The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) case TAS 2007/A/1293 involved a dispute between Kabat FC, a Cameroonian football club, and FIFA. The conflict originated from a 2006 decision by FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber (DRC), which ruled that French club FC Metz owed Kabat FC €30,000 in training compensation for a player. This decision became final as no appeal was filed. However, Kabat FC later alleged that FC Metz failed to pay the amount, leading FIFA's Disciplinary Committee to initiate proceedings. On March 29, 2007, the Committee sent a fax stating the case was closed because Kabat FC no longer existed, as confirmed by the Cameroonian Football Federation (FECAFOOT).
Kabat FC, represented by its president, appealed the fax to CAS, arguing it constituted a binding decision subject to appeal. FIFA contested CAS's jurisdiction, claiming the fax was not a formal decision under its statutes. The CAS panel, composed of arbitrators from Switzerland, Togo, and Italy, examined whether the fax qualified as a decision under Article 60 of FIFA's statutes, which grants CAS jurisdiction over final disciplinary decisions. The panel ruled that while the fax lacked formal elements like legal reasoning or signatories, its binding effect—closing the case and denying Kabat FC further recourse—made it equivalent to an appealable decision.
The panel also found the fax violated procedural principles under FIFA's Disciplinary Code, as it omitted essential details such as the legal basis and appeal options. Despite these flaws, CAS affirmed its jurisdiction and annulled the fax, remanding the case to FIFA's Disciplinary Committee for reconsideration. The panel applied FIFA's regulations and Swiss law, emphasizing CAS's full review power under its code.
The case underscored the importance of procedural formality in disciplinary decisions and reinforced CAS's role in reviewing such matters, even when decisions are informally communicated. The ruling clarified that communications with binding legal effects can be appealed, ensuring parties' rights to challenge outcomes affecting their interests. The CAS ultimately declared its competence to hear the appeal, annulled the fax due to formal defects, and directed FIFA to reopen the proceedings with a properly formatted decision. This decision highlighted the necessity of adhering to formal requirements in disciplinary proceedings and solidified CAS's authority in reviewing such cases.