CAS Case Digest · Verified against the full award text

CAS 2025/A/11662 — ACSM Politehnica Iaşi v. Gheorghiță Andrei Cosmin

"Politehnica Iaşi v. Gheorghiță" · CAS upheld a Romanian player's just-cause termination where a default notice was served simultaneously with the statement of claim.

What happened in Politehnica Iaşi v. Gheorghiță

ACSM Politehnica Iaşi, a Romanian Liga 2 club, employed Gheorghiță Andrei Cosmin under a four-year contract from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2027, with monthly salaries escalating from EUR 2,300 to EUR 5,000 net. The Club fell into arrears on salaries for August 2024, December 2024, and January 2025, as well as performance bonuses totalling approximately EUR 12,000 net. On 13 March 2025, the Player filed a claim before the RFF NDRC and simultaneously served a default notice invoking Article 1522 of the Romanian Civil Code, granting the Club 15 days to pay. The Club paid only on 2 April 2025, after the deadline. On 31 March 2025, the Player filed a supplementary application seeking termination with just cause under Article 18.10 lit. a) RSTJP. The RFF NDRC dismissed the termination request as procedurally defective. The RFF Recourse Committee reversed that decision on 3 July 2025, declaring the contract terminated as of 17 July 2025 and ordering the Club to pay RON 8,931 in legal costs. The Club appealed to CAS. The Sole Arbitrator upheld the Appealed Decision, finding all four conditions of Article 18.10 lit. a) RSTJP satisfied. The case matters because it confirms that simultaneous service of a default notice and statement of claim is permissible under Romanian football regulations, and that a 15-day grace period need not be explicitly labelled as such in the notice.

Procedural history of CAS 2025/A/11662

On 13 March 2025, the Player initiated proceedings before the RFF National Dispute Resolution Chamber (RFF NDRC), claiming EUR 9,900 net in outstanding salaries plus bonuses, and simultaneously serving a default notice. On 31 March 2025, the Player filed a supplementary application requesting termination with just cause under Article 18.10 lit. a) RSTJP. The Club paid the outstanding amounts on 2 April 2025. On 7 May 2025, the RFF NDRC dismissed the termination request, finding the default notice procedurally defective for failing to separately precede the claim. The Player appealed to the RFF Recourse Committee, which on 3 July 2025 reversed the NDRC, declared the contract terminated as of 17 July 2025, and ordered the Club to pay RON 8,931 in legal costs. On 19 August 2025, the Club filed a Statement of Appeal with CAS. A hearing was held by videoconference on 28 January 2026. The CAS award was rendered on 4 August 2026.

Key holdings in CAS 2025/A/11662

• Article 18.10 lit. a) RSTJP does not explicitly prohibit the simultaneous submission of a default notice together with a statement of claim, and such simultaneous filing is procedurally admissible under Article 1522 of the Romanian Civil Code.
• A default notice need not cite Article 18.10 lit. a) RSTJP by name; it is sufficient that it clearly communicates outstanding amounts and the potential consequence of termination in the event of non-payment.
• The requirement to grant a period of at least 15 days is satisfied where 15 days de facto elapsed between the default notice and the filing of the termination request, even if the 15-day deadline was not explicitly linked to termination in the notice itself.
• A club's receipt of remuneration by a hiring club during a temporary transfer does not extinguish the player's right to terminate the original employment contract for non-payment of arrears that pre-dated the temporary transfer.
• Under Article R57 of the CAS Code, CAS exercises full de novo review; a party that prevailed at first instance is not required to file a separate appeal to preserve arguments dismissed at that stage.

How the CAS panel reasoned

The Sole Arbitrator applied Article R58 of the CAS Code, placing RFF regulations (primarily the RSTJP) at the apex of the normative hierarchy, with FIFA/UEFA regulations and then Swiss and Romanian law applying subsidiarily. Following the 'Haas-doctrine', the parties' contractual choice of Romanian law was treated as subsidiary only. On the merits, the Arbitrator assessed each of the four conditions of Article 18.10 lit. a) RSTJP sequentially. He rejected the Club's argument that the default notice was invalid because it was served simultaneously with the statement of claim, noting that Article 18.10 lit. a) RSTJP contains no explicit prohibition and that Article 1522 of the Romanian Civil Code expressly permits such simultaneous service. He dismissed the argument that the notice lacked clarity because it did not cite the RSTJP provision, finding the rationale of the notice — to afford the debtor a final opportunity to pay — was self-evident. On the 15-day condition, he relied on FIFA DRC jurisprudence holding that the requirement is satisfied where 15 days de facto elapsed before termination, regardless of explicit labelling. He rejected as irrelevant the Club's arguments about the Player's remuneration by FCSB and the potential loss of a EUR 230,000 permanent transfer fee, finding these did not affect the Player's termination rights.

Why Politehnica Iaşi v. Gheorghiță matters in CAS jurisprudence

This award clarifies that under Romanian football regulations, a player's default notice served simultaneously with a statement of claim is procedurally valid, filling a gap in the RSTJP by reference to Article 1522 of the Romanian Civil Code. It also confirms, consistent with FIFA DRC jurisprudence on Article 14bis FIFA RSTP, that the 15-day grace period requirement is assessed de facto rather than by explicit labelling in the notice, reinforcing a substance-over-form approach to just-cause termination procedures.

Cases cited in this award

CAS 2015/A/3896 CAS 2016/A/4846 CAS 2022/A/9078 CAS 2022/A/8651 CAS 2007/A/1394 CAS 2025/A/4162 CAS 2018/A/5628 CAS 2009/A/1880 CAS 2023/A/9656 CAS 2022/A/8690 CAS 2019/A/6148

Frequently asked questions about Politehnica Iaşi v. Gheorghiță

Can a Romanian football player serve a default notice at the same time as filing a claim before the RFF NDRC?

Yes. The Sole Arbitrator in Politehnica Iaşi v. Gheorghiță held that Article 18.10 lit. a) RSTJP contains no explicit prohibition on simultaneous service, and that Article 1522 of the Romanian Civil Code expressly permits a default notice to be served together with a statement of claim. The subsequent termination request was filed on 31 March 2025, 18 days after the simultaneous notice and claim of 13 March 2025, satisfying the 15-day requirement.

Does a default notice under Article 18.10 lit. a) RSTJP need to cite that provision by name to be valid?

No. The Sole Arbitrator found that the absence of any reference to Article 18.10 lit. a) RSTJP does not render a default notice invalid. What matters is that the notice clearly communicates the outstanding amounts and the potential consequence of termination in the event of non-payment, which the Player's notice of 13 March 2025 did by reserving the right to request early termination.

Does a player on temporary transfer lose the right to terminate the original contract for salary arrears that pre-date the transfer?

No. The Sole Arbitrator rejected the Club's argument that the Player's rights were suspended during the temporary transfer to Fotbal Club FCSB S.A. Article 4 para. 2 of the Temporary Transfer Agreement and Article 3 of the Addendum both expressly preserved the Club's obligation to pay all financial rights accrued before the transfer date, and the arrears at issue — including the August 2024 salary unpaid since 15 September 2024 — pre-dated the temporary transfer of 6 February 2025.

What is the de facto 15-day rule for just-cause termination under Article 14bis FIFA RSTP and how did CAS apply it in the Politehnica Iaşi case?

Under established FIFA DRC jurisprudence cited by the Sole Arbitrator (including Bubalo, Brown, Akaminko, William, and Issah), the 15-day requirement means that at least 15 days must have elapsed between the default notice and the actual termination, not that the notice must explicitly state '15 days' in connection with termination. In this case, the default notice was issued on 13 March 2025 and the termination request was filed on 31 March 2025 — an interval of 18 days — satisfying the condition even though the 15-day deadline in the notice was linked to insolvency proceedings rather than termination.

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.