Jurisdiction in CAS appeals: Why procedural compliance and naming the right party matters?

This article shows why people bringing sports disputes to arbitration need to be precise with identifying the parties (person or organisations) that they want to bring a claim against. In this case, the party bringing an appeal did not make reference to the specific club, but instead mentioned the board of the club and the chairman before the domestic arbitral tribunal as this was thought to be a local customary law.

Introduction

A recent decision published by The Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) (CAS 2023/A/9602) offers critical insights into procedural rigor, local customary practices, and jurisdiction ratione personae.

The dispute arose from a ruling by the National Sports Arbitration Tribunal of Kuwait (“NSAT”), which dismissed the “Appellants’” (Messrs. Hamad Bin Haidar, Naser Alsaffar, and Hamad Alawadh) claims against Al-Arabi SC (“AASC” or the “Club”) for lack of standing.

When the matter reached CAS, the Appellants sought to overturn the NSAT’s decision. However, the CAS panel (“Panel”) dismissed the appeal as inadmissible, finding that AASC had never been properly named as a party at first instance. This ruling reinforces the necessity of exhausting internal remedies and properly identifying respondents in domestic arbitral proceedings.

This article examines the factual background, the core legal controversies, and the Panel’s detailed reasoning and concludes with insights that may guide future sports disputes, particularly those involving local procedural norms and their interplay with the Code of Sports-related Arbitration (“CAS Code” which are the Procedural Rules that apply whenever the parties have agreed to refer a sports-related dispute to CAS).

The award (“Award”) is available here^[1].

Table of Contents:

• Factual background
• Key legal issues in dispute
• Panel’s reasoning and decision
  • The absence of AASC as a party at first instance
  • Examination of application of the local customary law
  • Decision
• Key takeaways
  • Procedural precision in party identification
  • Exhaustion of legal remedies before filing an appeal before CAS
  • Burden of proof for correct application of local law
  • Procedural prerequisites vs merit-based claims
  • Limits of CAS's appellate function
• Conclusion

Please note that the authors represented the Respondent in this case.