application of mitigating factors. The Recourse Committee dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Disciplinary Committee's decision on 6 October 2022. Steaua filed its Statement of Appeal at CAS on 11 October 2022 (re-filed 27 October 2022) under Articles R47 and R48 of the CAS Code, simultaneously requesting a stay of execution under Article R37. The Deputy Division President granted the stay ex parte given the urgency. The Division President decided the case would be heard by a sole arbitrator. An Appeal Brief was filed on 5 December 2022; Answers were filed by the Second Respondent on 17 January 2023 and by the First Respondent on 31 January 2023. A videoconference hearing was held on 30 March 2023.

Key holdings in CAS 2022/A/9191

• Dinamo 1948 SA lacks standing to be sued because Steaua sought nothing against it; in disciplinary proceedings of 'vertical' nature the appeal must be directed against the federation that issued the decision (CAS 2020/A/6694).
• A club is strictly liable for the misconduct of its supporters regardless of fault or negligence, and a pre-match disclaimer letter to the opposing club cannot override that strict liability under Articles 9(2) and 82(2) of the FRF Disciplinary Regulations.
• Supporters occupying the visitors' stand are presumed to be supporters of the away club unless proven otherwise; Steaua failed to rebut that presumption.
• A four-match ban on organising matches at the club's own stadium is proportionate where the club is a repeat offender and prior fines failed to deter misconduct, and falls within the two-to-ten match range prescribed by Article 54(4) of the FRF Disciplinary Regulations.
• Where concurrent sanctions are of different natures (pecuniary fines and a stadium ban), it is not possible to determine the more serious violation and Article 45(3) of the FRF Disciplinary Regulations correctly requires arithmetic cumulation rather than absorption under Article 45(1).

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first disposed of the standing issue by applying Swiss-law-derived CAS jurisprudence: a party has standing to be sued only if something is sought against it, and Steaua sought nothing against Dinamo. On the merits, he applied Article R58 of the CAS Code to hold FRF Regulations primarily applicable and Romanian law subsidiarily. He found the facts undisputed because Steaua did not contest the match officials' reports, which under Article 103 of the FRF Disciplinary Regulations are presumed accurate. WhatsApp messages between club representatives confirmed Steaua's supporters planned a choreography in the south stand, and the Additional Report with photos and videos placed them at the scene. The pre-match disclaimer was dismissed as legally irrelevant to strict liability. On proportionality, the arbitrator applied the CAS standard that a sanction is reviewable only if 'evidently and grossly disproportionate' (CAS 2012/A/2762; CAS 2009/A/1870; CAS 2015/A/3875), weighed the gravity of the incidents, Steaua's two prior offences within weeks, and the ineffectiveness of earlier fines, and concluded the four-match ban and cumulative fines were within regulatory limits. He rejected the Article 45(1) absorption argument because that provision addresses concurrent fines only, not mixed-nature sanctions, making Article 45(3) arithmetic cumulation the correct method.

Why Steaua v. FRF & Dinamo matters in CAS jurisprudence

The award consolidates CAS endorsement of strict club liability for supporter misconduct in domestic federation disciplinary proceedings, confirming that a pre-match disclaimer to the opposing club is legally irrelevant to that liability. It also clarifies that Article 45(3) arithmetic cumulation applies whenever concurrent sanctions are of different natures (pecuniary and sporting), and reaffirms the high threshold — 'evidently and grossly disproportionate' — required before CAS will interfere with a federation's sanctioning discretion.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2007/A/1329 & 1330 CAS 2006/A/1206 CAS 2006/A/1189 CAS 2006/A/1192 CAS 2012/A/3032 CAS 2008/A/1620 CAS 2007/A/1367 CAS 2020/A/6694 CAS 2007/A/1217 CAS 2012/A/2762 CAS 2009/A/1870 CAS 2015/A/3875 CAS 2013/A/3358

Frequently asked questions about Steaua v. FRF & Dinamo

Why did CAS refuse to exonerate Steaua even though the club sent a pre-match letter disclaiming responsibility for its supporters?

The Sole Arbitrator held that Articles 9(2) and 82(2) of the FRF Disciplinary Regulations impose strict liability on clubs for their supporters' conduct regardless of fault or negligence. A unilateral letter to the opposing club cannot override that regulatory obligation. The arbitrator also found, on the evidence, that Steaua's supporters were demonstrably present in the visitors' stand and involved in the incidents.

Was the four-match stadium ban on Steaua proportionate given that Dinamo only received a two-match ban?

CAS upheld the four-match ban as proportionate. The Sole Arbitrator noted that Steaua was a repeat offender, having been fined twice within weeks for similar supporter misconduct (matches against Metaloglobus on 9 August 2022 and CSM Slatina on 15 August 2022), and that prior fines had failed to deter the behaviour. The four-match ban fell within the two-to-ten match range permitted by Article 54(4) of the FRF Disciplinary Regulations, and Dinamo's lesser two-match ban reflected that it was a first offence.

Did CAS agree that the FRF should have applied Article 45(1) absorption rather than cumulating all the sanctions?

No. The Sole Arbitrator found that Article 45(1) of the FRF Disciplinary Regulations applies only where concurrent fines are imposed; it makes no provision for sanctions of a different nature. Because the FRF imposed both pecuniary fines and a stadium ban — sanctions of different natures — it was impossible to determine which was the more serious, triggering Article 45(3) and requiring arithmetic cumulation of all sanctions.

Why was Dinamo excluded from the CAS proceedings even though it was named as Second Respondent?

The Sole Arbitrator applied the CAS principle, derived from Swiss law, that a party has standing to be sued only if something is sought against it. Steaua's relief sought only the annulment or reduction of its own sanctions; it sought nothing against Dinamo. The arbitrator also noted that in disciplinary proceedings of a 'vertical' nature the appeal must be directed against the federation that issued the decision, citing CAS 2020/A/6694, not against the other club involved in the match.

Topics: Doping, ethics & governance at CAS

Source: official award. This digest was generated by LexXi from the full award text and machine-verified against it — every figure, article and citation above appears in the source. It is an editorial summary, not legal advice. See how ElevenLex verification works.