CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2023/A/9656 — Răzvan Horj v. Club Sportiv Petrolul 52 Association & Romanian Football Federation

"Horj v. Petrolul 52" · CAS held that a club's conduct forcing a player to train separately constituted termination without just cause, entitling the player to full remaining contract value minus mitigated earnings.

What happened in Horj v. Petrolul 52

Romanian professional footballer Răzvan Horj signed an employment contract with Club Sportiv Petrolul 52 on 17 February 2022, running until 30 June 2024, at EUR 5,000 net/month (upon promotion). From October 2022, the Club excluded him from first-team training, denied him access to Club premises for six days, and assigned him to a separate training programme under a non-first-team coach with no objective justification. After three unanswered notices, the Player filed a claim with the RFF's NDRC on 15 November 2022. The NDRC found termination for 'sporting just cause' under Article 18.10(a) RJSTP and awarded only EUR 17,177 in outstanding rights to the date of its decision (18 January 2023). The RFF Appeal Committee upheld that decision on 23 March 2023. The Player appealed to CAS, arguing the Club's conduct amounted to termination without just cause under Article 18.9.1(a) RJSTP, entitling him to compensation through the contract's expiry. The Sole Arbitrator agreed, holding that Articles 18.10(a) and 18.9.1(a) RJSTP apply simultaneously where a club's 'abuse' causes a player's justified termination. Compensation of EUR 87,096.77 was reduced by EUR 10,612.98 (RON 52,755 earned at CS Minaur, converted at ECB rate of 21 September 2023), yielding EUR 76,483.79 plus 5% p.a. interest from 19 January 2023. The case matters because it clarifies that a player's just-cause termination triggered by club misconduct simultaneously constitutes the club's termination without just cause, unlocking full remaining-contract compensation.

Procedural history of CAS 2023/A/9656

On 15 November 2022, Horj filed a claim before the RFF's National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) against Club Sportiv Petrolul 52, seeking termination of the contract, a two-window transfer ban, and compensation through 30 June 2024. The Club filed a counterclaim alleging the Player terminated without just cause. On 18 January 2023, the NDRC issued Decision No. 20, finding termination for 'sporting just cause' under Article 18.10(a) RJSTP and awarding EUR 17,177 in outstanding financial rights only to the date of that decision. The Player appealed to the RFF Appeal Committee on 8 February 2023, seeking compensation through the contract's expiry; he also waived the transfer-ban request on 28 February 2023. On 23 March 2023, the Appeal Committee (Decision No. 6) dismissed the appeal, confirming the NDRC's approach. Grounds were notified on 20 April 2023. The Player filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS on 11 May 2023, within the 21-day deadline under Article 36.18 RJSTP, asking CAS to set aside both decisions and award full remaining-contract compensation plus the transfer ban.

Key holdings in CAS 2023/A/9656

• The Romanian Football Federation has standing to be sued in CAS appeal proceedings concerning decisions of its adjudicatory bodies, because any association has a legitimate de facto interest in preserving its own decisions and because the dispute involved a vertical element (potential sporting sanctions).
• A club's conduct — excluding a player from first-team training without objective justification, communicating schedules only upon the player's express request, and ceasing all communication from 7 November 2022 — constitutes a breach of Articles 6(a) and 6(c) RJSTP giving the player just cause to terminate under the First Thesis of Article 18.10(a) RJSTP.
• Where a player validly terminates under the First Thesis of Article 18.10(a) RJSTP due to club 'abuse', Articles 18.10(a) and 18.9.1(a) RJSTP apply simultaneously, so the club is treated as having terminated without just cause and must pay compensation equal to the total financial rights owed until the contract's expiry.
• Article 18.13 RJSTP (limiting compensation to outstanding rights until the final decision) applies only to terminations under the Second Thesis of Article 18.10(a) RJSTP (insufficient playing time) and not to the First, Third or Fourth Theses.
• Compensation under Article 18.9.1(a) RJSTP must be reduced by amounts the player earned at a new club (mitigated damages), applying Article 17 para. 1 FIFA RSTP as a gap-filler, with the burden of proof on the club to establish mitigation.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator first established the hierarchy of applicable law: RJSTP primarily, then FIFA/UEFA regulations, then Swiss law, then Romanian civil law — rejecting the Player's argument that FIFA RSTP prevails over RJSTP. On the merits, he agreed with the lower bodies that the Club violated Articles 6(a) and 6(c) RJSTP, but disagreed with their legal consequence. He reasoned that the NDRC's requirement of an 'explicit' club declaration of termination to trigger Article 18.9.1(a) RJSTP was flawed: a party that creates valid grounds for the other to terminate commits the equivalent of a termination without just cause. Textual support was found in Article 18.9.1(a) itself, which carves out only the Second Thesis of Article 18.10(a) from its scope, implying the First, Third and Fourth Theses remain subject to full compensation. The RFF confirmed at the hearing that the Second Thesis alone involves no club fault ('dissatisfaction'), while the other theses involve club 'abuse'. The Arbitrator also rejected the Club's argument that Article 18.13 RJSTP fills the gap, noting its express limitation to Second Thesis terminations. On compensation, he found no discretion under Article 18.9.1(a) RJSTP to reduce the full remaining-contract value, but treated the absence of a mitigation mechanism as a gap to be filled by Article 17 para. 1 FIFA RSTP and Swiss law, deducting only the RON 52,755 net proven to have been earned at CS Minaur. The ACS Cristur contract was disregarded as the Club failed to prove any payment thereunder.

Why Horj v. Petrolul 52 matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award clarifies that under the RJSTP, a player's just-cause termination triggered by club misconduct (First Thesis, Art. 18.10(a)) simultaneously constitutes the club's termination without just cause under Art. 18.9.1(a), unlocking full remaining-contract compensation. It also confirms that Art. 18.13 RJSTP is confined to 'dissatisfaction' (Second Thesis) terminations, and that mitigation of damages is a gap to be filled by Art. 17 FIFA RSTP even within a national regulatory framework.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2011/A/2662 CAS 2017/A/5465 CAS 2021/A/7757-7762 CAS 2021/A/8433 CAS 2020/A/7092 CAS 2015/A/3896

Frequently asked questions about Horj v. Petrolul 52

Why did Horj receive compensation until the end of his contract rather than just to the date of the NDRC decision?

The Sole Arbitrator held that Articles 18.10(a) and 18.9.1(a) RJSTP apply simultaneously when a club's misconduct forces a player to terminate. Because the Club's exclusion of Horj from first-team training constituted club 'abuse' under the First Thesis of Article 18.10(a) RJSTP, it was treated as equivalent to the Club terminating without just cause, triggering the full remaining-contract compensation mechanism of Article 18.9.1(a) RJSTP. Article 18.13 RJSTP, which limits compensation to outstanding rights until the final decision, was held to apply only to Second Thesis (insufficient playing time) terminations.

How was the final compensation figure of EUR 76,483.79 calculated in the Horj v. Petrolul 52 case?

The Sole Arbitrator calculated the remaining contract value at EUR 87,096.77 net (EUR 5,000 per month for 13 days of January 2023 plus 17 subsequent months under Clauses IX.9.5 and IX.9.6 of the Contract). From this he deducted EUR 10,612.98, representing the RON 52,755 net Horj earned at CS Minaur (converted at the ECB rate of 1 RON = 0.201175 EUR on 21 September 2023, the date of the CS Minaur NDRC decision). The EUR 17,177 already paid by the Club for the period up to 18 January 2023 was not deducted again as it had already been excluded from the base figure.

Did the CAS impose a transfer ban on Petrolul 52 in the Horj case?

No. The Sole Arbitrator held the transfer-ban request inadmissible on two grounds: first, the Player had expressly waived that claim before the RFF Appeal Committee on 28 February 2023, and CAS de novo powers are limited to the scope of the previous litigation; second, the power to impose sporting sanctions lies with the federation (RFF) and not with the injured player, so the Player lacked a legally protected interest to seek such a sanction.

Does the Romanian Football Federation have standing to be sued at CAS when a player appeals a decision of an RFF adjudicatory body?

Yes, according to this award. The Sole Arbitrator held that the RFF has a legitimate, de facto and direct interest in preserving its own decisions and that the dispute contained a vertical element (potential sporting sanctions). Article 36.18 RJSTP provides the necessary arbitration agreement between the Player and the RFF. While an appellant in a purely horizontal dispute may choose not to summon the RFF, doing so is permissible and the RFF cannot claim it categorically lacks standing to be sued.

Topics: Art. 17 RSTP & contract termination 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.