The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has registered the appeal filed by the Algerian Football Federation (FAF) and Union Sportive Medina d'Alger (USM Alger) (“the Appellants”) against the Confederation of African Football (CAF), the Royal Maroccan Football Federation (FRMF) and Club Renaissance Sportive de Berkane (RS Berkane) (“the Respondents”) against the decision taken by the CAF Appeals Jury dated 21 April 2024 (“the Challenged Decision”). This decision confirmed the earlier decision taken by the CAF Interclubs Committee, which validated the use of RS Berkane's shirts for the 2023/24 CAF Confederation Cup.
Together with their appeal, the Appellants filed an urgent request to immediately suspend the execution of the Challenged Decision. This request was rejected ex parte by the President of the CAS Appeals Arbitration Division on 26 April 2024.
In their appeal on the merits, the Appellants ask CAS to annul the Challenged Decision and to rule that the RS Berkane shirt, which the Appellants consider presents a political message, contravenes the laws of the game, CAF regulations and FIFA rules.
In relation to the arbitration procedure, the parties are currently exchanging written submissions and the arbitral panel that will be decide the matter is being appointed. Once constituted, the arbitral panel will issue instructions for the next phase of the proceedings, including the holding of a hearing.
At this juncture, it is not possible to give any further details on the timetable for this procedure.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has dismissed the appeal filed by the International Boxing Association (IBA) against the decision taken by the IOC Session on 22 June 2023 withdrawing the IOC’s recognition of the IBA as the IF for the sport of boxing. The IOC Session took its decision based on the recommendation issued by the IOC Executive Board (IOC EB) on 7 June 2023 following a long process, initiated shortly after the Olympic Games Rio 2016, during which the IOC requested the IBA to undertake various measures to address serious concerns related to its governance and financial stability. Such process included the implementation of a roadmap, recommended by the IOC to the IBA in December 2021, in order to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the IOC EB that the IBA had successfully addressed ongoing areas of concerns ahead of the IOC Session in 2023 where the inclusion of boxing in the Olympic programme would be discussed.
On 27 June 2023, the IBA filed an appeal at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) against the
decision of the IOC Session and sought to have it “annulled and set aside in full”. The CAS Panel
constituted to handle this matter heard the parties and their legal representatives on 16 November 2023 at the CAS Headquarters in Lausanne/CH.
In its final award, the CAS Panel noted that, as at the date of the Appealed Decision, the IBA had not complied with the conditions set down by the IOC for recognition, namely:
a. The IBA had not increased its financial transparency and sustainability including through
diversification of revenues.
b. The IBA had not changed its process relating to referees and judges to ensure its integrity,
including a monitoring period for IBA’s own competitions ahead of the Olympic Games Paris
2024.
c. The IBA had not ensured the full and effective implementation of all the measures proposed
by the “Governance Reform Group” established by the IOC, including a change of culture.
As a consequence, the Panel determined that these three elements justified the IOC Session’s decision
to withdraw recognition of the IBA and emphasized that the IOC’s right to control the circumstances in and the conditions on which it confers recognition outweighed the IBA’s personality rights.
The full reasoned award has been notified to the parties and will be published by CAS unless the parties request confidentiality.
Following a hard-fought round, the Regional Oral Final of the Sports Law Arbitration Moot (“SLAM 2024”) competition witnessed exemplary performances from all 16 participating teams. Competing amidst a pool of 50 other teams, these remarkable students showcased exceptional skill and dedication to secure their positions in the last 8, earning the opportunity to present their cases in an in-person hearing at the esteemed Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”), in front of leading sports lawyers, sports executives and judges.
The SLAM 2024 organising committee extends their appreciation to every team that participated in this highly competitive round. Each team, regardless of the outcome, demonstrated outstanding skills and commitment, contributing to the vibrant spirit of the competition.
A special acknowledgment goes out to the teams that narrowly missed the top 8, recognising their commendable efforts in presenting their arguments.
The quarter-finals, semi-finals, and finals promise thrilling matchups as the final 8 teams contend for the title of SLAM 2024 champions at the CAS in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 12-13 April 2024.
These teams, representing prestigious universities from around the world, have showcased exceptional talent and determination throughout the competition.
The universities whose teams have advanced to the in-person quarter-finals are:
- University of Ghent (Belgium)
- University of Chicago (USA)
- O.P Jindal Global University (India)
- UCLA School of Law (USA)
- University of Essex (UK)
- University of Ljubljana (Slovenia)
- Australian National University (Australia)
- University of Law (UK)
In recognition of their outstanding achievements, the winning team will receive a prize of £1,500, with £1,000 awarded to the runners-up.
We extend our sincere gratitude to the dedication of our esteemed panel of judges:
Additionally, the SLAM 2024 organising committee expresses gratitude to Charlie Kendrick (Paralegal at The Football Association & former LawInSport mentee), Chirayato Banerjee (Dual Qualified Solicitor (England and Wales) & Judge) and Ian Laing (Associate at Lombardi Associates) for their invaluable contributions in helping to run the oral qualification rounds of the competition.
For updates on the competition's progress, we invite everyone to visit our announcement page and follow our social media channels:
We would also like to thank our sponsors for their support and commitment to the competition to help develop of the next generation of sports lawyers:
- Secretariat Advisors (Gold Sponsors)
- JAMS (Gold Sponsors)
- Arnecke Sibeth Dabelstein (ASD Law) (Silver Sponsors)
- BianchiSchwald (Supporting Sponsor)
- Blackstone Chambers (Supporting Sponsor)
- Brantjes Advocaten (Supporting Sponsor)
- Global Sports Advocates (Supporting Sponsor)
- The Law Offices of Howard Jacobs (Supporting Sponsor)
- Lombardi Associates (Supporting Sponsor)
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has registered the following appeals further to the announcement made by the International Skating Union (ISU) on 30 January 2024 by which the final standings for the Team Event in figure skating at the Olympic Winter Games Beijing 2022 were adjusted following the disqualification of the skater Kamila Valieva, a member of the Russian team:
CAS 2024/A/10354 Madeline Schizas, Piper Gilles, Paul Poirier, Kirsten Moore-Towers, Michael Marinaro, Eric Radford, Vanessa James and Roman Sadovsky, and, Skate Canada, and Canadian Olympic Committee (COC) v. International Skating Union (ISU), and, International Olympic Committee (IOC), and Russian Olympic Committee (ROC), and Figure Skating Federation of Russia, and, Aleksandr Galliamov, Victoria Sinitsina, Anastasia Mishina, Nikita Katsalapov, Kamila Valieva and Mark Kondratiuk
The Canadian Appellants in this appeal seek a ruling from CAS ordering the ISU to re-rank the figure skating Team Event at the 2022 Beijing Olympic Winter Games as follows:
i. United States of America: 67 points;
ii. Japan: 65 points;
iii. Canada: 55 points;
iv. ROC: 54 points;
v. People’s Republic of China: 52 points.
The Appellants further request that medals be awarded by the IOC, as follows:
i. Gold medal: United States of America;
ii. Silver medal: Japan;
iii. Bronze medal: Canada.
CAS 2024/A/10355 Russian Olympic Committee (ROC) v. International Skating Union (ISU)
CAS 2024/A/10360 Figure Skating Federation of Russia v. International Skating Union (ISU)
The Appellants in these separate appeals both seek a ruling from CAS ordering the ISU to re-rank the figure skating Team Event at the 2022 Beijing Olympic Winter Games as follows:
(l) ROC - Gold medal;
(2) United States of America - Silver medal;
(3) Japan - Bronze medal.
CAS 2024/A/10356 Aleksandr Galliamov, Nikita Katsalapov, Mark Kondratiuk, Anastasia Mishina, Victoria Sinitsina and Kamila Valieva v. International Skating Union (ISU)
The Appellants in this appeal are the athletes of the ROC figure skating team at the 2022 Beijing Olympic Winter Games who seek a ruling from CAS ordering the ISU to re-rank the figure skating Team Event at the 2022 Beijing Olympic Winter Games with the ROC team in first place and with the gold medal being awarded to the ROC athletes.
All four CAS arbitration procedures have just commenced. Given the early stage of the proceedings, no indication can be given as to when a hearing may take place, if any.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) confirms the registration of the request for arbitration filed by US transgender swimmer Lia Thomas (the Athlete), aimed at challenging certain parts of World Aquatics’ Policy on the Eligibility for the Men’s and Women’s Competition Categories in force as of 24 March 2023, and its associated Operational Requirements (the Challenged Provisions).
Ms Thomas accepts that fair competition is a legitimate sporting objective and that some regulation of transgender women in swimming is appropriate. However, Ms Thomas submits that the Challenged Provisions are invalid and unlawful as they discriminate against her contrary to the Olympic Charter, the World Aquatics Constitution, and Swiss law including the European Convention on Human Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; and that such discrimination cannot be justified as necessary, reasonable, or proportionate to achieve a legitimate sporting objective.
In bringing the matter before CAS, Ms Thomas seeks an order from the CAS declaring that the Challenged Provisions are unlawful, invalid, and of no force and effect.
The CAS arbitration proceedings commenced in September 2023. In accordance with the Code of Sportsrelated Arbitration, this “ordinary” arbitration procedure (i.e. not an appeal) was subject to strict confidentiality rules governing CAS procedures. The parties involved in this case have now agreed that general information concerning the procedure itself be communicated by the CAS Court Office. At this point, no hearing date has been fixed yet.
The registration of this case coincided with the reference number 10’000, which is the number of arbitrations (and former consultation procedures, but without ad hoc procedures and mediations) registered by the CAS since its creation in 1984. On 31 December 2023, the CAS had registered a total of 10’638 procedures (all included) since its creation and 943 in 2023 only.
TO THE MEMBER ASSOCIATIONS OF FIFA
Circular no. 1867
Zurich, 7 December 2023
Failure to respect settlement agreements – competence of the FIFA Disciplinary Committee
Dear Sir or Madam,
On 16 December 2022, the FIFA Council adopted the 2023 edition of the FIFA Disciplinary Code (FDC – cf. FIFA circular no. 1833).
In this respect, and in line with FIFA’s commitment to achieving (financial) justice, a number of important changes were made to article 21 of the FDC (formerly art. 15, 2019 edition).
Amongst others, one such amendment was the inclusion of article 21 paragraph 9 of the FDC in order to grant the FIFA Disciplinary Committee the competence to enforce private settlement agreements concluded in the context of disciplinary proceedings opened against a debtor with respect to a final and binding decision issued by FIFA or the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) 1
In this context, in light of the number of settlement agreements concluded by parties in connection with financial decisions and the related volume of requests received by the FIFA administration, the purpose of this circular is to clarify the scope and/or the application of this provision.
a. Settlement agreements concluded in the context of disciplinary proceedings opened against a debtor
Prior to the entry into force of the 2023 edition of the FDC, the conclusion of a settlement agreement would lead to the termination of (or prevent the initiation of) disciplinary proceedings. Indeed, in accordance with FIFA circular no. 1628, non-compliance with the agreement had to be resolved by the Football Tribunal or the relevant competent body as chosen by the parties.
As such, with a view to avoiding this need for parties to initiate a new procedure before the Football Tribunal or the relevant competent body to enforce such a settlement agreement, the FDC was amended in order to provide the Disciplinary Committee with the competence to enforce such agreements, this being provided that the applicable settlement concluded was directly linked to a final and binding financial decision issued by FIFA or CAS.
More specifically, if, following the opening/initiation of disciplinary proceedings in relation to (non-compliance with) a financial decision passed by FIFA (the Football Tribunal) or CAS, the parties decide to settle their dispute by means of a private settlement agreement, the Disciplinary Committee is now, pursuant to article 21 paragraph 9 of the FDC, competent to enforce such an agreement without the need for a new complaint to be lodged before the Football Tribunal (or the relevant competent body as chosen by the parties).
For the sake of good order, we would like to clarify that this procedure shall exclusively apply to those agreements concluded following the entry into force of the 2023 edition of the FDC, i.e. as from 1 February 2023.
b. Settlement agreements concluded after a financial decision passed by a body, a committee, a subsidiary or an instance of FIFA or by CAS
Based on its wording, the scope of article 21 paragraph 9 of the FDC should, in principle, be limited to those agreements concluded “in the context of disciplinary proceedings opened against a debtor with respect to a final and binding financial decision issued by a body, a committee, a subsidiary or an instance of FIFA or by CAS”
Notwithstanding the foregoing and taking into account the rationale behind the implementation of such provision as explained supra., it is considered that the competence granted to the Disciplinary Committee under article 21 paragraph 9 of the FDC shall also cover agreements concluded after any decision passed by a body, a committee, a subsidiary or an instance of FIFA or by CAS.
In other words, following the notification of such decision rendered by FIFA or CAS, if the relevant parties then conclude a private settlement agreement in order to settle their dispute, the Disciplinary Committee shall also be competent to enforce such agreement in accordance with article 21 paragraph 9 of the FDC, without the need for a new complaint to be lodged before the Football Tribunal (or the relevant competent body as chosen by the parties).
Similarly, the above shall exclusively apply to those agreements concluded following the entry into force of the 2023 edition of the FDC, i.e. as from 1 February 2023.
c. Other settlement agreements
Finally, and for the sake of good order, we would like to clarify that any settlement agreement concluded outside of the framework(s) stipulated above, i.e. any settlement falling outside of the remits of sections a. or b. supra, will remain subject to the provisions of FIFA circular no. 1628.
Consequently, any claim arising from a breach of these types of agreements shall still be lodged before the Football Tribunal or before the relevant competent bodies at national or international level, as mutually agreed by the parties.
Should you have any questions, please contact Julien Deux, Head of Judicial Bodies (Adjudicatory) at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
We thank you for your kind attention to the above and for ensuring that your affiliated clubs are informed accordingly.
Yours faithfully,
FÉDÉRATION INTERNATIONALE
DE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has registered two Requests for Arbitration filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in relation to (non-)compliance matters concerning the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) and the South African Institute for Drug-free Sport (SAIDS).
On 22 September 2023, the WADA Executive Committee endorsed the recommendation of its Compliance Review Committee (CRC) which alleged RUSADA to be non-compliant with the World Anti-Doping Code (the WADC) due to Russia’s federal sports legislation not being considered to be in line with the 2021 WADC. Similarly, on the same day, the WADA Executive Committee also endorsed the recommendation of the CRC to allege SAIDS as non-compliant with the WADC due to South Africa’s legislation not being considered to be in line with the 2021 WADA Code. Since both RUSADA and SAIDS have disputed their non-compliance, as set out in the International Standard for Code Compliance by Signatories (ISCCS), WADA has submitted both matters to the CAS Ordinary Arbitration Division for resolution.
Two separate CAS arbitration procedures have been registered. The procedures will be conducted according to the provisions of the ISCCS and the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (the CAS Code). In summary, for each procedure, there will be an exchange of written submissions while a Panel of three arbitrators is simultaneously constituted in accordance with the provisions of Article 9.4.1 of the ISCCS. Once appointed, the Panel for each matter will issue directions for the next phase of the proceedings and shall, save for extensions of time requested by the parties or other exceptional circumstances, issue its reasoned decision no later than three months after the date of its constitution. The Panels’ decisions will be publicly reported by CAS.
The decisions issued by the CAS Panels will be final and binding with the exception of the parties’ right to file an appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal within 30 days on limited grounds.
Further to the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA's) Executive Committee (ExCo) meeting of 22 September 2023, WADA wishes to provide an update regarding the ExCo’s decision to endorse the recommendation of WADA’s independent Compliance Review Committee (CRC) and allege the National Anti-Doping Organization (NADO) of South Africa as non-compliant with the World Anti-Doping Code (Code). The alleged non-compliance in this case is a result of South Africa’s legislation not being in line with the 2021 Code.
Under Article 9.3.1 of the International Standard for Code Compliance by Signatories (ISCCS), the NADO had 21 days following the date of receipt of the formal notice of non-compliance to dispute WADA’s allegation of non-compliance, as well as the consequences and/or the reinstatement conditions proposed by the Agency.
On 10 October, WADA received formal notification from the South African NADO that it disputed the allegation of non-compliance against it, as well as the proposed consequences. Accordingly, and in line with Article 24.1.7 of the Code, WADA now publicly announces that it filed the request for arbitration with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) on 16 November 2023. As set out in Article 24.1.7, certain Signatories have the right to intervene in the CAS proceedings as a party whereas other persons may apply and be permitted to intervene under certain conditions. As per the same article, the notice of intervention or the application to intervene must be filed within 10 days of the publication of this notice.
The allegation of non-compliance and the consequences will not take effect until such time as CAS makes its ruling. Further details regarding the case including, in particular, the consequences and reinstatement conditions can be found in WADA’s update of 28 September 2023.
Published Wednesday, 27 January 2021.
-
The programme offers a guide to proceedings at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
-
FIFA has long and varied experience of dealing with cases at CAS
-
Participants receive practical guidance and in-depth analysis of procedures
FIFA has launched the fourth edition of its programme which provides participants with a practical and theoretical guide to proceedings at the CAS.
Aimed at lawyers with an interest in sports law, in-house legal counsel of confederations, FIFA Member Associations, clubs, leagues and player unions, the Executive Programme in Sports Arbitration draws on FIFA's long and varied understanding of dealing with CAS cases.
FIFA is the international sports federation with the most experience of dealing with CAS procedures and has been involved in thousands of cases covering the whole spectrum of legal disputes, including disciplinary, anti-doping and contractual.
The programme offers a practical, personalised learning method, backed up by the theory and research that focuses primarily on proceedings and practical aspects before CAS, as well as exploring arbitration in other sports bodies. It consists of three modules, each lasting four days, which will take place in Miami, Buenos Aires and Zurich in the final quarter of 2024.
It will provide participants with:
-
An in-depth analysis of the different types of procedures and leading cases of CAS
-
Practical guidance in resolving disputes before CAS
-
An introduction to other sports-related arbitration models in sport
-
Mock hearings based on leading CAS cases
The various modules will be delivered by FIFA staff, independent lawyers, CAS arbitrators, in-house general counsel and executives of football institutions. Information about applications, which are open from 26 April until 28 June 2024, can be found at legal.fifa.com. Further details are available in the official brochure.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has dismissed an appeal from Tunisian chair umpire Abderahim Gharsallah against a disciplinary sanction imposed in July 2022.
An appeal hearing was held in Lausanne, Switzerland on 26 April 2023, from which the CAS tribunal upheld the seven-year suspension from tennis issued by Anti-Corruption Hearing Officer (AHO) Jane Mulcahy KC in the first instance hearing.
Gharsallah, a national-level official, was found by the CAS to have committed four breaches of the TACP relating to an event held in Tunisia in 2020. For full details, click here.
The official’s period of ineligibility remains unchanged, beginning on 6 November 2020 – the date of their provisional suspension from tennis - and will end at midnight on 5 November 2027.
During the period of ineligibility, Gharsallah is prohibited from officiating at or attending any tennis event authorised or sanctioned by the members of the ITIA (ATP, ITF, WTA, Tennis Australia, Fédération Française de Tennis, Wimbledon and USTA) or any national association.
The ITIA is an independent body established by its tennis members to promote, encourage, enhance, and safeguard the integrity of professional tennis worldwide.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has dismissed the appeal filed by Italian racewalker Alex Schwazer against the decision taken by the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics (WA) on 10 November 2023 (the Challenged Decision) in which his application, pursuant to Rule 10.7.1 (a) of the World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules (WA ADR), to suspend the eightyear period of ineligibility,starting from 11 August 2016, imposed on him for hissecond doping offence was rejected.
WA denied the Athlete’s “Substantial Assistance Application” following the negative assessment issued by the World Anti-doping Agency (WADA) in relation to this matter.
The Challenged Decision is confirmed, and the period of ineligibility imposed on Alex Schwazer remains in force.
Rule 10.7.1 (a) of the WA ADR enables athletes serving a period of ineligibility to apply for the suspension of part of such period upon provision of substantial assistance in discovering or establishing other anti-doping rule violations.
The CAS Panel has issued the operative part of its decision. The reasoned award will be notified to the parties in due course and published by CAS unless the parties request confidentiality.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has issued its decision in the appeal arbitration proceedings between the Russian Olympic Committee (ROC) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in which the ROC sought to set aside the decision rendered by the IOC Executive Board (IOC EB) on 12 October 2023 (the Challenged Decision) in which it was suspended from the IOC with immediate effect until further notice due to its decision to include as its members some regional sports organisations which are under the authority of the National Olympic Committee (NOC) of Ukraine (Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia).
The CAS Panel in charge of this matter dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Challenged Decision, finding that the IOC EB did not breach the principles of legality, equality, predictability or proportionality.
The Arbitral Award issued by the CAS Panel is currently subject to a confidentiality review meaning that the parties might request that the Arbitral Award, or certain information contained in it, remain confidential. For this reason, the Arbitral Award will not be published immediately on the CAS website.
The CAS Panel’s decision is final and binding except for the parties’ right to file an appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal within 30 days on limited grounds.
As a follow-up to the ITA’s and the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) investigations on doping in the sport of weightlifting until 2018, the ITA had received WADA’s case file pertaining to “Operation Arrow”. This investigation focused on the practice of urine substitution at the point of collection. After a thorough assessment of the information and evidence the ITA decided to assert an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) for sample swapping against athlete Nijat Rahimov (Kazakhstan). The urine substitution (Article 2.2 of the IWF Anti-Doping Rules) occurred on four occasions over a period of time in 2016, in preparation for the Olympic Games Rio 2016.
On 22 March 2022, the anti-doping division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS ADD) sanctioned the athlete with 8 years of ineligibility and the disqualification of all results obtained from 15 March 2016.
On 12 April 2022, the athlete filed an appeal before CAS. A hearing took place on 22 September 2022 at the CAS headquarters in which the ITA represented the International Weightlifting Federation (IWF). After hearing the parties and considering the written submissions and evidence, CAS confirmed that the athlete had committed several ADRVs for the of use of a prohibited method (urine substitution) in accordance with Article 2.2 of the IWF Anti-Doping Rules.
In its decision, CAS notably held that this matter was “a clear case of cheating by an athlete seeking to avoid anti-doping testing” and that “this is the kind of cheating the anti-doping rules are designed to prevent”.
Since this was the athlete’s second ADRV, CAS confirmed that Nijat Rahimov should be sanctioned with 8 years of ineligibility. The disqualification of all results obtained by the athlete from 15 March 2016 (date of the first evidence of urine substitution) until the provisional suspension imposed on 18 January 2021, which includes the gold medal obtained at the Olympic Games Rio 2016 (Men’s 77 kg), was also confirmed.
The ITA will not comment further on this case.
- CAS ruled that the Football Federation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (FECOFA) committed a denial of justice against former international Yves Diba
- Diba had filed a claim in relation to an employment contract dispute and, with it being of a national dimension, he had no choice but to file his claim with FECOFA
- Faced with this silence and inaction, Diba turned to CAS in July 2022 and filed a claim against FECOFA for denial of justice
A significant decision from the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled in favour of a Congolese footballer who had previously been denied justice due to the lack of a sufficient National Dispute Resolution Chamber (NDRC) in DR Congo.
In a recent award, CAS ruled that the Football Federation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (FECOFA) committed a denial of justice against former international Yves Diba.
In October 2021, Diba filed a claim in relation to an employment contract dispute he had with AS Vita, a club in DR Congo’s top-flight. With the dispute being of a national dimension, Diba had no choice but to file his claim with FECOFA, who, as per its own statutes, were obliged to adjudicate.
Despite several written reminders sent by Diba, FECOFA failed to formally open a procedure in order to pass a decision. Faced with this silence and inaction, Diba turned to CAS in July 2022 and filed a claim against FECOFA for denial of justice.
CAS sided with the 20-time DR Congo international and ruled that such an unjustified delay in passing a decision constituted a denial of justice. They ordered FECOFA to promptly deal with the claim to swiftly render a decision and ruled that FECOFA must pay all costs in relation to the CAS procedure.
FIFPRO Legal Director Roy Vermeer said: “Yves Diba’s experience is not an isolated case – denial of justice is a recurring issue faced by too many players in too many national football associations.
“A number of national football associations around the world do not provide for national dispute resolution chambers that respect players’ rights, and too often the chambers that exist on paper are actually not operative.”
A lack of a proper NDRC can have severe consequences for players at domestic level, leaving them forced into a system that does not guarantee fair proceedings. It can mean abusive behaviour can go unchallenged and breach of contracts are allowed to flourish in complete impunity.
Vermeer said: “If a national football association creates an NDRC, it must simply ensure that it complies with the principles established by FIFA. This not only protects players’ rights, but also provides for a healthy football economy and ecosystem.”
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS, Lausanne, Switzerland) partially set aside the decision rendered by the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of RAA RUSADA № 102/2022 dated June 23, 2022 on the sanction in a form of reprimand to the athlete Guschina Mariya (cross-country skiing) for violation under cl. 2.2 of the All-Russian anti-doping rules approved by Order of the Ministry of Sport of the Russian Federation No. 947 dated August 09, 2016 (with amendments effective from January 17, 2019).
The Court of Arbitration for Sport rendered the decision which made the Athlete ineligible for a period of 12 months from the date of CAS decision, namely October 27, 2023.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has registered the appeal filed by the Romanian tennis player, Ms Simona Halep (the Athlete), against the decision rendered by the International Tennis Integrity Agency Tribunal dated 22 September 2023 (the Challenged Decision), in which she was found to have committed Anti-Doping Rule Violations and sanctioned with a four-year period of ineligibility commencing on 7 October 2022, and the disqualification of all results obtained in competitions taking place in the period 29 August 2022 to 7 October 2022, including forfeiture of any medals, titles, ranking points and prize money.
In her appeal to the CAS, the Athlete requests that the Challenged Decision be set aside and that her sanction be reduced.
The CAS arbitration proceedings have commenced. In accordance with the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (the CAS Code), the arbitration rules governing CAS procedures, the parties are exchanging written submissions and the Panel of arbitrators that will decide the matter is being constituted.
Once constituted, the Panel will issue procedural directions for the next phase of the procedure, including the holding of a hearing. Following the hearing, the Panel will deliberate and issue an Arbitral Award containing its decision and the grounds for it. At this time, it is not possible to indicate a time frame for the issuance of the decision.
The CAS Panel’s decision will be final and binding, with the exception of the parties’ right to file an appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal within 30 days on limited grounds.
Global Summit 2024